<Rachael> regrets?

<laura> Scribe: Laura

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

Introductions and new topics

Rm: Any introductions?

<PeterKorn> apologies in advance - I'll need to step away periodically to let workers do work at my place

(none)

scribe: any new topics?

(None)

<AWK> +AWK

WCAG 3 heartbeat publication

scribe: goal of publishing frequently.
... 2 pieces of content.

Explainer and acknowledgments.

Explainer

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/explainer/explainer/

scribe: received comments that it was hard to find the guidelines.
... Jeannehas been working on it in an Explainer.
... questions on it? We will survey it next week.

<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2021May/0020.html is overview

And the CFC it.

jeanne: will work on a PR.
... overview is in the email.
... comments that guidelines were too far down.

<scribe> .. new TOC. And rearranged.

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: in the Explainer TAG has recommendations.
... we have background, dev history, goals, charter, discussions about the charter, info from stakeholder feedback.

<johnkirkwood> “429: Too Many Requests” unsure if others getting same error?

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: need to meet TAG requirements.

Acknowledgements

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WUm57EqqghUL8LObKG8VSwKTj83-DLuNZlFaAkZQpbA/edit

Rm: we had agreed on a framework in January.

jeanne: filling out sections.
... expect to expand when more AG folks participate.
... listing the subgroups, and subgroup leaders, researchers.
... participating contributors.

Rm: please review the list for accuracy.

<alastairc> Is there anything implied by ordering

ac: anything implied by ordering?

Jeanne: could alpha sort.

<alastairc> That would work

<Rachael> alphabetically sort by first name

Continue next steps and WCAG 3.0 discussion

rm: last week we talked about scoring.
... we need more examples then come back to scoring.

<johnkirkwood> first name alphabetical order is unusual, think it should be last name

rm: chairs thought it would be good to go through the migration process as a group..
... pick an SC that you are interested in.

Wilco: what that would look like?

<JF> +1 to "it should be last name"

Wilco: user needs into outcomes and methods.
... then go through the silver process with SCs.

Moving forward with the structure of outcomes and methods.

mg: 5 people is a lot of people for a group.

Rm: that is not a hard number.

<alastairc> Suggest min of 2, purely to get both Silver & AG experience on it.

jake: question on plan b.
... framework or structure wise looking at mapping.
... in mobile TF we got stuck.
... running into issues in mapping.
... we have a lot of groups. Do we have a plan B?
... we have a lot of comments on silver.

<JF> +1 to Jake

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to answer Jake's question if not already answered.

jake: structure is not mature enough. Do we have plan be?

Chuck: actively looking at alternatives.
... not a definitive Plan B right now.

<ChrisLoiselle> context for mapping https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#approximate-mapping-of-wcag-2-and-wcag-3-documentation and https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#methods-structure and https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#outcomes

<JF> Not always positive Chuck

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say it we did this a couple years ago, and it was surprising hard

Chuck: people have critiqued the process and they been positive.

Bruce: we did an early version of this a few years ago and it was hard.

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to ask if we feel like we have done this thoroughly for one familiar SC, such as image equivalents or page titles?

Bruce: suggest devoting on ag call on an SC.

Awk: splitting up an SC into conformance levels.
... love to think about even if it is text alternatives.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the way to mature the structure is to write a few more guidelines

Awk: Bruce's suggestions sound good.

Jeanne: suggest doing 6 SCs
... we have done 5 guidelines. And modified.
... will mature as we do the process. We need more data.
... encourage people to try it out and find out what works and what doesn't.

<MelissaD> +1 to Jeanne

Jeanne: we have materials. Nothing is written in stone.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to +1 JS but recommend pointing to incipient guidance

Mc: +1 jeanne.
... should have a pointer to guidance.
... and invitation to join the work.

<jeanne> +1 for the wiki https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Silver_Content_Writing_Resources

Mc: allow the public to know guidance work is happening.

Rm: hearing we should work through one as a group.

<alastairc> writing or using?

jf: my experience is less than positive.

<jeanne> using

jf: not finding any of them robust enough.
... example plain language.
... huge gaps.

<JF> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qoXwyq3Q2uezlAHI0Jn9XL_DD9zDlnF0zegSPdm3hSg/edit#slide=id.gb3ceb32d61_0_33

<jeanne> Francis Storr created it

jf: Try to apply test methods against a site and it didn't work.

Rm: need to bring testability back into the process of creating the method set.

jf: another is text alternatives. Methodology does not include complex images.
... need to clean it up.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if these lessons can inform us in future migrations

Rm: take an existing one and clean it up.
... proposed approach - take an existing one and rework it.

Mg: 5 people and apply to an SC so people become familiar to the process.

<alastairc> I think we do want people to try it, time boxed to 4 weeks. I don't think we want more than 5 people per sub-group, otherwise individuals don't actually contribute.

Mg: if we time box that it could be productive.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask that we split it, review one and try a new one?

Mg: if we do one as a group it may be painful.

<alastairc> suggest a group focuses on alt text, but allow for others to pick different outcomes.

mg: could be a 3 month process.

Ac: need to make things parallel.
... Could have several groups working on different things.
... need to have sprints on guidance, scoring, structure, etc.

<michael> I like that

<Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) Review a migrated SC in WCAG 3, 2) Start from scratch as a group to migrate 1 SC, 3) Break into groups to try out about 5 SC including 1-2 migrated along with some new ones

<Ben> 2

<Chuck> 1

<jeanne> 3

<Wilco> 3

<MelanieP> 1

<Rachael> 3

<JF> 1

<alastairc> 3

<GN015> 1

<JustineP> 3

Laura: 1

<Makoto> 2

<bruce_bailey> 1

<Fazio> 0

<Jennie> 1

<JenniferC> 3

<JakeAbma> 1

<michael> 3

<juliette_alexandria> 1

<MelissaD> 3

<Sukriti> 1

<AWK> 1

<alastairc> Maybe we can do 1+ 3?

<KimD> 3

<KarenHerr> 3

<Wilco> +1

<JustineP> I like the idea of 1 followed by 3

<Rachael> What about starting with option 1 then timeboxing option 3

<Jennie> +1

<Chuck> +1

<jeanne> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<JenniferC> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<KimD> 0

<KimD> +1 to Chuck - identify issues

chuck: looking at identifying issues. Not a prove it works or prove it doesn't work.

<GN015> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

Mp: do that with one, then apply lessons learned before we do 3.

<JustineP> +1

ac: one would be a training session.
... we have issues on current ones already.
... not sure what the value would be in doing 1.

Jake: yes to ac.

<AWK> The reason to do #1 is that we need to answer important questions about what the scoring and conformance models can look like for a limited scope before trying to do it for a wider scope.

Jake: lots of results or gaps.
... yes we do have them already.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to answer Alastair's question and credit John's work

Chuck: differs between issues and specific guidance.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that's a lot of time; what about 2.2 during all this?

<alastairc> AWK - we had those examples as part of the FPWD, but we didn't manage to get through the scoring discussion without more examples

mg: concern on time boxing. Wondering on how this affects 2.2?
... Do we have a plan for 2.2?

<stevelee> presnet+

Rm: will time box to ensure 2.2 gets out.

<PeterKorn> [I need to step away briefly]

<JF> +1 to AWK

<Ryladog> +1 to AWK

<Chuck> +1

Awk: suggest to reduce scope from not doing structure. Start with something simple.
... page titles, or text alternatives.

<Ryladog> +1 to Makoto

jf: structure is lacking tests. It feels weak. Text alternatives doesn't spend any time on a number of items. It is incomplete.
... opportunity to look at relative values.

<Ryladog> Page Title would be good. adding Overlay Title, Tooltip title....

rm: Makoto suggest we do not use text alternatives

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about structured content

Chuck: agree text alternative would not be a good one to do.

<AWK> Agree with Makoto - Text alternatives is easy, only relative to "structure", but that is why I was suggesting it instead of structure.

Chuck: affinity toward clear words.

<JF> Clear words or Common words?

<jeanne> -1 to chuck

<JakeAbma> -1

<JF> -1

Chuck: next favorite is captions.

<Wilco> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/ACT_-_Silver_Joint_Meeting_May_2021#Session_1

Wilko: doing a deep dive into headings this Friday in ACT meeting.
... meeting is open to all of AG.

<AWK> If we did "Headings" rather than all of structure (1.3.1) then that could work

<Chuck> +1

<JF> +1 to AWK

<jeanne> +1 to headings

<Makoto> +1 to AWK

<JakeAbma> +1 headings

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest round of reviews on the current guidelines, gather current issues, then work on different SCs in parallel, then come back together to review in the

<MelanieP> +1 headings

chuck: narrowly focus on headings.

<KimD> +1 to headings

Ac: review issues and john's work as a group. Then go through one as a group. Then break into subgroups.

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

<Zakim> MelanieP, you wanted to say that picking an easy SC won't adequately expose weaknesses in the process moving into 3

<Chuck> +1 to Melanie

<JF> +1 Melanie

Melanie: Picking an easy SC is not going to give us the data we need on process pitfalls. The idea of using headings, I think is fantastic, especially given ACT is working for it. Headings has it all.

<jeanne> +1 Melanie

JF: One of the interesting thing about headings is depending on context there are different outcomes: wcag versus pdf -- different content types. We seem to still be focused on html web content. Idea is to make applicable to all kinds of content. Splinter it and try against all kinds of scenarios.

<Rachael> Proposed RESOLUTION: Work through headings as a group and then figure out next steps

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask whats the outcome

Bruce: I just looked at the current draft. The current 3.0 outcome is structure. Do we have a 3.0 outcome for heading? I thought it was a method.

Rachael: Jeanne do you have thoughts on this?

Jeanne: If we did the first two outcomes, we'd be looking at headings

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/outcomes/headings-organize-content

<jeanne> Headings organize content - > https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#headings-organize-content

Bruce: I thought i was starting to see the differences between outcomes, but maybe I'm not. Headings works though.

<jeanne> Uses visually distinct headings https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#uses-visually-distinct-headings

Chuck: I think there will be benefit.

<Chuck> +1

<Rachael> Proposed RESOLUTION: Work through headings as a group and then figure out next steps

<MelanieP> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<JustineP> +1

<jeanne> +1

<laura> +1

<Fazio> 0

<AWK> +1

<Wilco> +1

<JenniferC> +1

<JF> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<Makoto> +1

+1

<juliette_alexandria> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<KimD> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Ben> 0

<Ryladog> +1

<JF> +1 with the caveat that it is NOT Structured Content, but simply a subset of that topic

RESOLUTION: Work through headings as a group and then figure out next steps

<alastairc> 0 - would rather have split into sub-groups, but that doesn't work if others don't want to!

<Raf> +1

Rachael: Do you want to walk through the process, as an introduction?

Jeanne: It would give people an orientation, which could save some time when we dig into headings.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-V6svcPVxBve3_5lBeDvks7xOMJCFSNcuSUpnmBTzws/

Introduce process

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Silver_Content_Writing_Resources

Jeanne: Probably where I should start is that we have compiled material to support people who are writing guidelines.
... We are continuing to refine them. The second link goes to our wiki page.

<bruce_bailey> screen share please if we are going to be a particular doc for a bit

Jeanne: We have a template for writing the guidelines and how to, the style guide...

Jeanne shares screen.

Jeanne reviews: Example Guideline - Text alterantives slide

Jeanne reviews the Structure of Text Alternatives Method page

Jeanne reviews the Structure of Text Alternatives How to page

This is all part of writing the entire guideline.

Jeanne reviews Changes from WCAG 2.2

Jeanne: INstead of letters, we are looking at Critical Errors

Jeanne reviews Critical Error page

Chuck: There is a queue forming.

<Fazio> WCAG 2.2 SC redundant entry covers cumulative fatigue

JF: Jeanne can you go back about 4 or 5 slides to the one that discussed activities of stakeholders.

Jeanne shows Structure of Text Alternatives How to

JF: My concern is taht on a multidisciplinary team, I see tabs for some but are excluding QA resources from this view?

Jeanne: We had it at some point; I believe since testing is at the Method level, it didn't belong here.

JF: It feels like How to Test would be a basic question.

Jeanne: I agree, but it was voted by the group.

<laura> s/plan be right now/Plan B right now/

<JF> it could be argued that design and development are tech specific too

Rachael: I think in some ways we want this to be a streamlined process, and ACT is helping with the testing question.
... From your perspective, which is best for this group to do?

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to talk about "activity" tabs - where is QA?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask how far down we want to go in the writing

<Rachael> question+ Revisit whether testing should be at the outcome or method level

Jeanne: I would like to do the scoring the way we currently have scoring: 1) ID critical errors, 2) ID how tests should be scored, whatever is appropriate. Then I think it's reasonable to go back at the outcome level and decide how we do outcome scoring.
... I don't think that basic process will change.

Jeanne shows Writing process slide

Jeanne: First step is identifying user needs via the Disability categories. As part of this, you're identifying the barriers. Use that to write sections of the How to (Who/Why) and any tags. Those are saved to inform later writing.

<laura> s/critiques the process/critiques, gone through the process/

Jeanne: Once you've ID'ed user needs, you use that to determine outcomes. Then you can say 'how can I test this?'
... Those tests are a part of the methods, technology based.
... Then you circle around to fill in the first of the How To. The last step is writing the text of the guideline.
... We then have plain language specialists help you with that iterative process.
... that's an overview. Key thing is to start with user needs.

<laura> s/on ag call on/one AG call to/

Jeanne: We did an exercise where we assessed SC from a user needs. It was a useful (not perfect) process.

Jake: The list you are talking about with all the user needs are all talking about functional needs. Is that correct?

<Rachael> Draft functional needs: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/functional-needs/

Jeanne: Disability Categories cover functional needs.

Jake: It caught my eye that all the user needs were functional needs

Rachael: There is a hierarchy it fits within.

Jake: We were trying to figure out with a document... They are two different things.

Rachael: If we start as a group, we can bring your definitions in.

Wilco: I think this is a good exercise. At what point do we re-evaluate the structure and scoring? How does that fit into the strategy?

Rachael: From my point of view, we do this in a very time-box manner. Then we iterate back and forth.

Alastair: I agree. Going into this exercise, looking at how headings work, working on new versions... The reason I wanted us to look at this is that we can be a bit flexible with how people score, and then come back to the big groups to refine. That lets it be a back and forth process.

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Smly4XDxfzfXHa7AoUxoLXLy_3PdOXMkh0ZwtgksSPk/edit#heading=h.rth83uakpkcu

Alastair: What helps me is to have a template and an example in front of me.
... What would be the simplest example?
... Should we look at headings?

Jeanne: Headings in the example we use in the template for the content creation process.

Alastair: The template doesn't seem to include headings, if that what you meant.

<jeanne> +1 to a back and forth interation between guidelines and scoring

Jeanne: There is a link in the first paragraph

<Rachael> with headings filled in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TgFWsggRNiUYU_N9GPCvU1KUhexiRWjYTelTKZPMAOE/edit

Jeanne: This is a little dated.

<Fazio> not just text but content too

Jeanne walks through document.

<JF> what is the definition of "visually distinct"?

<Chuck> s /mathew/matthew/

Jeanne: As you go through template, it gives you an idea of how the group worked on it
... They did examples and listed some exceptions.
... They listed WCAG and ACT techniques

<Fazio> Gestalt features can address the distinct headings

Jeanne: They did a scale that we did not use.
... They did some work by functional needs... It's not a perfect example but it gives you an idea of the thinking process.

Rachael: We encourage you to go to the ACT meetings to get the data and also participate.

Jake: I've been working on headings previously. There's 2 or 3 months of working on this. I'm not sure when i would like to mention that we have a lot of results -- information behind it. What solutions solve and not... Using normal heading elements, using aria... All those results are very interesting.

Rachael: Jake could you send out the links to those?

Jake: There is a story behind it that is not in the spreadsheets. I will send it.

Jeanne: Headings was our prototype guideline. There are many, many versions.
... Some of the work Jake did is important in filling in the gaps. Maybe not overwhelming people to start with...

JF: Jake summed up what I wanted to say.
... We haven't defined what we mean by "visually distinct"

<Wilco> more importantly, distinct from what?

<jeanne> The specifics for Visually distinct are in the Method https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/methods/visually-distinct/

Fazio: There is a lot of research on visual search.

Errata on contrast variable https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22-Misc-items/results

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1780/files

Rachael: We've been trying to figure out how to deal with the contrast calculation
... The most popular change was including the original value of the constant, and update references.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that's in the PR now.

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1780/files

Alastair: I put Rain's suggested update to notes in each place and removed the reference to the sRGB

<Rachael> Updated note: Before May 2021 the value of 0.04045 in the definition was different (0.03928). It was taken from an older version of the specification and has been updated. It should have no practical effect on the calculations in the context of these guidelines.

<bruce_bailey> i thought we got rid of the word "should"

AWK: I noticed that in the definition you took out the reference, but I think it will need to be tweaked.

Alastair: I will look at that.

AWK: You need to change the Relevant Luminance note

<AWK> +1 to bruce

Bruce: When you read it back you said "should". Please adjust

<Rachael> Before May 2021 the value of 0.04045 in the definition was different (0.03928). It was taken from an older version of the specification and has been updated. It has no practical effect on the calculations in the context of these guidelines.

<Chuck> +1

<AWK> +1

<JustineP> +1

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Wilco> +1

<laura> +1

<Rachael> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1780 to address issues 1213 and 360

<Chuck> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<AWK> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<KarenHerr> +1

<Ben> +1

<JF> +1

<Jennie> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<laura> +1

<AWK> (and as this is an errata w will need to do a CFC, right?)

<JustineP> +1

<Wilco> +1

Rachael: We are agreeing here to move it to a CFC.

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 1780 to address issues 1213 and 360

Alastair: i don't think we've had any new 2.2 issues coming in. The editor's draft should move to TR this week.
... We're waiting for it to go out to review.

<Rachael> mbgower: Can you define going out to review? Is this 2nd FPWD? Different?

<Rachael> Alastair: Terminology is different. This is a revised working draft.

<Rachael> ....We are announcing and asking for review. Which we haven't done since last August.

<laura> Bye!

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/acknolwdmwnts/acknowledgments/
Succeeded: s/recieved /received /
Succeeded: s/comment guidelines/that guidelines/
Succeeded: s/discssuins /discussions /
Succeeded: s/IS there anyting imq+lied /Is there anything implied /
Succeeded: s/though /through /
Succeeded: s/a groups/a group./
Succeeded: s/irate /with the /
Succeeded: s/stuture/structure/
Succeeded: s/plan be/Plan B/
FAILED: s/plan be right now/Plan B right now/
FAILED: s/critiques the process/critiques, gone through the process/
FAILED: s/on ag call on/one AG call to/
Succeeded: s/splitting up and sc/splitting up an SC/
Succeeded: s/Bruces /Bruce's /
Succeeded: s/does'nt./doesn't./
Succeeded: s/allow th /allow the /
Succeeded: s/teat methods /test methods /
Succeeded: s/approach take an existing g /approach - take an existing /
Succeeded: s/to to /to /
Succeeded: s/we we /Do we /
Succeeded: s/Stat with /Start with /
Succeeded: s/jeans /Jeanne/
Succeeded: s/though /through /
Succeeded: s/had critiques /critiqued /
Succeeded: s/sounds good/sound good/
Succeeded: s/going 6/doing 6/
Succeeded: s/ list review for / review the list for /
Default Present: Chuck, jeanne, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Fazio, JF, Ben, ChrisLoiselle, JustineP, Jennie, MichaelC, juliette_alexandria, alastairc, PeterKorn, mgarrish, Makoto, Nicaise, Raf, KimD, bruce_bailey, AWK, johnkirkwood, Joshue, Sukriti, MelanieP, Wilco, JakeAbma, mbgower, Katie_Haritos-Shea, stevelee, shadi, Francis_Storr, KarenHerr, GN
Present: Chuck, jeanne, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Fazio, JF, Ben, ChrisLoiselle, JustineP, Jennie, MichaelC, juliette_alexandria, alastairc, PeterKorn, mgarrish, Makoto, Nicaise, Raf, KimD, bruce_bailey, AWK, johnkirkwood, Joshue, Sukriti, MelanieP, Wilco, JakeAbma, mbgower, Katie_Haritos-Shea, stevelee, shadi, Francis_Storr, KarenHerr, GN, Joshue108, GN015

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Sarah H, Rain)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Sheri Haber, Tod Libby, Azlan Cuttilan

Regrets: Sheri Haber, Tod Libby, Azlan Cuttilan, Sarah H, Rain, Matt O, MatthewOrr, (on holidays), mathew orr
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: laura
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Scribes: Laura, mbgower
ScribeNicks: laura, mbgower

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)