– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

<jeanne> Scribe List

Issues related to Requirements

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/307

<jeanne> Propose: Accessibility guidelines should … offer a structure of accompanying documents, that are clear and concise and allow to find technical information (methods, how-tos) quickly and in one place.

SL: don't the design principles already speak to this?

JS: seems to me that this has always been our goal

<Rachael> ...offer a structure of accompanying documents, that are clear and concise and allow *readers/end users* to find technical information (methods, how-tos) quickly and in one place.

JS: not necessarily easy to do that
… what does non-technical language mean?
… how non-technical can we get?

SL: not using overly technical terms

RMB: need a noun there

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that mechanism

SL: think this is also covered at a higher level
… design principles may be better at a high level
… not paint ourselves into a corner

<Rachael> +1 to addressing within current principles

<janina> +1 to Shawn's response approach

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to propose keeping principles higher level, rather than increasingly numerous

Jeanne: think #10 addresses this

<jeanne> #4, 5, and 10 cover this. We want to keep it at a high level

<Rachael> +1 to the easy to translate

Jeanne: think the proposal is a rewrite for 5
… could add "easy to translate" part

<Lauriat> "Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand and translate."

Janina: think both go together
… the more plain language, the easier to translate

<jeanne> #5 original: Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand. Note: We need a definition of plain language that includes the ease of translation. Ideally, it will be a broadly accepted definition internationally. EndNote

Rachael: wonder if we should refer to plainlanguage.gov?
… or another set of principles for plain language
… without saying we are going to be perfect at it

<Lauriat> +1 to reference instead of reinventing, if we can do that later on somehow?

<jeanne> proposed RESOLUTION: Change Design principle 5 to say "Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand and translate."

Rachael: don't feel strongly
… but think the commenter was trying to put principles for plain language

Jeanne: there is a reference that the COGA group identified

Rachael: there are several different options, I think
… difficult term for us to pick up

<jeanne> PLain Language Association International (PLAIN) <- https://plainlanguagenetwork.org/

Shawn: maybe respond saying we are aligned on the intention but still figuring out the details?

<jeanne> International Plain Language Federation <- http://www.iplfederation.org/

<jeanne> ISO is working on a standard based around PLAIN

Jeanne: go forward with the proposal?

Shawn: prefer not to change if we can avoid it

<Makoto> +1 to Shawn

<jeanne> proposed RESOLUTION: Change Design principle 5 to say "Be written in plain language, as easy as possible to understand and translate."

<Rachael> Could we consider "Be written to follow plain language principles, to be as easy as possible to understand and traslate" ?

Jeanne: do we want to preserve what we have or change it?

<jeanne> Poll: Fine tune or preserve the original whenever possible?

<jeanne> preserve

<Rachael> Fine tune

<janina> preserve

<Makoto> preserve

<ToddL> preserve

fine serve

<Lauriat> neither, really

Rachel: think important to get the document in a good shape

Shawn: think we need to work on the requirements
… so it makes sense to other people
… in this particular case, not sure if the tweak adds much
… but could complicate things

Janina: could spend a lot of time polishing
… is it really needed?

Shawn: see this as a confirmation of what we intended

Jeanne: will take an action to respond
… say we think it is covered by 4, 5, and 10
… we think it is an affirmation of our position

<Lauriat> +1, sounds good (with Janina's framing)!

Janina: maybe point out they may have missed it

ACTION: Jeanne to draft a response based on the above discussion

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/466

466

<janina> But no suggested alternative language/

Shawn: really challenging comment
… completely valid

<jeanne> 1. Support the needs of a wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs.

<jeanne> 2. Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.

Shawn: could make more concise
… remove some and clean up
… but also recognize how we got here
… we started off small
… then people kept making valid suggestions
… so agree with the comment to shrink it down
… but at the same time aware of the process required

<jeanne> +1 to Janina

Janina: could be a similar response to the previous

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about W3C principles or such that we can point to?

Shawn: wonder if there are some overall W3C principles we could point to?

Janina: maybe there is something in the process document

https://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/

https://w3c.github.io/manual-of-style/

<Rachael> Isn't this what we are measuring success by?

https://www.w3.org/People/Bos/DesignGuide/introduction

Shawn: would be good if we can refer to existing design principles
… maybe explain to the commenter that we agree in principle
… and also how we got here
… then look at simplification as we move forward

<Lauriat> proposed RESOLUTION: Respond with an overall acknowledgement of the benefits of simplifying the design principles, and note that we'll make our way through other potential changes and then revisit how we can simplify.

<jeanne> +1

<janina> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Rachael> 0

<Makoto> +1

<ToddL> +1

RESOLUTION: Respond with an overall acknowledgement of the benefits of simplifying the design principles, and note that we'll make our way through other potential changes and then revisit how we can simplify.

[last paragraph of the comment]

Sencond Part of 466

<jeanne> The Requirements are also comprehensive and useful. Motivation is particularly good as a requirement – but is there a write-up of how a scoring system became the preferred way to achieve that goal? If not, it might be useful to have one to refer to as the standard moves through the draft stages. Or if the scoring system isn't seen as the only way to motivate people, maybe the reference to

<jeanne> it needs to be removed from this Requirement.

<Lauriat> Re: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#motivation

<Lauriat> "The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility."

Shawn: agree with the comment but not sure how to change it
… talked about these things a lot already
… think the direction is sufficiently clear

Jeanne: might want to find the discussion on how the scoring system ended up in there

Rachael: do we want to reinforce this at the current stage?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask since we are not sure at this point that a scoring system is the way to go do we want to reenforce this?

<Rachael> The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by rewarding organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

Jeanne: we meant it in a very broad sense
… to give people an idea
… someone even thought reward meant monetarily

<Rachael> The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by designing WCAG 3 to reward organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

Janina: use the word "incentive"?

Jeanne: may be same misunderstanding

Rachael: I understand but think we may regret that word long term

Jeanne: maybe "conformance structure"?

Janina: or "encouraging"?

<ToddL> +1 to Rachael

<Rachael> The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by structuring WCAG 3 to reward organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

<Rachael> The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by structuring WCAG 3 to encourage organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

<Makoto> +1 to "structuring" and "encourage"

<ToddL> +1 again to Rachael

<ToddL> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Makoto> +1

<jeanne> +1

RESOLUTION: reword motivation as above