Silver Task Force & Community Group

17 June 2022


Azlan, janina, jeanne, Lauriat, Makoto, maryjom, Poornima, sarahhorton

Meeting minutes

Meeting on 1 July (US holiday weekend)?

<janina> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Chuck> +1 Jeanne to attending July 1

<maryjom> +1

<sarahhorton> -1

<Chuck> Chuck: 0 Uncertain

<Lauriat> +.5 (maybe)

<Poornima> +1

RESOLUTION: Silver will not meet for the July 1st instance of the Silver call.

Report from the conformance options sub-group

<janina> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G9q082IFl4Rj4o07qMx8Y_5oFoDN7Lmx-5i3ViROpD8/

janina: we are presenting a summary of use cases. This is another view we will present to AGWG on Tuesday. There is a two page summary as the full document is large.

We have been talking about options to incorporate the concerns but we have realised these use cases impact a wider range of groups than just conformance.

We have recently been asked to consider an impact statement which we believe to be a good approach but cannot do this in time for Tuesday.

Chuck: You've identified there will be impact to other groups will that be explained on Tuesday or addressed?

janina: We are exploring ways this needs to be addressed but the use cases on their own are a central repository that should be separated out.

we looked at partial conformance and questioned whether this is technical or policy.

jeanne: Have not been able to split out that document yet

janina: we think we have arranged the situations from least to most controversial. We would appreciate feedback on that.

<Chuck> +1 using strategy of starting from least controversial and scaling up to "most"

Migration Exercise

<Chuck> I did not

<Chuck> I would be interested in discussing now?

Poornima: we were working on labels and instructions. It would be good to consolidate all the related information for these under these guidelines.

sarahhorton: It's been a helpful exercise to tease apart the intent behind labels and instructions. Is the exercise also about ideating what this should be including as we move forward?

jeanne: We don't want to expand too much but we want to be based on user needs. Part of what we want to do is to reorganise things.

But we don't want to be breaking ground on new items not based on research

<Poornima> +1 to sarah's points

sarahhorton: we could create a set of requirements that pull from different requirements to create something focussed on labels and instructions. I want to ensure we are doing the right work for the migration process.

<Makoto> +1 to Sarah's points as well

jeanne: Suggest staying high level - the big things we want to categorise are the types of tests and the scope.

sarahhorton: break down the use case and user needs into granular testable units

Chuck: Janina experienced a similar thing with regards to captioning

Makoto: there are sufficient techniques to assiciate labels with form controls under 1.1.1, 1.3.1 and others which makes this complicated

Poornima: Can we include notes for the cross-referencing?

jeanne: Including in the notes is probably the way forwards

Chuck: Looking forward to seeing those notes with the references

jeanne: people have long been talking bout the need to break up 1.3.1

On Tuesday we will ask everyone to take success criteria and work on them. We would like to do a dry run of this.

<jeanne> Assignment spreadsheet

<Poornima> just fyi - I added Google doc link for 'Labels and Instructions' in the spreadsheet

<Lauriat> Thank you!

Summary of resolutions

  1. Silver will not meet for the July 1st instance of the Silver call.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/1.1.3/1.3.1

Maybe present: Chuck