Silver Task Force & Community Group

28 Jan 2022


Lauriat_, shadi, JenniferS_, JF, Wilco, Chuck_, Makoto, sarahhorton, Rachael, Jem, SuzanneTaylor
Racahel, Rachael, Chuck


<Lauriat_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

<Rachael> scribe: Racahel

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

<Lauriat_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fcxs_VkhH2MvY9UmqMQT5biFvmfWVMMAYYIm7vuo_K0/edit#heading=h.hbg6si63jdu2

<Lauriat_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fcxs_VkhH2MvY9UmqMQT5biFvmfWVMMAYYIm7vuo_K0/edit

Lauriat_: Link in IRC is from the agenda item. Its shifting gears a bit from previous call discussions but cofaciltiators, chairs, and Michael realized that we need to get started on the chartering process
... We (AG working group) need to recharter in the fall of this year. It expires Halloween and we need a new charter to replace it. Declares work we are doing and what we will publish.
... we will also have a discussion around this at the larger group call on Tuesday though Michael and I will do our best to answer questions today. Michael will you introduce requirements and give high level timeline?

Michael: Pessimistic version (plan for this).
... Time ranges, charter has to be reviewed by advisory comittee. To go to AC it must be approved by management (at least 2 weeks). It also needs to be approved by management after (also 2. weeks). So that together is 2 months.
... we need horizontal review which is 6 weeks. We need Judy and Phillipe's buy in so need 2 months for that and a month or two on that before it goes to them.
... so about 6 months or so. That is still a semi-optimistic timelines aiming for recharting in October.

Janina: That sounds like submit by May 1 or sooner.

Shawn: So one of the things that means is that we as a working group need to decide on what we are putting in the charter. The thing that we wanted to start a conversation on in this group and then continue with the larger group is what to put in the charter.
... we have to have something to do and publish in those 2 years. You may remember that the work and timeline is much larger than 2 years. We are starting to think about this as what kind of incremental progress can we make that don't declare that we are done WCAG 3 but make meaningful progress. The document are some ideas on how we can approach this. None of these ideas are set in stone. They are a way to start talking about what we would

want to publish by end of the charter.

scribe: A quick overview of the three ideas we have in here. These are not exhaustive. We welcome other ideas and building on these ideas. The first idea is defining a minimum viable product. A minimal chunk of things that center primarily on publishing guidance on outcomes with a minimalist conformance model. The second section within this idea is the incubating for future charter period. These are things that we are working on but won't be

publishing by end of charter period.

scribe: this includes conformance, ATAG and UAAG, that need to build on other aspects of conformance or guidance.
... Idea 2 prioritizes conformance ahead of guidance.

<Chuck_> Rachael: Idea 2 focuses on the conformance model and designing it first. We'd work on other milestones, but no guarantee they would be complete.

<Chuck_> Rachael: There would be a transitional document, and we would document how a company transitions.

<Chuck_> Rachael: Protocols and assertions as well. Some of the larger questions would incubate.

Shawn: The third idea is a little different way of talking about the ideas. The first two ideas define what we tackle first. The third idea is more of an information architecture on how we would manage this type of publication.
... it would be saying here are different documents we can publish instead of saying this is what we tackle first.

Wilco: The gist is that we break WCAG 3 into multiple documents. Instead there would be isolated documents that would build on each other. The benefit this gives it that it creates smaller chunks that can be focused on and delivered on. We could get one done in 2 years. If one piece proves difficult to do, we can drop it out or move it. There is less chance with this that if one part drops out, the whole thing falls apart.

Shawn: These are not mutually exclusive ideas or the only way these ideas can work. These are starting points on possible ways these can be approached for the next two years, starting Nov 1.

Shadi: Is leadership leaning any particular way?

Shawn: I think we are aiming for something meaningful and implementable for the general world.

<Lauriat_> +1 to Chuck_, agreed

Chuck: Speaking as 1 chair and not the entire group, I don't think we have leadership consensus. That's why we put together a variety of ideas and are looking for input.

+1 to Chuck

Shawn: We want to talk through this with the larger group to talk through some ideas.
... for the first idea, going a little more in depth. The MVP defined here has guidelines and outcomes, views and pages. We would need some minimal idea of conformance for now.
... There are different ideas here that might not have to be in the MVP. For example, critical errors. If we create a minimal conformance model that includes processes then critical errors seems to me like its needed but perhaps not.
... The CMS of How Tos and Methods. Its not necessary for publication but it is necessary but important. Its a serious chunk of work but a very necessary chunk of work. Maybe its not done by the end.
... Any thoughts or questions?

sarahhorton: Is it the CMS or the content of the how tos and methods?

Shawn: Its more of the publishing of the things we would manage through the CMS. The CMS is just a chunk of work to get there.

sarahhorton: So does the first chunk include how tos and methods?

Lauriat_: Yes

sarahhorton: So tests, etc?

Lauriat_: yes

sarahhorton: Make that clear in the proposal
... that is very substantial

Lauriat_: I've added it in

janina: I'm thinking about the modular approach. It would need an overall approach on how things fit together. We would need to think through areas. Third party vs. First. Machine testable vs. human testing. The value of breaking into chunks that fit into our demarkation of those types of things. Perhaps as we learn more and technology advances, we can move things from one module to another. Perhaps an easier way of maintenance. I'm

beginning to like it but not sure how we draw the initial graph.

<Lauriat_> qv?

Shawn: I agree and have only a wisp of an idea.

<Chuck_> got it

<Chuck_> Jeanne: I don't think we can do the guidelines in 2 years.

<Chuck_> scribe: Chuck

<Chuck_> Jeanne: As much as I would rather do the content guideline first, I don't think we can do it in 2 years. I prefer looking at the conformance first and apply the WCAG 2 guidance to the conformance.

<Jem> +1

<Chuck_> Jeanne: We've said for a long time we are doing revolutionary structure and evolutionary guidance. More realistic.

<Jem> to jeanne's

<JenniferS_> +1

<Chuck_> Shawn: Pros and cons and risks for things. For the first idea, everything you said is in there.

<Chuck_> Shawn: <reads some pros and cons>

<Chuck_> Shawn: Another risk noted in the doc that Jeanne didn't mention, we might stop at the MVP and not accomplish the WCAG 3 goals.

<scribe> scribe: Rachael

<Chuck_> Shawn: We would still have the same requirements...

Shawn: ...larger than a chartering period. Worth noting that we wouldn't want to stop there and not tackle harder problems.

Wilco: Jeanne, how doing conformance first solves that problem. Then 2 years from now, aren't we in the same boat?

Jeanne: It allows us to publish a transition plan, WCAG 2.9.
... it becomes a transitional document.
... When I look at these three ideas, I see we will do all of htem. When we look at rechartering, I think a transitional document is doable.

<Lauriat_> +1 to Jeanne's last point on doing things in parallel, we can't help but do that.

Jeanne: does that answer what you're asking?

Wilco: No, it doesn't solve the problem just moves it around.

Chuck: There was an observation made. The modules idea actually works as a subset of any of the other ideas.

<Wilco> +1, think so

Chuck: even if we don't focus on idea 3 as the primary approach, it is implementable in either of the other two.

Shawn: That is my understanding as well. The first two ideas are prioritization. The third idea is more about managing.

<Jem> good summary, Shawn!

JF: Thank you for making the distinction between the first two ideas and the third idea. Prioiritizing conformance and scoring. We really are struggling on the protocols teams so support starting with that.

Lauriat_: We are trying to break it out and then build on chunks.

janina: Just a little bit of concern. We have stated "publishable". I am fearful of the implications of whatever we propose once it gets to the advisory committee. We sit at an end of a divide in the W3C and the AC is at the other end of what is "publishable". I don't think we are thinking TR. I don't think we get there in two years. Maybe CR.
... we may want to think in those terms. We are either creating notes or normative specifications. Sometimes only a FPWD.

Shawn: Those are important points.

sarahhorton: An approach to take that maps to our goals or that addresses the most pressing needs or fills gaps.

<Lauriat_> WCAG 3 Requirements, for reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/

sarahhorton: That then had me go back to goals and requirements. I propose an approach to making these decisions is to base them on our goals so we can move forward more strategically.
... my concern is that we won't do the hard work. That the hard work is writing the guidelines and outcomes. I think we are having trouble getting that work going. My understanding is that we are building those by starting with user needs and building up.
... its hard to chunk it off. It builds and grows. I feel concerned that if we say we aren't going to look at the guideliens now and focus on conformance. How do we do the work on ciritical errors if we don't do the work of user needs.

<Chuck_> +1 to that observation

Shawn: The ideas on the MVP is not that we stop work on other things. The other things still happen but won't be finalized in the timefram.e

<Chuck_> Rachael: One advantage for conformance is it gives us 4 years, a larger chunk of time. 2nd I feel that having watched this process, we tried to focus on guidelines first and then conformance, and that didn't seem to succeed as well as we had hoped.

<JF> +1 to Rachael

<Chuck_> Rachael: Seemed that starting with conformance might be a better approach.

Lauriat_: I wanted to expand on what I thought on making meaningful progress for the guidelines. My thinking for idea 1 was having a MVP that isn't everything but having something that points to the larger mountain of work rather than having the risk of making sure its incubating but without the full commitment.
... I think for myself this has been really helpful to work through pros and cons and risks of each of these approaches. We are trying to balance the need for us to do much of the work at the same time. We need some minimal level of conformance and forward progress on the guidelines are both 100% needed. So its about redefining what we can publish in the next 2 years. There are risks to these approaches which are worthwhile to discuss with

the larger group.

scribe: Does it make sense to deep dive more into conformance first approach?

<Zakim> Lauriat_, you wanted to build on sarahhorton's concern and thoughts for my own thoughts on idea 1

<Lauriat_> -1

Chuck_: It seemed like option 2 is gaining a little bit of momentum. You already suggested pursuing that a bit.

sarahhorton: It seems like we are saying that the work on the guidelines have the greatest impact on accessibility in the digital environment.
... the other pieces are very important as well but the guidelines and outcomes are the specifications that define how we build.

<Lauriat_> +1 to sarahhorton

sarahhorton: because we have a user focus in WCAG 3, we should think of them as a prioirty.

JF: I agree with much of what you said but without the conformance piece, it may not be adopted. Comments that direction we were going would make it harder to adopt.
... need to keep both in mind.

Makoto: At first I preferred idea #1. I think people would like to see how WCAG 3 would look like. What guidelines and outcomes WCAG 3 will produce. I prefer that step by step approach.
... people can prepare for WCAG 3. However if we must consider the deadline within 2 years, idea #2 looks more realistic than idea #1. I think it will take more than 2 years to complete guidelines and outcomes. I'm not sure we can finalize conformance without guidelines and outcomes.

<JenniferS_> +1 to Rachael

<Chuck_> Rachael: Ask q question... I cannot figure out how we would write the guidelines w/o understanding how we handle conformance. Or how far we can get with them.

<JF> +1 to Rachael - this has been the big struggle to date

Shawn: We wouldn't be writing the guidance without some understanding of conformance. We would have some kind of conformance model but it would not include some of the other details that we've discussed.

<Chuck_> Rachael: Its the thought that we are now talking 2 conformance models. It makes me think if we have to do half conformance and all the guidelines....sticking point.

Michael: That provokes a question: Would we have to develop a 1st conformance model and then a 2nd?
... are the models additive?

janina: I am on the same topic. Going back to CSS, it was once a single spec but now have many pieces. need a flow chart to understand what goes where. that may be an implication of the modular route. I'm most familiar with that but I don't think they are alone in W3 to that. Security and Privacy also.
... I think the advisory committee will be comfortable with a model that isn't done in two years. They are looking for a measurable approach. Iterative and we come back to it, they will be comfortable with that as well. They need to measure about progress being made. We should focus on showing progress on some portions of what we need to write. It may be nothign gets to TR. Its having a sense of how things fit. Take the implications. I think

they're comfortable with it. Living Standard, evergreen.

<JF> -1 to "evergreen"

<Zakim> Lauriat_, you wanted to note that the first idea did not originally include full guidelines, for that reason

Lauriat_: Idea #1, these are not concrete proposals. They are sketches on how we might approach things. For idea 1, we are going to include the guidelines themselves. The piece that is concretely helpful is knowing what kind of guidance is going to be in WCAG 3. Idea 1 is us having some milestone of work that shows that path. Its not us showing all guidance going into WCAG 3. Its some part of it. I want to primarily make the point that none

of these ideas are hard proposals that we are going to vote on. This is how we are starting to approach the conversation.

<JF> +1 to Wilco

<Lauriat_> +1 to Wilco

<Jem> +1 to iterative approach to conformance

Wilco: I want to make a point that I think we should stop thinking of the conformance model as a single monolithic thing. A modular approach has its drawbacks but the big big advantage is it gives us the opportunity to create something that can be used before the rest is done. I don't think WCAG 3 can wait 10 years. I think we need a way to do this in multiple chunks.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to talk to the CSS model as being very different than what we are attempting

<JF> need a flow chart to understand what goes where

JF: I agree that we have to break it into chunks. ITs too big to do at once. Breaking it into smaller parts, I agree with. I struggle with how Janina contrasted it with CSS. I think a flowchart would be problematic for WCAG. It can't get too complex. We need to ensure what we write will be picked up by regulators. I'm also concerned about evergreen specification. That has been rejected at many quarters at W3C and its hard to write

regulation around a never done specification. Will need dot releases.

SuzanneTaylor: I am not a fan of idea 2. It sounds like replacing the VPAT. That isn't what the world looks to W3C for. If we take 2 years, we will lose engagement if we focus there. Its a mistake from a practical perspective. To design this to work with WCAG 2.2 would not work with WCAG 3.

Jem: I think this document is not an exclusive to each other. #3 is how are we going to manage it. #1 and #2 is how we are going to prioritize. When I look at idea 1 and 2, idea 1 is prioritizing an MVP. Idea 2 is prioritizing on conformance.
... what is the deliverable for idea 2?

<Chuck_> Rachael: I would hope it doesn't take 2 years. It's what we would guarantee we publish in the 2 year. It's intended to address scoring, scoping views and pages, components, sampling. The basic decisions we need to make to write the guidelines.

<Chuck_> Rachael: Everything else is incubated.

<Jem> good point for not updating conformance frequently.

<Lauriat_> +1 to shadi

<Jem> +1

Shadi: this is a complex topic. Two quick thoughts. 1. I have a hard time imagining conformance is iterative. Can't be updated too frequently. 2. I really encourage/underline sarah's thoughts of thinkinig of this from the perspective of the users. Its easy to get lost in process. thinking about it from what can help accessibility would be an important part of this.


<Makoto> +1 to Shadi

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: 2022/01/28 16:29:50 $

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/perspective/consensus/
Succeeded: s/jeann's/jeanne's/
Succeeded: s/Can't be updated/Can't be updated too frequently/
Default Present: Lauriat_, shadi, JenniferS_, JF, Wilco, Chuck_, Makoto, sarahhorton, Rachael, Jem, SuzanneTaylor
Present: Lauriat_, shadi, JenniferS_, JF, Wilco, Chuck_, Makoto, sarahhorton, Rachael, Jem, SuzanneTaylor
Found Scribe: Racahel
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: Chuck
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Scribes: Racahel, Rachael, Chuck

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

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: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

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]