Silver Task Force & Community Group

03 Dec 2021


jeanne, Lauriat, janina, shadi, ToddL, Makoto, jenniferS, sarahhorton
Shawn, jeanne


<jeanne> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group

<Lauriat> Scribe list looking a bit empty: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

<scribe> scribe: shadi

December into January schedule

Jeanne: 24th holiday for many
... also 31st
... propose not to meet then
... anyone not available for the 17th?

Shawn: I can't

<ToddL> +1

<Lauriat> -1

<Makoto> +1

<janina> +1

<jeanne> +1


Jeanne: small group today

Jennifer: don't know yet

<Lauriat> I can still help with planning for the 17th, I'll just miss the day itself.

Jeanne: let's plan for the 17th, and check again next week
... then rejoin on 7th January

follow-up on action items to draft responses to prior meeting's issues

Jeanne: anyone has response to issue from last meeting?
... several had outstanding tasks

<jeanne2> 1. Drafting response: 304 <https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/304> -

<jeanne2> conformance claims need feedback mechanisms

<jeanne2> 2. Drafting response: 352 <https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/352>-

<jeanne2> multiple conformance models vs simplicity

<jeanne2> 3. Moving labels & leaving open for now: 386

<jeanne2> <https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/386>- if we allow 95% to pass,

<jeanne2> people will stop at 95%. Proposal for addressing minor errors

<jeanne2> 4. Drafting response: 394 <https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/394>-

<jeanne2> the effort of proving conformance can overshadow development.

<Lauriat> Checking minutes: https://www.w3.org/2021/11/19-silver-minutes.html

Jeanne: who was responsible for these responses?

Shawn: drafted response for issue 394
... confirming concern, and that we are aware

<jeanne2> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/394#issuecomment-974234187

Shawn: and pointing to related sections

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note my draft response for https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/394

Jeanne: any objections?


Jeanne: ok, then accepted
... any other responses?

Janina: I'm working on 350
... will need to ask for feedback

<Lauriat> Jeanne took 304, Suzanne took 352, checking the issues

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/304#issuecomment-974186872

Shawn: Susan has proposed response for 304

Jeanne: like that response
... any objections?


<janina> +1 for selfish preference for github!

<jenniferS> Is this the maturity model? https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/ISO_%26_Maturity_Modeling

<sarahhorton> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-maturity-model/index.html

<Lauriat> It looked like Rachael took 386, but I see Jeanne wrote a response (possibly worked together on it?): https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/386

Shawn: response is essentially "this is an interesting idea"

Jeanne: that was really a comment, not a proposed answer
... didn't want to lose the idea

Sarah: is this about prioritizing user journeys that are more critical
... and side journeys that may be less critical
... did we do work on that in some sub-group?

Jeanne: Rachael is setting up a group to work on that
... she's looking for people interested in working on this

<jeanne2> SAZ: Does this fit under the conformance group?

Jeanne: wanted a different sub-group
... because conformance group already has lots
... and needed this sooner

Michael: also wanted to have this in parallel

Resolving Conformance Issues

Issue 425

<jeanne2> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/425

[Jeanne reads aloud]

Jeanne: any proposed responses?
... seems like what we're trying to do

Shawn: yes, answer seems to be yes
... but needs some more elaboration
... to explain the intention

Jeanne: they already quote the first sentence

<jeanne2> Yes, that is our intention. We want to use a point scoring system that gives a more nuanced answer for conformance. We are currently exploring how these things fit together.

Janina: maybe add the notion of critical failure

<jeanne2> We want to have a notion of our critical failures that cannot be excused.

Janina: part of the nuance

<jeanne2> Put a link to the current work on critical errors and point scoring

Jennifer: interesting nuance on fully possible?

Janina: good catch

Jeanne: anyone to work on this?

Janina: I can take this

<jeanne2> Volunteer to draft response - Janina

Issue 448

<jeanne2> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/448

[Jeanne reads aloud]

Janina: seems like thorny response here

Jeanne: Peter Korn was relating to bug tracking
... making it equivalent to other bugs
... like security or usability design

Janina: started to draft that kind of language
... and looked for some use cases but never found
... what constitutes acceptable error rates in industry

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say this seems to me slightly more specific than the all-software-has-bugs aspect of conformance

Shawn: one aspect seems more specific here
... focus on critical errors specifically
... this is to me more worriesome

Jeanne: I read this a little differently
... treating critical barriers like critical bugs

Shawn: difference between not conforming and providing a plan for fixing things
... then to still conform despite non-fixed issues
... may relate to maturity model and having a process to fix things quickly
... maybe say we will take this into account

Janina: want to avoid issues where content works on specific setups but not on others

Sarah: like the idea of protecting the notion of a critical error
... agree with Shawn and Janina's direction on things
... it's either there or not, should not be squishy

Jeanne: sounds attractive to me Sarah
... but what about very large organizations?
... anything we can do with this?

Sarah: only way would be to embed the maturity model
... otherwise the issue is either there or not
... or you risk introducing ambiguity and complexity

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say this seems like representative sampling and other WCAG-EM type considerations

Shawn: might be addressable through WCAG-EM
... could be addressed afterwards

Janina: keep thinking if errors are critical, then should not be accepted
... on the other hand, would such issues keep popping up on really large sites?

Jeanne: don't have an answer
... like Shawn's approach but feels like kicking the can down the road

<Lauriat> +1 to Sarah's take that we can only really account for this by embedding the maturity model in conformance, which seems too early to even consider

Shawn: think have no choice but kicking the can down the road at this stage
... don't have a definitive answer yet

Jeanne: anyone to draft a response?

Shawn: I can take this

Issue 457

<jeanne2> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/457

[Jeanne reads aloud]

<Lauriat> Sounds like a duplicate of https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/394 (or at least deserving of the same response?)

Jeanne: seems related to multiple documents idea
... conformance model for different types of businesses
... seems they are voting it down for the same reason the group did
... as being too complex
... we could agree with them

<Lauriat> +1 on the first part

Jeanne: and explain the previous group decision

Janina: maybe just say we agree with the notion about not being too complex

Shawn: can reuse parts of the previous response
... similar kind of wording

Jennifer: is the protocols work of relevance here?

Jeanne: I think so
... my hope is that protocols work can help with this
... yet this is about having different documents
... anyone want to take this response?
... reusing some of the wording from 394
... I'll take that one

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/12/03 15:57:55 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/352/304/
Succeeded: s/Decision: Shadi will wrap up the minutes//
Default Present: jeanne, Lauriat, janina, shadi, ToddL, Makoto, jenniferS, sarahhorton
Present: jeanne, Lauriat, janina, shadi, ToddL, Makoto, jenniferS, sarahhorton
Found Scribe: shadi
Inferring ScribeNick: shadi

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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]