– DRAFT –
Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

present

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

Janina: objective for today is to tie up lose ends
… still not sure which stage we can get to
… but hope to be able to finish up in the coming week or two
… chairs want us to finish this iteration of work
… chairs want to turn focus to TPAC preparations

Jeanne: several groups starting
… these have short timeframes

<Wilco_> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/subgroups-2022-06/

Jeanne: will be discussed during Tuesday AGWG call

Darryl: how do I contribute as a non-W3C member?

Jeanne: Silver surveys should be open to the Silver CG
… please let the chairs know if you don't get access to a survey

<Wilco_> group-ag-plan@w3.org

Tieing up loose ends

<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2022Jul/0003.html

Gregg: hardly any changes to the examples themselves
… most edits to the recommendations after that
… many of them were repetive and generic
… created a new section called "Universal Recommendations"
… to have these things only once
… after hearing concerns from Judy, also revised sections on policy guidance
… rolled that section into the guidance documents section
… tried to keep all content from the original document

shadi: Likes overall enhancements ...

shadi: Concerned putting policies under guidance -- we're not telling what to do, but the considerations that should go into policies

shadi: liked that we separated use cases and recomendations

shadi: wonders whether we should consider whether we have consensus on use cases?

shadi: Unsure "universal" section is all that useful because not that much in it

<shadi> Janina: we already separated out the use cases before going to AGWG

<shadi> Gregg: changed "Universal Recommendations" to "Generic Recommendations"

<jeanne> Use Cases without recommendations or solutions

<shadi> Gregg: sometimes use cases had some implicit argumentation

<shadi> ...if we want to move forward with the use cases, then we should take a pass

<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

<shadi> Jeanne: concerned about not providing a prioritization like A, AA, and AAA in WCAG currently

<shadi> ...think there are other technical aspects as well

<shadi> Janina: concerned about other statements in the document that seem overly binary and simplistic

<shadi> Gregg: this is not the final document, happy to discuss

<shadi> ...agree with having overall categories but was concerned with some of the text

shadi: mixed response -- happy to clarify; e.g. at least label

shadi: But "that's enough" wan't there before ...

shadi: emphasis on transparency, not accessible vs. not accessible

<jeanne> +1 Shadi

shadi: hoping we can build more nuance in; not sure how to achieve that, but we can work on it

<shadi> Janina: some aspects of metadata missing in my view

<shadi> ...labeling is important to get help, for example

<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 blocker to some disability group. The recommendation was that we do not use "blocker" as a way of prioritizing

<shadi> Jeanne: take away was to look at things in context

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/

<shadi> ...suggest we try to focus on the use cases ahead of TPAC

<shadi> ...and circle back to recommendations after TPAC

<shadi> Gregg: labeling still in there

<shadi> ...question if this is technical/normative vs informative/guidance?

<shadi> ...would labeling be a way of making it accessible

shadi: suggest a reframing -- instead of each sc critical to someone -- suggest instead consider how to restructure WCAG to better capture nuances

shadi: notes constraints of partial conformance

shadi: so we could do better by labeling without judging accessible or not

<shadi> Janina: do we have agreement on the use cases?

Use Cases Only Review

<jeanne> Use Cases Only

<shadi> Gregg: don't think we can review these in the coming 15 minutes

<shadi> ...need to review offline

shadi: q to Jeanne ...

shadi: Believe there are some changes in GV's intro text we could pick up; also some retitling of situations from AGWG presentation (live)

<shadi> Jeanne: not addressed, need to look at those

<shadi> MaryJo: problem description is duplicated

<shadi> ...also wall of text

<shadi> ...GitHub pull requests OK?

<shadi> Gregg: would these collide?

<shadi> MaryJo: could start with GV comments and pass on the pull request for others to review

<shadi> Gregg: introduction describes structure that is not there anymore

<shadi> Janina: want to focus on the use cases next week

<shadi> ...good set of situations to set context

<shadi> ...then come back to recommendations

https://www.w3.org/TR/saur

<shadi> Janina: could draw potential requirements from SAUR

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/

<shadi> Jeanne: last sentence in the intro is different in each copy