14:50:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver
14:50:43 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/10-silver-irc
14:50:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:50:46 <Zakim> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
14:50:54 <jeanne> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
14:50:54 <jeanne> present:
14:50:54 <jeanne> chair: Shawn, jeanne
14:50:54 <jeanne> present+
14:50:54 <jeanne> zakim, clear agenda
14:50:54 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
14:50:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/10-silver-minutes.html jeanne
14:50:54 <jeanne> q?
14:50:54 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:53:15 <jeanne> agenda+ Review Conformance issue draft responses
14:54:03 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #silver
14:54:06 <Lauriat> agenda?
14:54:06 <jeanne> agenda+ addresss issues 460, 470, 494
14:54:30 <jeanne> agenda+ reminder of Silver meeting of 14th
14:58:12 <shadi> shadi has joined #silver
15:00:00 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #silver
15:00:03 <jenniferS> jenniferS has joined #silver
15:00:24 <janina> janina has joined #silver
15:00:39 <JF> JF has joined #silver
15:00:48 <jenniferS> present+
15:00:48 <janina> agenda?
15:00:56 <JF> Present+
15:01:00 <janina> present+
15:01:02 <Lauriat> Present+
15:01:16 <shadi> present+
15:01:24 <ToddL> present+
15:02:57 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #silver
15:03:09 <janina> present+
15:03:25 <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List  <- Scribe list
15:04:48 <Makoto> present+
15:06:10 <ToddL> scribe: ToddL
15:06:33 <ToddL> zakim, next item
15:06:33 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Review Conformance issue draft responses -- taken up [from jeanne]
15:06:56 <jenniferS> * Makoto, I completely understand!
15:07:11 <Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/425
15:07:16 <janina> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/425
15:08:37 <JF> Q+
15:09:07 <Lauriat> ack JF
15:09:11 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #silver
15:09:37 <ToddL> JF: Conversation about conformance and compliance. We articulate what conformnce looks like.
15:09:38 <janina> q+
15:10:03 <ToddL> JF: Struggle with the word "allow".
15:10:24 <Lauriat> ack janina
15:10:46 <jeanne> q= to say include
15:10:53 <ToddL> janina: No problem tweaking the words. Consistently said Bronze will "permit" "allow" a score that is not 100%
15:10:54 <jeanne> q+ to say Include
15:11:20 <ToddL> janina: if there's better wording, fine with that.
15:11:21 <Lauriat> ack jeanne
15:11:21 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say Include
15:11:37 <ToddL> jeanne: say "include" instead of "allow for".
15:11:46 <ToddL> JF: Fine with that
15:11:52 <ToddL> janina: fine with that.
15:12:23 <ToddL> zakim, next item
15:12:23 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- addresss issues 460, 470, 494 -- taken up [from jeanne]
15:12:45 <jeanne> zakim, take up item 1
15:12:45 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Review Conformance issue draft responses -- taken up [from jeanne]
15:13:53 <jeanne> draft RESOLUTION: Accept draft response for Issue 425 with a minor tweak of wording
15:13:58 <jeanne> +1
15:14:09 <jenniferS> +1
15:14:10 <ToddL> +1
15:14:11 <janina> +1
15:14:11 <Lauriat> +1
15:14:13 <Makoto> +1
15:14:36 <ToddL> RESOLUTION: Accept draft response for Issue 425 with a minor tweak of wording
15:14:45 <JF> +1 to removing "allow for" and inserting "include"
15:15:00 <Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/448 <- Sampling Critical Errors
15:15:10 <jeanne> TOPIC: Issue 448
15:15:37 <ToddL> Lauriat: Summarize Issue 448
15:16:09 <ToddL> Lauriat: Good discussion about this last week. Complex area to work through.
15:17:24 <jenniferS> Q+
15:17:28 <ToddL> Lauriat: acknowledging of points, we'll get there as we go.
15:17:37 <Lauriat> ack jenniferS
15:17:48 <JF> Q+
15:17:58 <ToddL> jenniferS: not a fan of it if there are accessibility issues that are serious.
15:19:23 <ToddL> Lauriat: same opinion was voiced. we didn't feel we could say it is a bad idea
15:19:35 <ToddL> Lauriat: many of us are on same page on this
15:19:38 <Lauriat> ack JF
15:19:39 <JF> One conforms to a standard. One complies with a law. (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates)
15:19:57 <ToddL> JF: choice of terms are important
15:20:38 <janina> q+
15:20:51 <ToddL> Lauriat: comment itself used compliance, Lauriat used conformance
15:20:59 <Lauriat> ack janina
15:21:41 <ToddL> janina: surprised at email thread, hopefully will be distinction that will make ssense to everybody
15:22:15 <jenniferS> Makes sense to me!
15:22:16 <jeanne> draft RESOLUTION: Accept drafted response for Issue 448
15:22:24 <jeanne> +1
15:22:24 <Makoto> +1
15:22:25 <janina> +1
15:22:25 <JF> +1
15:22:28 <ToddL> +1
15:22:29 <jenniferS> +1
15:22:31 <Lauriat> +1
15:22:54 <ToddL> RESOLUTION: Accept drafted response for Issue 448
15:23:02 <Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/457 <- flexible conformance
15:23:14 <jeanne> TOPIC: Issue 457
15:23:49 <jeanne>  https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/457 <- flexible conformance
15:24:21 <ToddL> Lauriat: reading through GitHub comment
15:27:25 <jeanne> draft RESOLUTION: Accept drafted response for Issue 457
15:27:30 <janina> +1
15:27:30 <ToddL> Lauriat: Summary is, yes we agree.
15:27:35 <jeanne> +1
15:27:35 <Makoto> +1
15:27:36 <jenniferS> +1
15:27:37 <Lauriat> +1
15:27:41 <ToddL> +1
15:27:48 <JF> +1
15:28:13 <ToddL> RESOLUTION: Accept drafted response for Issue 457
15:28:18 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
15:28:18 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- addresss issues 460, 470, 494 -- taken up [from jeanne]
15:28:28 <Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/460 - flexibility for conformance is desperately needed.  Incentive for adoption
15:28:31 <jeanne> Topic: Issue 460
15:28:44 <jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/460 - flexibility for conformance is desperately needed.  Incentive for adoption
15:29:01 <jenniferS> scribe: JenniferS
15:29:07 <jenniferS> testing
15:30:14 <jenniferS> Lauriat: reading through Github comment
15:30:24 <shadi> q+
15:30:34 <jenniferS> Ack shadi
15:30:59 <jenniferS> Shadi this sounds like two separate comments, Lauriat agree
15:31:37 <jenniferS> 1. conformance for large, complex sites; 2. migration, documentation to help ppl understanding mapping of 2 to 3 wcag
15:31:40 <janina> q+ to say we can split into two
15:32:10 <jenniferS> Lauriat noting inclination to refer to previous
15:32:20 <jenniferS> Ack janina
15:32:20 <Zakim> janina, you wanted to say we can split into two
15:32:37 <jenniferS> Janina suggesting that the comment is split into two
15:32:52 <jeanne> q+
15:33:06 <Lauriat> ack jeanne
15:33:07 <jenniferS> Lauriat definitely agree, defer to those with stronger Github expertise on accomplishing that
15:33:20 <jenniferS> Jeanne states that since it came from email, it can be split
15:33:39 <jenniferS> Janina said close this, state split into two, and provide links to two new tix
15:33:53 <jenniferS> Lauriat since we already have issues tracking the first…
15:34:04 <jenniferS> Lauriat, then we can use this one to map the mapping
15:34:11 <shadi> +1 to Lauriat
15:34:21 <jenniferS> Jeanne: we can say that we will provide mapping, since we must.
15:34:47 <jenniferS> Makoto Let me give it a try!
15:34:56 <jenniferS> Lauriat: thank you, Makoto!
15:35:37 <jenniferS> topic: 470
15:35:41 <Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/470 <- process approach allows orgs to focus on making core tasks accessible. More clarity on defining process.
15:35:45 <jenniferS> take up next
15:36:29 <Jemma> present+
15:36:35 <jeanne> action: Makoto to draft response to 460
15:36:59 <jenniferS> Lauriat reads Github comment
15:37:08 <Rachael> present+
15:37:47 <jenniferS> Lauriat: we've discussed this at length, and we agree it needs more discussion
15:38:18 <jenniferS> Lauriat: the response, this is an even more involved process than it appears, for the example, we do not have an answer - only opinions - today.
15:38:53 <jenniferS> Jeanne: can we refer to Rachael's group that's defining process
15:38:53 <Rachael> +1 to moving it to process subgroup
15:39:07 <jeanne> action: jeanne to assign 470 to subgroup working on Process and Tasks
15:39:45 <jenniferS> zakim: take up next
15:39:59 <Rachael> q+
15:40:45 <jenniferS> ack Rachael
15:40:50 <jenniferS> topic: 494
15:41:13 <Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/494 <- how will content-free applications like CMS be evaluated and scored?
15:41:45 <jenniferS> Lauriat: JF would you like to summarize your comment, since this is from you?
15:42:13 <jenniferS> JF: right now, I imagine profiles, where entities create products that are light on content and lots of templates
15:42:21 <jenniferS> JF: i.e., a Wordpress theme
15:42:47 <jenniferS> JF: a theme may support captioned videos but not have captioned videos
15:43:01 <jenniferS> JF: that those things could make claims of conformance
15:43:22 <jenniferS> JF: out of the box it's acceptable, but in use it isn't.
15:43:38 <Lauriat> q+ to speak to two sides of this that I see to work through
15:43:58 <jenniferS> Janina: I want to add to our list of conformance options
15:44:04 <jenniferS> JF: like design systems as another
15:44:10 <jenniferS> ack Lauriat
15:44:10 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to speak to two sides of this that I see to work through
15:44:50 <jenniferS> Lauriat: 1 work through the point of content mgt sys or theme have aspects of conformance apply to them and others that don't.
15:45:59 <shadi> q+
15:46:29 <JF> Q+
15:46:34 <jenniferS> Lauriat: their level of conformance w/b diff than the site using the cms
15:46:35 <Lauriat> ack shadi
15:47:06 <Jemma> Shawn's first point was the same as mine. not necessarily there is "content free" application although John is pointing a potential/critical silos.
15:47:28 <jenniferS> Shadi: are you proposing or summarizing an idea
15:47:56 <Jemma> ex: wordpress - the way to provide link through combobox
15:47:58 <jenniferS> Lauriat: more or less, but c/b achieved through profiles or conf model include given applicable things…
15:48:08 <jenniferS> ack JF
15:48:14 <Lauriat> ack JF
15:48:30 <shadi> q+
15:48:33 <Jemma> s/to provide/to select/
15:48:36 <jenniferS> JF: I think you … you used the word, "profile" as part of our conf & scoring work, we think of profiles
15:48:49 <jenniferS> JF: as applicable through XR, there will things unique
15:49:02 <jenniferS> JF: language of page may not be applicable in XR envi
15:49:07 <jeanne> q+ to say that we just drafted a response that said we are not going to have multiple conformance models
15:49:23 <Jemma> q+ to hear again Shawn's second point - I think his second point is worth to discuss
15:49:24 <jenniferS> JF: if score is on meeting reqs, then you'll get diff scores as things are not applicable
15:49:43 <jenniferS> ack shadi
15:50:12 <JF> Q+
15:50:24 <jenniferS> Shadi: I see profiles as being hard to maintain or not be confused
15:50:54 <jenniferS> Shadi: wcag 2 says that if things aren't considered… [not quite following, sorry]
15:50:59 <Lauriat> +1 to Shadi, and I think this ultimately comes down to needing to test things out to see how they work
15:51:03 <Lauriat> qv?
15:51:11 <jenniferS> ack jeanne
15:51:11 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we just drafted a response that said we are not going to have multiple conformance models
15:51:38 <jenniferS> Jeanne: remind folks that 15m ago we drafted a response that we didn't want to draft multiple conf models, changing to 'profiles' is still that
15:51:56 <jenniferS> Jeanne: I don't think I heard anyone respond that they were positive about multiple conf models
15:52:08 <jenniferS> Lauriat: jumping in
15:52:11 <JF> +1 shawn
15:52:18 <jenniferS> Lauriat: I don't think profiles = multiple conf models
15:52:36 <jenniferS> ack jemma
15:52:36 <Zakim> Jemma, you wanted to hear again Shawn's second point - I think his second point is worth to discuss
15:52:36 <Lauriat> ack Jemma
15:52:47 <jenniferS> Jemma: good discussion
15:53:02 <jenniferS> Jemma: that something is accessible out of box, real use case
15:53:12 <jenniferS> Jemma: Lauriat's 2nd point is useful
15:53:52 <jenniferS> Lauriat: 2nd point = around when making conf claim around CMS, then diff guidance applies, vs a site built upon CMS… having clarity around what applied
15:54:27 <jenniferS> Lauriat: within CMS having ability to add videos+captions and actively supported in adding, vs a page that has video embedded
15:54:37 <jenniferS> Jemma: yes, that's it
15:55:05 <jenniferS> Lauriat: as in design system, they claim this confs w/ wcag 3 what that means
15:55:28 <jenniferS> Lauriat: one can use an accessible design sys or cms in unaccessible ways
15:55:56 <jenniferS> Jemma: the prob comes in between blackboard and use, have to spend time in explaining why inaccessibility happens
15:55:59 <Lauriat> q+ to suggest testing and validating
15:56:17 <jenniferS> Jemma: interaction between sys & human is time-consuming
15:56:24 <jenniferS> ack JF
15:56:46 <jenniferS> JF: suggest it's too early to look at this comment, appreciate it's addressed, but until we figure out scoring…
15:57:10 <jenniferS> JF: always thought scoring w/b related to outcomes, but dep on what is evaluated max score will be diff
15:57:23 <jenniferS> Q+
15:57:40 <jenniferS> JF: can still be averaged out but until we have scoring nailed down, my concern is early
15:57:44 <jenniferS> ack Lauriat
15:57:44 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest testing and validating
15:57:55 <Jemma> s/ interaction between sys & human is time-consuming/investigatign inaccessibility attributed form interaction between sys & human is time-consuming/
15:58:00 <jenniferS> Lauriat: that is pretty much what I added myself to queue for
15:58:39 <jeanne> q+ to make announcement about the 14th meeting before meeting ends
15:58:55 <jenniferS> ack jenniferS
15:59:30 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
15:59:30 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, jeanne
15:59:42 <jeanne> ack je
15:59:42 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to make announcement about the 14th meeting before meeting ends
15:59:45 <Jemma> in priciple, I would agree with not separating conformance betweeen application and content.
16:00:02 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
16:00:02 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- reminder of Silver meeting of 14th -- taken up [from jeanne]
16:00:04 <jenniferS> Jennifer: wants to state that cms or design sys must demonstrate due diligence of meeting conf standards and supporting content authors in delivery of conformance
16:00:10 <jenniferS> ack jeanne
16:01:06 <jenniferS> Jeanne: AGWG mtg on 14 Dec = retrospective on the work the Errors group completed, and continuing where we left off on the blameless post-mortem we started, as a way of doing this we decided to have a third party facilitator
16:01:22 <jenniferS> Lauriat: we have someone coming to facilitate, and encourage all to join!
16:01:46 <Jemma> will there be a deliverables from the meeting?
16:01:53 <jenniferS> Lauriat: we are meeting on the 17th, not on 24th or 31st.
16:01:54 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/10-silver-minutes.html jeanne
16:03:23 <JF> JF has left #silver
16:36:10 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #silver
17:02:27 <janina> janina has left #silver
20:01:02 <kirkwood_> kirkwood_ has joined #silver