Silver Task Force & Community Group

24 September 2021


jenniferS, Makoto, sajkaj, SuzanneTaylor

Meeting minutes


<Lauriat> Please sign up to scribe: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

<Lauriat> Also we need a scribe for today!

Quick update on Error Prevention next steps

Chuck: Notes that chairs are aware there have been stresses between Silver and AGWG -- and chairs are working on how to bring us all forward togewther

Chuck: So, requesting everyone hold for the moment

Placeholder guidelines and how we incorporate into the draft

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.20nok4tfj7v5

Lauriat: Fleshed out enough to give an indication of what WCAG3 might look like

Lauriat: In the expectation and in response to the request that this is helpful

Lauriat: drafted based on the 2.x to silver map

Lauriat: does not include 2.2

Lauriat: these are "placeholder" guidelines

Lauriat: some are pretty solid, and others not

Lauriat: multimodality version of 2.4.5 ...

Lauriat: clear lang gives us something to point to

<Chuck> janina: Note on conformance, when we agreed that next draft would have user generated, we would flag "that" in there. Same expectation of what we presented on media a few days ago. No commence since. May emerge more.

<Chuck> janina: media, captions, described media. Portions such as text alternatives, we'll treat differently than the web publisher. Does anything drafted encompass media or user generated?

sajkaj: Asks about marking user generated (and media) ...

Lauriat: Some would be media ...

Lauriat: believe user gen should be kept separate for now

Lauriat: when we put this in a draft, there will be the framing caveat -- i.e. a direction, not a finished product to implement

Lauriat: the point for now is the shape of things, not implementation ready content

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to remove strikethroughs for screen-reaader users and to ask if members of Conformance Options could put in notes in this outline?

jeanne: Thanks Shawn, because it's lots of work and very helpful

jeanne: suggests removing the strikethroughs as it's a complication for screen reader users

jeanne: Asks Conformance Options people to annotate where things might fit by way of notes

Lauriat: OK to cleanup

Lauriat: Not sure annotation from Conformance is yet helpful? If it would be helpful to get a sense ...

Lauriat: suggests ed notes in the groupings

Lauriat: the list at the bottom of the doc is purposefully not linking to anything -- the grouping list up top does link

jeanne: agrees

<Chuck> janina: Should I look at groupings and put in editors note?

<Chuck> jeanne: I'll work with you Janina if you'd like.

<Chuck> janina: I was looking at it this morning, and seeing the actions that need to be taken.

<Chuck> jeanne: I can help with that too.

<Chuck> back to you janina

Lauriat: notes each grouping has a struct; many have no methods yet

Lauriat: methods may be the place for the note--or top level bullet

JakeAbma_: Confirming this is placeholder guidelines?

JakeAbma_: some more related to specific user need; others more like struct/framework; others like outcomes ...

JakeAbma_: seems they are proper goals but could be seen differently

JakeAbma_: seems it fits one way; but may not be our eventual approach

JakeAbma_: user needs had a similar challenge and came up with a different set of categorizations

JakeAbma_: including apis -- nav, various tech sets

JakeAbma_: tried to have a set that felt like they belonged together

JakeAbma_: sdo asking as an open question; work from these? Or should we see what sets might come out if we think about it that way?

Lauriat: re "is the list?" no,

Lauriat: it's strictly what wcag3 might look like strictly migrating from 2

Lauriat: this is to give an idea as we go through the process of migrating

Lauriat: this list will be replaced eventually

Lauriat: hopefully also helps with conformance work

Lauriat: it's been some time since we had a wider conversation as Jake is suggesting from user needs

Lauriat: we want to cary core principles into 3, but not as an architecture

Lauriat: i.e. the perceivable, etc

Lauriat: we should be able to find those 4

Lauriat: I'm inclined to hold off getting into the specifics until user needs are more fleshed out and understood

Lauriat: did think we could start working through taking the intersections from user needs to give us a sense of scoping

Lauriat: so similar to user needs, but used differently

<sajkaj> s/differently from 2/

Wilco: asking why this list as starting point?

Wilco: if we know it's not where we will end up

Lauriat: mainly to use a pass of interpreting user needs and expanding some ov 2 coverage like sc around text line length

Lauriat: expanded to customization

Lauriat: overall management, overall customization

Lauriat: to see how well we've covered certain intersections and where coverage is missing

Lauriat: that was my thinking in any case. If it doesn't help, we'll try something else.

Wilco: Not opposed, just wondering

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1POhgI_xHZtSoNbHFp3r5HYIkl6ePaP8DC5d90SZ1tF4/edit#gid=752043294

Lauriat: q for jake ...

Lauriat: before intersections I see lots of direct 2 notes; but some that aren't

Lauriat: is it just areframing of 2 SC's?

JakeAbma_: hope i understand the question ...

jake you're looking at intersection of functional and user needs? Yes?

Lauriat: yes

Lauriat: example C7

Lauriat: oops, let's try e7

Lauriat: notes allows for brightness adjustment

JakeAbma_: allow for making brightness adjustments

<Chuck> janina: Brightness adjustment, very last apa call on an api, gave horizontal review approval. API for auto-adjusting brightness based on lighting conditions. Should we have not signed off? Is there some level of gradience that would move away from the mean?

<Chuck> janina: Is it a factor we should consider in the api?

<Chuck> shawn: Great question, but not for today.

<Chuck> shawn: some note somewhere, I asked specifically to see where the line item came from. If it came from one of the existing sc's or some other work.

sajkaj: Notes apa signed off on a brightness api and asks whether it should be user adjustable?

<Chuck> shawn: The answer was that it came from another row that has specific needs called out.

Lauriat: need to capture that somewhere ... not today's discussion

<Chuck> back to janina for scribing.

Lauriat: is that correct?

jake yes

Lauriat: think we can use this mapping spread sheet to map out ...

Lauriat: anything not text needs text alternative for example

Lauriat: provides braille translation?

janina suggests the AT is responsible for braille, no?

Lauriat: provides support for non binocular needs

Lauriat: don't believe we have coverage

Lauriat: inclined we don't have this

Lauriat: asks for sanity check at this point

Wilco: having a hard time following; asks for screen share?

SuzanneTaylor: wanted to suggest intersections not well understood by a11y industry -- we need some way to mark those

+1 to Suzanne because APA will need that info

SuzanneTaylor: there also may be no way to prove some assertions

Lauriat: agree it would be helpful and believe we will uncover a lot of those

+1 to shawn

SuzanneTaylor: still two different categories; somethings user have told us; other things are ideas we've come up with but have no user validation for

SuzanneTaylor: we need to avoid guidelines that we don't need--that weren't substantiated

Lauriat: believe we can have two versions of this doc for those two purposes

SuzanneTaylor: agrees

JakeAbma_: worries about keeping two representations sync'd

jake: concerned that we not lose track and get others checking; michael proposed a db

Z access!

Lauriat: glad this has been already thought about

Lauriat: notes row 4 as more detailed overall needs

Lauriat: again, trying to see what's covered and what isn't

Lauriat: will eventually help with more than one guideline in the same intersection -- whether multiple could be amalgamated or not

Lauriat: notes text rendering customization as related

Wilco: surprising that text needs to be available; but there's aria-hidden

Lauriat: yes, exactly

Lauriat: brl translation is more implied

Lauriat: inclined to replace with 'AT can access'

<Chuck> janina: Interesting, not sure if it's the time to discuss. The braille one troubled me. ...created a problem for braille, was too focused on TTS user. I don't know how we keep those separate. That may be the issue.

janina notes that aria created problem for brl by focussing too exclusively on tts users

Lauriat: agrees there's much to look at here with use cases

Lauriat: notes zooming in/out -- think it's covered even though there's much to it

Lauriat: so, maybe -- we should check

Lauriat: color not as only means--covered

Lauriat: luminence contrast -- much done, but more to do

Lauriat: things that need distinguishing

Lauriat: the work of building the guidance will help us frame it appropriately

Lauriat: so, a maybe


Lauriat: many instances of "allow for customization"

Lauriat: majority may be covered; but customization brings in more users

<Chuck> janina: We want to think about api's from that perspective, I believe.

janina notes we want to think about apis from that perspective

Lauriat: asks if this has been helpful


<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<JakeAbma_> +1

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).


Failed: s/differently from 2/

Succeeded: s/that ext/that text

Maybe present: Chuck, jake, JakeAbma_, jeanne, Lauriat, Wilco