<jeanne> Scribe List https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List#Scribe_List

<Wilco_> scribe: Wilco_

Should we meet on March 18? (CSUN conflict)

Jeanne: Number of people are not available due to CSUN / travel. How many could not make it next week?

<Chuck_> -1

+1

<shadi> +1

<KimD> +1

<janina> +1

<Makoto> +1

<jeanne> +1

Jeanne: Looks pretty good
... Chuck and Rachael are at CSUN.

<Chuck_> +1 to having it

Jeanne: So lets then have the meeting

RESOLUTION: Silver meeting next Friday is going to happen

Test and Scoping Structure

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/

Jeanne: This is the protocols and scoping next step. Shawn wanted to make sure this group is up to date with it.

Chuck: Everyone in AG has seen this document.

+1

<Makoto> -1

<Chuck_> +1

<janina> -1

<shadi> +1

<KimD> -1??

Jeanne: I'll go through it quickly.
... The FPWD was published over a year ago. We're working through 321 issues.
... We have a proposed document breaking out the work and schedule.
... I'd like to add that we build on the Silver research

<Rachael> +1 to adding silver research to that slide

Jeanne: There are requirements issues, and a chartering discussion. AG needs to recharter this year, which needs to be approved by the W3C advisory committee.
... This is result of the subgroups. It explores a way of navigating subjectivity to avoid ambiguity.
... We can test by smallest units like component, or by view, or by user process.
... There's an aggregate, like a site, set of pages, app, etc.
... There are then two types of tests; constant tests and condition tests.
... Constant test could be if something exists. These are objective and repeatable.
... Most of WCAG 2 criteria are part constant part condition test.
... Then they're looking at test case / statement / scenario.
... The baseline is not set by us, it is set by the site owner. Those can consist of constants and conditions.

Rachael: The concept is that we'd state what needs to be stated as a measurement point.
... If we take affordances, we'd tell people; if you have a button, you must have a visual indicator it's interactive.
... We can't say what that indicator is. But we can say that can't just be text alone, but we can list options.
... For example, whatever visual indicator is used must have a contrast.
... You'll need to indicate that that indicator is. For example an organisation can say all buttons must be 3-dimensional.

Jeanne: The internal baseline is set by the organisation. WCAG would set the constants. Would set the idea of the conditions?

Rachael: If WCAG can set the constant it wouldn't be in this category.

Jeanne: So this isn't a test case for everything. It's a category.

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

<Chuck_> Wilco: I have a q&a

<Chuck_> Wilco: These contants that I am hearing being described. Is that the same thing that ACT calls "objective"? A fully objective test?

WF: question: Are these constants what ACT call Objective?

<Chuck_> Rachael: Yes, and lets use your language!

<janina> +1 to using aCT lang

<Chuck_> Wilco: That helps me understand. Do others have the same impression?

RM: Yes

<Chuck_> +1 to using ACT lang

+1 to using ACT lang

<Chuck_> Wilco: Then, the way I understand this, is that these tests cases and scenarios are about where WCAG 3 says you need an opinion, but the opinion is up to you.

<Chuck_> Wilco: ...reading levels... WCAG says you need to define reading levels in a manner others understand.

<Chuck_> Janina: Would this go in an accessibility statement?

<Wilco_> scribe: Wilco_

<Chuck_> Rachael: Not gotten that far yet.

Janina: That example makes a lot of sense to me.
... It helps around plain language

<Rachael> I will update the slides with the better examples and language

Jeanne: So WCAG defines what types of conditions to include, and what specific failures to avoid.
... Protocols, slide 10, tests measure whether a process was followed. WCAG defines how to declare protocols were followed, and provide a way for organisations to define their own protocols.
... The reported results might include; date completed, what was done, etc. (see slides)
... The test become more subjective, less prescriptive. The variations can increase.
... As automation improve they'll be able to test more towards the right.
... Slide 12 suggests a matrix exploration, which will be done in the all-day meeting on Monday.

Rachael: We had requested, based on a subgroup interest we sent out invitations. It's a sub group meeting, that happens to be an all-day meeting.
... If people want to join let me know and I'll forward the invitation.

Janina: I wasn't aware of this either. I want to keep us coordinated with an activity in APA.
... They're working on principles with AI and wanted an accessibility perspective.

Michael: That's from the machine learning group.

Jeanne: Back to the slides. {reading}
... It's an interesting approach to identifying testing.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lU94dPLGa7ZccOKuFvtM44fVTT0tqLdrxFlvy-XwL04/edit#slide=id.g117d91f9d2d_0_0

Rachael: We talked about getting better testing for text alternatives. I think this exercise has a lot of potential. By having thought about how these guidelines break down around these kinds of tests.
... Text alternatives has some examples. There really are different pieces to this.
... If I start to think about clear words; things like reading levels. Some things like do you use double negatives is testable yes/no.

Wilco: Is it worth figuring out how this matrix interfaces with the reliability subgroup work?

Rachael: I think it's worthwhile.

Jeanne: Do we have a joint meeting? Do we do it in this meeting?

<Chuck_> +1 and +1!

<Rachael> The right people to coordinate are likely Wilco, Juanita, and Mike Gower

Wilco: We should schedule something separate from this call. This time slot doesn't work well for Francis and Daniel.

Jeanne: Slide 12, the scoping group will have a joint meeting with test reliability

<Chuck_> +1

Jeanne: Scoring sub group will work on terminology / definitions and have a joint meeting.
... We have a background slide that's about schedule / breakdown.

Wilco: I've had some insight and am feeling better about this then I did last week.

Issues related to Requirements

Jeanne: I took a look at the requirements issues this week. I picked out 1 to start with.
... There are a lot of editorial ones. I won't spend time on that here.

issue 311

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/311

Jeanne: The proposal is that guidelines should not mix different needs. For example a different need for screen readers.
... {reading from the issue}
... It's an interesting approach. I'd like to hear reactions about this.

Janina: I like where this is going. It makes sense so far. I wonder about the visual styling part, how perscriptive guidelines might get.

Jeanne: If we want to be more than just web, we can't say CSS. But we can capture the concept of visual structure.
... should be able to be adjusted by the user.

Janina: That would work for me. I think low vision & COGA might want that.
... I'll write a comment after the meeting.

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/311

Janina: If we can find a win on that point that'd be a big deal.

Jeanne: I'm not sure where to go next with this comment. Maybe it needs to go to the Monday meeting where they're talking about how to organize guidelines.
... I'll email Alastair to have him review this for the Monday meeting.

<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to send to Alastair to ask him to review this for the Monday meetings

Jeanne: We tried to group things by user need, but never tried to separate them by user need.

Wilco: The test reliability group came to a similar idea with programmatic language.
... This fits with the idea of having small / atomic outcomes.

Jeanne: To the chairs, what would you like us to do with this proposal? It's not really a requirement. It's a high level organization.

Chuck: Gut answer, it could lead us off the path. I think we decide if we agree and support the proposal, and if we do we take it as a proposal to AGWG.

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask Wilco whether I (and Pronunciation TF in APA) are connected re TTS requirements?

Janina: Are we connected here? We have a group working on pronunciation specification. We're now negotiating with members of ARIA about implementing.
... I want to make sure all of us that should be in the conversation are.

Wilco: I'm familiar with the work. We'll be in touch if we need to be.

Jeanne: I think this needs more development before it goes to AG. I think it needs to be discussed on Monday.

proposed RESOLUTION: 311 has support in the group, needs more development, and is assigned to the Outcome and Guidelines group.

<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: 311 has some support in the group and needs more development, and will be assigned to "Outcome and Guidelines"

RESOLUTION: 311 has some support in the group and needs more development, and will be assigned to "Outcome and Guidelines"

<Chuck_> +1

<jeanne> +1

+1

<Makoto> +1

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)

Default Present: jeanne, janina, KimD, Makoto, Wilco_, Chuck_, shadi, Rachael
Present: jeanne, janina, KimD, Makoto, Wilco_, Chuck_, shadi, Rachael
Found Scribe: Wilco_
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco_
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Scribe: Wilco_
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco_
Scribes: Wilco_, jeanne
ScribeNicks: Wilco_, jeanne

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: jeanne

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.)