14:55:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
14:55:30 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/07-silver-conf-irc
14:55:41 <janina> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
14:55:50 <janina> Date: 7 Jul 2022
14:56:01 <janina> Date: 07 Jul 2022
14:56:07 <janina> Chair: Janina
14:56:12 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
14:56:55 <janina> agenda?
14:56:56 <janina> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
14:56:57 <janina> agenda+ Tieing up loose ends
14:56:57 <janina> agenda+ Other Business
14:56:57 <janina> agenda+ Be Done
14:57:08 <janina>  rrsagent, make log public
14:57:14 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
14:57:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/07-silver-conf-minutes.html janina
15:52:28 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver-conf
15:54:26 <jeanne> agenda?
15:55:57 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
15:55:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/07-silver-conf-minutes.html janina
15:57:27 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #silver-conf
15:57:50 <GreggVan> present+
15:59:24 <shadi> shadi has joined #silver-conf
15:59:32 <janina> present+
15:59:49 <shadi> present
15:59:52 <shadi> present+
16:00:19 <jeanne> present+
16:01:02 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver-conf
16:01:21 <DarrylLehmann> DarrylLehmann has joined #silver-conf
16:01:34 <shadi> scribe: shadi
16:01:35 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver-conf
16:01:41 <Azlan> present+
16:01:43 <DarrylLehmann> present+
16:02:08 <shadi> agenda?
16:02:14 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #silver-conf
16:02:21 <Wilco_> present+
16:02:32 <shadi> zakim, take up next
16:02:32 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
16:03:06 <shadi> Janina: objective for today is to tie up lose ends
16:03:28 <shadi> ...still not sure which stage we can get to
16:03:48 <shadi> ...but hope to be able to finish up in the coming week or two
16:04:23 <shadi> ...chairs want us to finish this iteration of work
16:04:58 <shadi> ...chairs want to turn focus to TPAC preparations
16:05:28 <DarrylLehmann> q+
16:06:02 <shadi> Jeanne: several groups starting
16:06:12 <shadi> ...these have short timeframes
16:06:15 <Wilco_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/subgroups-2022-06/
16:06:36 <shadi> ...will be discussed during Tuesday AGWG call
16:07:28 <shadi> Darryl: how to I contribute as a non-W3C member?
16:07:37 <shadi> s/to I/do I
16:08:28 <shadi> Jeanne: Silver surveys should be open to the Silver CG
16:08:29 <SusanaPallero> SusanaPallero has joined #silver-conf
16:08:33 <SusanaPallero> present+
16:08:54 <shadi> ...please let the chairs know if you don't get access to a survey
16:08:59 <Wilco_> group-ag-plan@w3.org
16:09:29 <shadi> zakim, take up next
16:09:29 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, shadi
16:09:35 <shadi> queue=
16:09:36 <shadi> zakim, take up next
16:09:36 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Tieing up loose ends -- taken up [from janina]
16:10:00 <janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2022Jul/0003.html
16:11:13 <shadi> Gregg: hardly any changes to the examples themselves
16:11:29 <shadi> ...most edits to the recommendations after that
16:11:44 <shadi> ...many of them were repetive and generic
16:12:06 <shadi> ...created a new section called "Universal Recommendations"
16:12:18 <shadi> ...to have these things only once
16:12:37 <janina> present+
16:12:37 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #silver-conf
16:12:43 <ToddL> present+
16:13:00 <janina> q?
16:13:31 <shadi> ...after hearing concerns from Judy, also revised sections on policy guidance
16:14:21 <shadi> ...rolled that section into the guidance documents section
16:15:38 <shadi> q+
16:15:57 <janina> q?
16:16:02 <janina> q+
16:16:19 <shadi> ...tried to keep all content from the original document
16:16:45 <jeanne> q+ to disagree that there are no ways that technical can help #1.  Also disagree thatt setting priority is not done in technical
16:17:17 <Wilco_> scribe: Wilco
16:17:17 <janina> ack sh
16:17:25 <janina> scribe+ janina
16:17:38 <janina> shadi: Likes overall enhancements ...
16:18:37 <janina> shadi: Concerned putting policies under guidance -- we're not telling what to do, but the considerations that should go into policies
16:18:56 <janina> shadi: liked that we separated use cases and recomendations
16:19:14 <janina> shadi: wonders whether we should consider whether we have consensus on use cases?
16:19:57 <janina> shadi: Unsure "universal" section is all that useful because not that much in it
16:20:30 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #silver-conf
16:21:44 <shadi> Janina: we already separated out the use cases before going to AGWG
16:22:29 <shadi> Gregg: changed "Universal Recommendations" to "Generic Recommendations"
16:22:34 <shadi> q+ to respond
16:22:40 <jeanne> Use Cases without recommendations or solutions -> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/
16:22:50 <shadi> q-
16:23:26 <shadi> Gregg: sometimes use cases had some implicit argumentation
16:24:03 <maryjom> present+
16:24:06 <shadi> ...if we want to move forward with the use cases, then we should take a pass
16:24:56 <jeanne> ack me
16:24:56 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to disagree that there are no ways that technical can help #1.  Also disagree thatt setting priority is not done in technical
16:25:00 <janina> ack jean
16:25:24 <shadi> Jeanne: concerned about not providing a prioritization like A, AA, and AAA in WCAG currently
16:25:39 <shadi> ...think there are other technical aspects as well
16:26:13 <janina> ack jan
16:26:16 <shadi> Janina: concerned about other statements in the document that seem overly binary and simplistic
16:26:46 <shadi> Gregg: this is not the final document, happy to discuss
16:26:49 <janina> q?
16:27:22 <shadi> q+
16:27:25 <janina> q+
16:28:19 <shadi> ...agree with having overall categories but was concerned with some of the text
16:30:03 <jeanne> q+ to describe the results of the research study that Silver did where they took each SC and tried to prioritize it by blocker, and found that almost every SC was a blocker to some disability group.  The recommendation was that we do not use "blocker" as a way of prioritizing
16:30:49 <janina> shadi: mixed response -- happy to clarify; e.g. at least label
16:31:19 <janina> shadi: But "that's enough" wan't there before ...
16:32:15 <janina> shadi: emphasis on transparency, not accessible vs. not accessible
16:33:17 <jeanne> +1 Shadi
16:33:30 <janina> shadi: hoping we can build more nuance in; not sure how to achieve that, but we can work on it
16:34:00 <shadi> Janina: some aspects of metadata missing in my view
16:35:31 <shadi> ...labeling is important to get help, for example
16:36:01 <janina> ack jan
16:36:09 <shadi> ack sha
16:36:14 <janina> ack jea
16:36:14 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to describe the results of the research study that Silver did where they took each SC and tried to prioritize it by blocker, and found that almost every SC was a
16:36:17 <Zakim> ... blocker to some disability group.  The recommendation was that we do not use "blocker" as a way of prioritizing
16:37:21 <shadi> Jeanne: take away was to look at things in context
16:37:32 <jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/
16:38:12 <shadi> ...suggest we try to focus on the use cases ahead of TPAC
16:38:25 <shadi> ...and circle back to recommendations after TPAC
16:38:29 <janina> q?
16:38:40 <shadi> q+
16:39:17 <janina> q+
16:39:22 <shadi> Gregg: labeling still in there
16:40:08 <shadi> ...question if this is technical/normative vs informative/guidance?
16:40:27 <shadi> ...would labeling be a way of making it accessible
16:44:14 <janina> shadi: suggest a reframing -- instead of each sc critical to someone -- suggest instead consider how to restructure WCAG to better capture nuances
16:45:25 <janina> shadi: notes constraints of partial conformance
16:45:44 <janina> shadi: so we could do better by labeling without judging accessible or not
16:46:12 <shadi> q?
16:46:16 <shadi> queue=
16:46:35 <shadi> Janina: do we have agreement on the use cases?
16:46:39 <GreggVan> q+
16:46:48 <janina> topic: Use Cases Only Review
16:46:55 <jeanne> Use Cases Only -> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/
16:47:13 <janina> ack gr
16:47:14 <shadi> q+
16:47:40 <shadi> Gregg: don't think we can review these in the coming 15 minutes
16:47:53 <shadi> ...need to review offline
16:47:59 <janina> ack sh
16:48:19 <janina> shadi: q to Jeanne ...
16:48:50 <janina> shadi: Believe there are some changes in GV's intro text we could pick up; also some retitling of situations from AGWG presentation (live)
16:48:54 <maryjom> q+
16:48:54 <GreggVan> q+
16:49:06 <janina> q?
16:49:13 <janina> ack ma
16:49:15 <shadi> Jeanne: not addressed, need to look at those
16:49:30 <shadi> MaryJo: problem description is duplicated
16:50:25 <shadi> ...also wall of text
16:50:35 <shadi> ...GitHub pull requests OK?
16:50:44 <shadi> Gregg: would these collide?
16:51:08 <shadi> MaryJo: could start with GV comments and pass on the pull request for others to review
16:51:13 <janina> ack g
16:51:50 <janina> q?
16:51:59 <shadi> Gregg: introduction describes structure that is not there anymore
16:52:13 <shadi> Janina: want to focus on the use cases next week
16:52:32 <shadi> ...good set of situations to set context
16:52:40 <jeanne> q+ to ask which paragraph to delete
16:52:42 <shadi> ...then come back to recommendations
16:53:41 <janina> https://www.w3.org/TR/saur
16:54:31 <Wilco_> q+
16:55:17 <shadi> Janina: could draw potential requirements from SAUR
16:55:32 <jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/
16:55:51 <shadi> Jeanne: last sentence in the intro is different in each copy
16:56:36 <shadi> zakim, end meeting
16:56:37 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been GreggVan, janina, shadi, jeanne, Azlan, DarrylLehmann, Wilco_, SusanaPallero, ToddL, maryjom
16:56:39 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:56:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/07-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim
16:56:42 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, shadi; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:56:47 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf
18:21:04 <MichaelC> MichaelC has joined #silver-conf