Silver Task Force & Community Group

11 Feb 2022


Chuck, ToddL, kirkwood, janina, Wilco, Makoto, SuzanneTaylor, Jem, sarahhorton, shadi, JemmaKu


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

Charter Proposal Survey

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/charter_approach/

Rachael: screen sharing, regarding bringing to group on Tuesday, what documents will be publishing in 2 years, vharter expires in October
... want to ask as part of survey to ask where everyone stands
... we want your input
... it is hard, it is question on next steps, want to acknowledge all points on survey
... first question about chartering approach
... not just yes no its a matrix
... at meeting Jake offered opinion

Option 1 support, yes, yas and prefer, yes and prefer not, and no. itts a matrix

scribe: next option interating in add conitnuing

final intering and continuing to work on 2.x

scribe: last is support instead of iterating

Sarah: should we add something to commit to work on 2 and commit to working on silver

<jeanne> +1 to Sarah. It would be helpful to have a list of people committed to working on WCAG3

<ToddL> +1 to Sarah

Sarah: what i;m poposing support iterating in addtional to conitunig to working on silver, having a commitment to have commitment to 2.x and maybe separte question to commit ato 3 as well

Rachael: will make a note but can’t switch now
... not asking to commit to WCAG 3 does pose a problem in mmy opinion
... people have been historically committing to WCAG 3 rather than the other way around, that is why it was worded that way

Shawn: second sarah’s concern as framed it seems to commit to 2.x rather than silver

Charles: i do see the benefit to call out commitment to silver, you convinced me

Rachael: i will reword and contact those who voted

<Jem> rrsagents, make minutes

Suzanne: i interpeted Jake to iterate on 2.x to reach Silver

<Wilco> +1, that was my understanding of it too

Suzanne: what he seemed to say take learning from 2.x with intention of creating Silver and don’t see reflecting in survey

Rachael: not my understanding, Jake?

Shawn: jake not here
... Wilco gave a plus one as well

<Wilco> Yes from me

Janina: reasons in challenges conformance document and all kinds of resons become awareness, that proposing do we think we can stay with guidelines and SC with a differnt conformance model?

Chuck: to muddy further heard Jake propse binary and eith or and then evolving to 2.x in support of 3.0 which means i heard a third thing, thats my recollection and had transformed to be less binary

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the question as is is important to clarify, regardless of Jake's proposal

<Jem> here is wcag 2.2 issue backlog - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Issue_tracking_and_resolution

<Chuck> +1 to jeanne

<Jem> +1 jeanne

Jeanne: i think question should be clarified, putting binary in table is an important starting place

+1 to Jeanne

<Jem> +1 to Jeanne about asking the correct question.

Shadi: if changing conformance model can it really be called 2.x, its not either or really, its about scoping really, is an evolution or revoltuion, to what degree are we doing this
... if we schange the conformance model its not really 2.x in my opinion

<janina> +1 to Shadi

<Jem> +q

Rachael: i’ll put in survey if we need to, i’d rather have the right question in survey, it would help if have time to scope

Shawn: i agree with proposed approach and remove commitment part

Jemma: i understood number 4 as working on 2.x, and working with Alistair clear WCAG 2.2 backlog. and can now focus on silver
... if commit to 2.x? my vote to commit to 2.2 but can finish 2.2 but not sure about 2.3 would not commit

Charles: this is more about commiting to WCAG 2

Jeanne: the question needs clarification

Jemma: i agree with Jeanne, i’d conditionally vote for 4

<Jem> I would vote for #4 if the commitment is only limited on WCAG 2.2

Shawn: think settle on well to remove commitment at the moment and to clarify iterating on 2.x and what means. Support intetating 2.x beyond scope of 2.2 work

<Jem> yes, exactly, Sahdi.

Shadi: with 2.x may have differnt meanings, there were 3 things we seem to be talking about new 2.3 2.4 etc, version with new conformance model, largely based on 2.x and completely new version that others are talking about. seem to be 3 things not just 2

Charles: not sure if addresses ...

<Chuck> Support iterating next version of WCAG 2, or Support iterating of WCAG 2.3

Charles: i’m putting in irc and will presnet options
... first option will be next version unnamed second 2.3

<janina> Neither of Chuck's addresses the Conformance question

Shawn reading Rachals options above

Janina: whatever its name has built in problem that SC have become unweildy, support going into the database, not enough flexibility, taken a long time to develop, shoul look at existing confrmance model, but have gotten too bulky

Chuck: have affinity for Racheal’s option 2
... wanted to avoid conformance model but with Janina you moded, so have afinity for second

Janina: the reason is its unrealistic we are asking for perfection, especially how complex the web gets

Wilco: sort of agree, the basic concept is list of requirements and not meeting some is a problem, it isn’t defined, one off pages you can conform, but when scaling it becomes more complicated

<Wilco> +1 to Shawn

Shawn: reasons i got involved was for one web page which is google docs to reflex experience for people with disabilities. do agree this is the guidance you should meet if not doesn’t comply, don’t think perfection should get in the way of good, i think differents size problems

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to propose continuing to ask for perfection, but not letting it get in the way of good

Janina: strongly bridging comment, we should describe best we have. what we ask fro in conformance in every page, the problem becomes all component that interact. many examples, we need to describe what we can. be defensable and avoid drive by trouble and must sc ale to 70 percent of businesses with 10 employees or less

Chuck: in tow rolls, think there are three distinct questions, how to creat wcag 3 and wcag 2 final.

<janina> Curious what is missing in 2.2 that's needed in 2.final

<Rachael> The idea is to create a clean version that allows us to combine SC that overlap, etc.

Chuck: whenever we throw conformance model in it adds a layer of complexity. concerned about trinying to fit conformance into this survey because it is loaded

Shawn: i put in queue to bring back to question of what questions to ask
... largely on same page about end goal, how do we ask the question of larger working group including thos not workin on WCAG 3
... do iterate on 2.x into two parts, second iterate on 2.x in a means to get to end of getting to wcag 3 which kind of requires conformance model. alterntative is to chang how we write the actual guidance

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to bring us back to the question of questions

Chuck: i agee it is implicit moving wcag 2.x to 3 evolving in my mind doesn’t need to explicit, but if we want to put conformance in there won’t hold it up, how’s we will explore as a result of our work

<sarahhorton> +1 to Chuck

Chuck: will spend next two years onsurvey

Shawn: draft charter we all need agree on in that time

Chuck: i conceed

Sarah: don’t conceed Chuck!
... think if that’s what has greatest benefit, lets focus on conformance by all means lets do it, fixing how to teach and learn would be a big benefit

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to Sarah, conformance seems to be dominating the conversations too much

Sarah: let’s not go down the conformance rabbit hole

<jeanne> +1 to disheartening

<Lauriat> +1

<ToddL> +1

Chuck: thanks for welcoming my back

Shawn: how should we ask the quesion?

<Lauriat> Support for Only Iterating WCAG 2.x At the 01 February 2022 meeting, Jake brought up the option of iterating on WCAG 2.x instead of continuing with the Silver work in order to create a new version. This idea had some support in the meeting. Do you…

Wilco: is the question wether next version should iterate from existing or blank sheet is that what we are trying to tease out?

Shawn: continuing to iterating 2.x without, 2.3 and last clean slate and migrating

Jemma: blank sheet what does that mean? for 2.x series
... when adding to exiting thats what you meant?

Wilco: rather than start with empty page add what we want to add and adjust what we want to adjust. starting is exisig and the freedom to adjust could be a way how this is done. prefenence. leaning to evlove 2.x upwords to get to completed result sooner but could see both sida.

Shawn: we may end up there, do think we have worked through very good points of clarification which is helpful, need to ask the qeustion in two stages: w, wok to WCAG 3 and essentially how, build from 2.x or more of clean state

I’m for building on it not clean slate.

Sarah: implication is so great
... i’m surprised we are asking implication is so great

<Jem> +1 to Sarah

Sarah: the idea we are asking this in a survey, i would think we are not ready to ask this question yet, not like these

Chuck: the reason needed to have this addressed this is not an idea that was expressed and enough support on call, that it needs to be addressed
... but if we don’t really understand what the proposal was maybe need to get details

<Jem> I think asking the correct question is fine but the implication of asking the question is dangerous. - that is what I hear from sarah.

Jeanne: think we can step away from proposal as is.

<janina> Are we in marriage counseling? Is it divorce time?

Jeanne: are we going to continue with 2.x or shutdown wcag 3 work i think its valuable to have this survey

Shawn: big part of question for me is what we are putting into the charter
... if we can focus on work i’m less concerned about details as a group agreeing on how to move forward

Chuck: thank you for focusing back oncharter, Jeanne put question tarckly do we proceed with 2.x abondon 3 or 2.x working towards 3 or finalize 2.x and go to three

Shawn: Chuck do you think we have enough to go back to rachael

Chuck: what was jake really proposing a more simple question, have lingeering concerns about understanding of jakes ides

Janina: if continue to reiterate on 2 has value i cant disagree with that, maybe not unreasonalbe givin progress. no reason feel need to block, either builds merit or it wont similar with 2. another opition is 2 charters

<Jem> do I still respond to the survey?

<ToddL> +1 to Rachael

Rachael: do want to express thanks, do not want partial, chack and i will work on survey, and thank you

Shawn: its extremely hared

<Rachael> I have closed the survey. As soon as it is open, I will email silver

Shawn: once survey has modification made will send out survey

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: 2022/02/11 16:03:25 $

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/Suxanne/Suzanne/
Succeeded: s/commit/commitment/
Succeeded: s/clear 2/clear WCAG 2.2 backlog/
Default Present: Chuck, ToddL, kirkwood, janina, Wilco, Makoto, SuzanneTaylor, Jem, sarahhorton, shadi, JemmaKu
Present: Chuck, ToddL, kirkwood, janina, Wilco, Makoto, SuzanneTaylor, Jem, sarahhorton, shadi, JemmaKu
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: kirkwood
Inferring Scribes: kirkwood

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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

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]