Silver Task Force & Community Group

29 April 2022


Chuck, janina, jeanne, Jem, JF, kirkwood, Lauriat, Makoto, maryjom, Rachael, sarahhorton, shadi, SuzanneTaylor, ToddL
jeanne, Shawn

Meeting minutes

AG charter survey

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/?login

Rachael: Please advise if not accessible link!

Rachael: This is a progress report on charter discussions; noting possibility of splitting the group between work on 2 and 3

Rachael: Notes there's more work to be done than we can accomplish

Rachael: so we need to make some decisions; reduce workload; or reorganize

Rachael: Notes there's a difference of mindset between 2 and 3

Rachael: The mindset is important; but has implications for policies and procedures as well

Rachael: We have tried to address, but would wish we'd been more successful at that

Rachael: we've drafted some proposals--but these are just drafts!

Rachael: WBS intends to solicit views; 3 charter options; please take the time to consider carefully and respond!

<JF> URLs for those proposals?

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/?login

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022/charter.html

shadi: Q on #6; any opportunity to restate?

shadi: Would be happy to paerticipate in both, but my emphasis would be strongly on 3

shadi: Q to ask whether there's a risk that WCAG3 charter might not pass without 2?

Rachael: Believe there are several risks; we should discuss, regardless

Jem: Please make sure people in your groups are aware of this WBS. We need everyone's participation

<Rachael> Two charter links: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022_alternates/charter-new-group.html and https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/charter-2022_alternates/charter.html

Jem: Q about reason not to split -- Public might find concurrent work confusing -- because there are two charters?

Rachael: Don't believe public pays attention to charters. Main potential is that two specs in concurrent development

Jem: Eventually, 2 is gone.

Rachael: Proposal is to take address remaining issues in 2; while other group iterates on 3

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to the creation of the really clean final WCAG 2 version

Jem: Notes I've been working on both; and would really like it down to one

<Chuck> janina: I think i'm not as worried about public perception. We messaged that 3 would take a while and 2 would not be deprecated. Just a year ago we deprecated 1. We haven't worked on 1 since 1998.

<maryjom> +1 Two groups spreads already thin resources to cover development of multiple standards.

<Chuck> janina: We've said all along that people built based on 2 could continue to count on 2. If creating a second group creates another messaging opportunity it will only help public perception, we are trying to be more efficient.

<Chuck> janina: It's not that 2 goes away sooner or 3 takes over faster. It's a feature not a bug.

shadi: One of my worries is that work isn't less unless we reduce some of the work

<Rachael> Splitting as written now actually increases the work

shadi: So, it may help on focus; but not actually on load

<kirkwood> +1 Janina

<Jem> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/?login

<Jem> we are talking this survey in case you join late.

maryjom: Having two groups definitely stretches limited resources; notes EU reqs coming that add to that load

jf: Is the suggestion here that 2.2 is the end; or that 2.3 is still a possibility?

jf: Notes there are no testable statements for XR

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer

Rachael: There are several approaches that are easier if we split;

Rachael: To date there have not been objections to new notes

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that there are benefits and challenges to either/any approach

Chuck: Notes each approach has pros and cons; there's no perfect proposal

<Jem> written challenges are clear to me as the participant.

Chuck: Notes this has been in discussion among chairs; are now opening to the wider group

<Jem> reasons to split as the challenge

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about decision policies

jeanne: Notes 3 progress has been incremental; ...

jeanne: Good 2 policies to polish and perfect 2 are impeding work on the more expirimental 3;

jeanne: this is an argument for split; because we can have more appropriate procedures and policies for 2 and for 3 -- which will be different

<Chuck> here's the survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/?login

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/?login

sarahhorton: One thought -- Think 3 is an innovation project

sarahhorton: It's also disruptive and that makes it challenging

sarahhorton: but our current policies and procedures aren't really supporting a disruptive, innovative project

sarahhorton: so i see risks to continue as we have been

sarahhorton: one thing to underscore -- innovation need to be surrounded stakeholders and customers who value the innovation; else no success

<Lauriat> +1 to the need for stakeholder involvement

sarahhorton: so concerned that we make sure charter supports and values methods and directions of 3

sarahhorton: else we continue to fail even though two groups

<jeanne> +1 Sarah!

Makoto: Situation in JP is wondering when 2.2 will go TR; also whether it will become next ISO standard

Makoto: Whom should I ask?

Makoto: Hoping for ISO update to 2.2; because ISO important to JP

Makoto: Would support option which brings 2.2 to TR sooner

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer both

Rachael: We are closing major conversations on 2.2; will still have surveys, but should be closeout work

Rachael: ISO expected to begin soon

<Jem> great news!

Rachael: Notes one motivation is the opportunity for disparate policies; notes current W3C process guidance is more conducive to 3

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to address ISO standard

<Jem> suggestion - can we make more clear about #3The public could find two groups working concurrently to be confusing.?

Chuck: Notes if further questions after Tuesday, suggest Judy; but wait for Tuesday announcement first

<Rachael> I can edit it a bit.

jf: Q re ISO: Do we see 3 moving to ISO?

jeanne: Once finished; but not sooner!

Chuck: Current efforts are specific to 2.2

<Jem> sorry to keep bugging about #The public could find two groups working concurrently on two different accessibility standards to be confusing.

Jem: See edit; looks clearer; suggests 2 and 3 have different strengths; want to make public aware of fundamental differences

Jem: not sure how to rephrase

continuation of Guidelines Breakdown exercise

jeanne: introduces options including focus of 3 groups on 3 aspects

<jeanne> Links to documents: - 2.2.4 Interruptions

<jeanne> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HSl8bUEVrfyYem9555z7kzX5s1LWLwj_Wad-ko2mOeI/>

<jeanne> - 3.1.4 Abbreviations

<jeanne> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CBwo74SrVkwinN5YWeKIjLqvr1K7cNX9CulXwbFIUM/>

<jeanne> - 3.2.4 Consistent Identification

<jeanne> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pixL2TUGuskgH0ZfT8zmJpM1-Q2qEr-y9H7RpNslxSc/>

jeanne: invites people to indicate preferred group via Zoom; or inform me ...

jeanne: will regroup here 5 min ahead of the hour

[Full group resumes following breakouts]

jeanne: Asks for reports ...

Rachael: works on guidelines, but finished one; great conversation about how to define units; will write up

Chuck: Focussed on one subguideline using term "tooltip," probably not best term because of possible HTML conflict

<Jem> +1 to JF regarding tool tip

Chuck: discussed other naming options

jf: Landed on "just in time mechanism" as the abstraction

<Jem> tooltip is the widget ARIA APG is still working on via three deep dive meetings.

maryjom: Good discussion for objective testing; would need some protocols; a style guide to define how to identify consistently and would test to that

jeanne: thanks everyone and reminds current WBS and PleASE spread the word and attend next Tuesday's AGWG!

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/will/expected to begin/

Succeeded: s/begin begin/begin/

Succeeded: s/yep, will shut up now :-)//