Silver Task Force & Community Group

08 July 2022


janina, jenniferS, Lauriat, Makoto, Rachael, sarahhorton, shadi, ToddL

Meeting minutes

<Lauriat> Checking https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

review the surveys for AG next week

jeanne: Notes several surveys to respond to this week

<jeanne> Survey email => https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2022Jul/0005.html

jeanne: 3 this week

jeanne: First from Protocols group

jeanne: Breaks down differences and requests preferred direction

jeanne: Also note that surveys are closing 30 minutes ahead of the AG call

jeanne: Second we will talk about shortly

jeanne: Third relates to the AG proposed charter

new subgroup participation

<jeanne> Subgroup handbook

jeanne: Notes first put forward a couple weeks ago; these are time boxed to 8 weeks

jeanne: Available subgroups are listed and participation solicited

jeanne: Thjese are setup to help inform TPAC discussion and decisioning

jeanne: Seeking 4-6 people per group; expect 4 hours per week

jeanne: Lists groups---

jeanne: Scoping -- will examine using SEO

jeanne: test types and terminology -- which has been our migration conversation in great part

jeanne: Equity -- Ways to better support different pwd groupings

jeanne: Want to define problems and use cases against we can test candidate conformance solutions

jeanne: Also Accessibility Supported

<jenniferS> I'd like to support Equity.

jeanne: Issue Severity

jeanne: Notes als that group telecon scheduling is in the survey

Rachael: Reinforces 8 week time box; will come back to AG conversation;

maryjom: 4 hours may be difficult as am starting up WCAG2ICT work

jeanne: Understood, and thanks for work you're doing!

jenniferS: Asks how to choose what group?

<jeanne> Survey

jeanne: Anyone unable to access WBS, please let Jeanne know asap

continuing the migration categorization exercise

<jeanne> spreadsheet for Migration

janina: Notes my review of 2.2.6 doesn't fit a good approach for 3.0

Lauriat: Also ran into challenges, no objective or conditional tests that I can thank of

Lauriat: Inherently so high level that it depends on how the content works

Lauriat: Seems all we can say is support multiple ways

Lauriat: Appears no opportunity to be perscriptive

Lauriat: Would want to say need to switch from using keyboard to mouse, and other combos; but possibly too many permutations to list out

jeanne: Think we need to write this up as a use case

jeanne: A good example of objective test problem

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ngJI9bh7ZhED362uAFq1S9CWtSZqbk4aZgqfsIfhfj8/edit

Lauriat: 2.4.5 multiple ways have some examples written up

Lauriat: notes protocols could be declared to help ensure this can happen

Lauriat: but don't see an ACT type breakdown

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to describe the interesting challenge I've had with multiple ways & concurrent input mechanisms

jeanne: Suggest to Rachael capturing some of these challenges could be helpful

Rachael: Will start Google Doc to do so

Rachael: Also ran into different challenges with Visible Controls; some pass fail, but not everywhere; different levels of test types

<jeanne> New Use Cases document

jeanne: Encourages people to add a para about challenges encountered in this exercise

Rachael: suggests a second part to capture lessons learned

jeanne: Suggests people pick another SC still unaddressed and repeat our process with it

jeanne: 24 remain

jeanne: Please put 'partial' and your name so that it's evident you're working on it

ToddL: Took on 2.5.5 and 2.5.8 -- when do we meet as a group on these again?

jeanne: We're doing them individually for now. Too many for now

jeanne: Though group efforts are welcome

jeanne: Noting a link error -- but suggests Google Drive if such are encountered

jeanne: Asks if anyone wants a small group breakout room?


<jenniferS> I just had an urgent PDF remediation ask pop up, gotta run! Have a good weekend!

<ToddL> I need edit permission on the doc I am going to be editing, please. Thank you.

jeanne: Invites people to return to group discussion--questions? comments?

tod: Need edit access

sarahhorton: wondering--concerned about specificity of functional and user needs; should we focus on categories, not subcategories?

sarahhorton: found myself at the higher level just to be able to move forward

jeanne: also did that; I think it's ok

jeanne: It's a judgement call

sarahhorton: was wondering whether others have had that challenge

jeanne: at some point a group will take another pass and work on these

Lauriat: Also finding it useful to go for high level

<Rachael> Reading level was a counter example where it really applies specifically to written language

Lauriat: I found a couple exceptions; but mostly highest broadest possible

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to offer On Input example for functional & user needs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/147AYYE5p1L96GKz5A63NcN9k_APYS1EWXwTBLhGrzb0/edit

Lauriat: Also +1 that this is a first pass and will be revisited

jeanne: thanks everyone!

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).


Maybe present: jeanne, maryjom, tod