14:28:04 RRSAgent has joined #ag 14:28:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/07/26-ag-irc 14:28:14 rrsagent, make logs world 14:28:24 rrsagent, generate minutes 14:28:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/26-ag-minutes.html Chuck 14:28:32 chair: Chuck 14:28:41 Zakim, start meeting 14:28:41 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:28:43 Meeting: AGWG Teleconference 14:28:46 present+ 14:28:54 meeting: AGWG-2022-07-25 14:30:07 regrets: Jake Abma, Gundula Niemann, Todd Libby, Bruce Bailey, Rain Michaels 14:30:52 regrets: Jake Abma, Gundula Niemann, Todd Libby, Bruce Bailey, Rain Michaels, Wilco Fiers 14:31:03 agenda+ Announcements 14:31:08 agenda? 14:31:16 zakim, clear agenda 14:31:16 agenda cleared 14:31:25 agenda+ Announcements 14:32:38 agenda+ Scoping Presentation & Discussion 14:32:46 agenda+ Subgroup Intros and Q&A 14:32:56 agenda+ Silver Task Force Transition 14:33:05 agenda+ Revisiting Functional and User Needs 14:33:12 agenda? 14:42:02 Rachael, are you able to join the call a bit early? 14:55:20 Jennie has joined #ag 14:55:22 jeanne has joined #ag 14:55:28 present+ 14:55:32 scribe: Jennie 14:55:41 present+ 14:57:01 Francis_Storr has joined #ag 14:57:20 present+ 14:57:53 Ben_Tillyer has joined #ag 14:57:55 present+ 14:59:28 mbgower has joined #ag 14:59:35 present+ 14:59:49 joweismantel has joined #ag 14:59:58 present+ 15:00:04 Lauriat has joined #ag 15:00:37 Present+ 15:00:41 Chuck: We will be starting in a few minutes. We will formally start at 2 minutes after 15:00:44 present+ 15:00:48 ShawnT has joined #ag 15:01:07 present+ 15:01:15 present+ 15:01:15 present+ 15:01:18 Chuck: We will start in 1 minute 15:01:29 Fazio has joined #ag 15:01:29 ...Please use present plus if you have not already done so 15:01:38 present+ 15:02:14 Chuck: Welcome 15:02:20 ...We have a scribe for hour 1 15:02:31 ...We need a scribe for hour 2. Please volunteer 15:02:41 ...Does anyone on the call want to introduce themselves? 15:03:02 ...Does anyone have in mind new topics? 15:03:09 ...We keep a list for future meetings. 15:03:13 zakim, take up item 1 15:03:13 agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:03:24 GreggVan has joined #ag 15:03:28 https://www.w3.org/2022/09/TPAC/registration.html 15:03:32 Chuck: Reminder: TPAC registration 15:03:39 laura has joined #ag 15:03:42 ...Please register if you intend to participate in person or remotely 15:03:48 KimD has joined #ag 15:03:53 ...Early bird: available until August 5th, with substantial savings 15:03:56 ...50% 15:04:06 https://www.w3.org/2022/09/TPAC/registration.html#inclusion-fund 15:04:12 sarahhorton has joined #ag 15:04:15 ...Also, reminder: inclusion fund and honorarium 15:04:16 jon_avila has joined #ag 15:04:22 present+ 15:04:24 ...This can help with funding 15:04:52 shadi has joined #ag 15:05:02 Makoto has joined #ag 15:05:05 present+ 15:05:06 ...If you are interested in WCAG to ICT, please contact Michael Cooper 15:05:18 present+ 15:05:30 ...We have not yet begun meeting, but after a few more milestones are reached we will begin 15:05:33 q? 15:05:38 q- 15:05:45 ack Shawn 15:05:51 q- 15:05:52 present+ Laura_Carlson 15:06:02 Chuck: The final announcement 15:06:08 ...A minor change for scribing 15:06:08 janina_ has joined #ag 15:06:16 ...We will follow what Silver is doing 15:06:26 ...We will keep a list of regular participants that are also able to scribe 15:06:35 ...That list - we will start from the top, go to the bottom. 15:06:39 +1 15:06:46 ...Those that have scribed recently will be moved to the bottom of the list 15:07:01 ...When needing a scribe, this helps selecting people that have not scribed in a while 15:07:06 ...We will be putting together this list 15:07:15 So we need to sign up for remote TPAC if we want to attend any of the AG calls during TPAC week? 15:07:16 q+ 15:07:18 ...If you feel that you are not an effective scriber, send an email to the chairs 15:07:24 ...We will ensure you are not on the list 15:07:37 ...This will help guide us on who to ask 15:07:45 ack Rach 15:07:47 ...This will not increase pressure to scribe 15:07:55 AWK has joined #ag 15:07:58 Rachael: We are moving to implementation testing in the next week 15:08:02 +AWK 15:08:08 ...If you are willing to be a tester for WCAG 2.2 please email the chairs 15:08:13 q? 15:08:16 ...The more testers we have, the faster we can get through this 15:08:20 zakim, take up next item 15:08:20 agendum 2 -- Scoping Presentation & Discussion -- taken up [from Chuck] 15:08:38 Chuck: Mike Gower and Francis have been working on this 15:08:44 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Oqb_nhqIGDtmEIOQEfHPu4HNfk1WDtvn/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=118419493369958965106&rtpof=true&sd=true 15:08:57 Raf has joined #ag 15:09:01 present+jon_avila 15:09:13 Also: Rachael and Shawn working on it :) 15:09:23 Mbgower: we will take questions at the end 15:09:57 ...This is an exploratory discussion 15:10:01 ...It will not lead to a vote 15:10:09 ...other than some terminology 15:10:41 ...(reviews agenda) 15:11:03 ...Problem statement: this statement captures some of the considerations we were chasing 15:11:14 ...(reads problem statement) 15:11:42 ...We will talk about 2 main areas 15:11:54 ...We were trying to touch on key concepts 15:12:01 ...What is the smallest unit we test against 15:12:09 ...Answer: the user interface component 15:12:10 q+ 15:12:30 ...Focus appearance brought interesting questions 15:12:41 ...All of us perceive things differently 15:12:46 Hi Ben, other than the preso link and sharing, I don't think we have an alternate version to share at this time, but I will ask when we get to Q&A 15:12:52 ...One lesson: even when something is subjective we can derive benefit 15:12:53 q+ to ask about alternate versions 15:13:12 reminder to all that I will process queue at the end of presentation 15:13:12 ...For focus appearance: you can make something look like a button that is not coded as a button 15:13:25 ...User centered approach: we need to understand how the user perceives these 15:13:31 ...Another thing: sub-components 15:13:36 ...Like menu items in a menu 15:13:51 ...They can appear to take focus - do people perceive this as its own user interface component? 15:13:58 ...Same thing with a menu bar, or a ribbon 15:14:08 ...Do people perceive them as a single user interface component? 15:14:17 ...Another question: afforances like chevrons 15:14:27 ...If we assess this, do we need to assess smaller units? 15:14:53 ...And, what about graphs (visual constructs)? Sound? Touch? 15:15:11 ...Some, like text: labels are perceived by most people to be part of the user interface component 15:15:20 ...Other things are page or process oriented 15:15:31 SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag 15:15:36 ...Another important thing: we don't have to reinvent the wheel 15:15:49 ...Lots have come out since 2.0 came out 15:16:04 ...Ultimately: what moves us towards repeatable, measureable, consistent results 15:16:15 ...1 example of subcomponents is on slide 5 15:16:32 ...Left picture: date input, with text above it. 15:16:53 Right picture: calendar widget, is the calendar part of the input, or more than 1? 15:16:56 Jen_G has joined #ag 15:17:08 Present+ 15:17:13 ...There is focus on the actual year - you infer you could move the year 15:17:22 ...There are left and right arrows for moving through the months 15:17:31 ...These are affordances - are they their own components? 15:17:41 ...Affordances: besides all the numbers in black, one is in blue 15:17:46 ...That is the 24th of July 15:17:51 ...It also has a dot 15:17:56 ...It indicates the day it is 15:18:07 ...How best to convey what it is important? 15:18:33 ...Native HTML input has a calendar input, but I have seen some without a calendar input - is this a failure? 15:18:45 ...Sometimes this helps us make an assessment 15:18:50 ...Moving on - slide 6 15:19:04 ...This was discussed on one call 15:19:12 ...Objective and subjective need a definition 15:19:20 ...An exercise can help with terminology 15:19:33 ...Objective test (reads from the slide) 15:19:46 ...high: we debated putting 100% here 15:20:28 ...Focus appearance: hopefully it is repeatable, and measurable, easily 15:20:33 ...Slide 8 15:20:42 ...Are the 2.x criteria objective or subjective? 15:21:03 Link to exercise on slide: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vLuxeNwdgkSS0wenjAcm9eQlYMSGtwCHP125QYbSOKI/edit?usp=sharing 15:21:05 ...Our view: if it is not objective, it is subjective 15:21:13 ...We broke out the wording 15:21:37 0 15:21:38 ...How many do you think are each? 15:21:56 ...Our answer: all ended under both 15:21:57 Completely objective = 0 15:22:06 ...I extended this to first 3 dozen 15:22:18 ...We moved to a 5-point continuum 15:22:26 ...Totally subjective to the opposite 15:22:35 ...34 fell outside the endpoints 15:22:48 ...1 was pretty objective, 1 was pretty subjective 15:22:50 ...Slide 9 15:22:56 ...1.4.2 audio control 15:23:02 ...Fully objective? 15:23:16 q+ to ask about "objective" testing and evaluating such 15:23:18 ...3 seconds is subjective 15:23:30 ...But it creates a clear condition against which we can measure 15:23:36 3 sec is not subjective. It may be arbitrary 15:23:41 ...If it was 2 or 4, you still would have something to measure against 15:23:57 ...You may end up with discussion around rounding 15:24:18 ...The requirements are very specific 15:24:28 ...You have an understanding of when you arrive at yes 15:24:32 OmarBonilla has joined #ag 15:24:36 ...1.4.9 Images of Text 15:24:44 ...(reads from slide 10) 15:25:05 ...Getting everyone to agree on pure definition, and essential will be difficult to get everyone to agree on 15:25:13 ...And significant other visual content 15:25:24 ...This is purely subjective criteria 15:25:27 ...Those are the extremes 15:25:30 ...Slide 11 15:25:35 present+ 15:25:56 ...Non-text content could use more granularity 15:26:10 ...(reads from slide 11) 15:26:33 ...Example from the exercise: pulled out the objective and subjective parts 15:26:45 ..."has a text alternative" and "that serves the equivalent purpose" 15:27:02 ...Can we get to more objective by making a few tweaks? 15:27:06 ...Slide 12 15:27:26 ...Does the image have an attribute? 15:27:32 ...Is the code good? 15:27:46 ...Looking at it this way you start to see some truism 15:27:55 ...You can begin to see things that help be consistent 15:28:07 ...It is a lot easier to answer within the confines of some technology 15:28:17 q+ to say This is very useful and helpful work, kudos! Did you look at the work that Test Reliability did in how to write Outcomes and Methods? 15:28:19 ...Whether or not there is an image tag on the page is easy to get people to agree on 15:28:33 ...You can imply some of these concepts, and get some clarify 15:28:39 ...clarity 15:28:51 ...You can apply this to different success criteria 15:29:12 ...More consistent reporting should be considered 15:29:19 ...(slide 13) 15:29:39 ...Do we need 1000 words to get to the equivalent purpose? And would anyone find that helpful? 15:29:50 ...Image is a dog, with a blurry background 15:29:58 ...But you could say a lot of things about this dog 15:30:13 ..."Dog" may not sufficiently describe this picture 15:30:26 MarcJohlic has joined #ag 15:30:37 ...People could have different perceptions of these descriptions 15:31:04 ...There are many different ways to think about this photo 15:31:16 ...If we assess for other criteria (slide 14) 15:31:33 Peter_Bossley has joined #ag 15:31:36 ...Singular vs plural - this would provide clarity 15:31:40 present+ 15:31:51 ...Could discount words like the 15:31:58 ...To get a minimum number of words 15:32:19 ...Subject/object, or Noun/verb 15:32:33 ...Context: is it in the user process on a dog buying website? 15:32:40 ...Is there a caption? 15:32:49 ...Maybe then it is more relevant 15:33:00 ...We need to think what the page is about 15:33:04 ...(slide 15) 15:33:25 ...Left: a Golden Retriever running, ball in its mouth, leaves on the grass 15:33:35 ...Right: 4 dogs, on a white background 15:33:44 ...They all have different poses, different kinds of dogs 15:33:56 ...The 2nd image is from an article about breeds that live the longest 15:34:02 ...Alt text then might describe the breedds 15:34:18 ...There is nothing about Irish Setters in the article - so surprising it is there 15:34:24 ...Is it being in the background important? 15:34:59 ...(makes a comment about how dogs are not that important to him!!!!) LOL - comment from the scribe 15:35:06 "Love of my life" 15:35:06 ...(slide 16) 15:35:20 ...Looking at 1.1.1 15:35:32 ...Lots talking about short text alternative, then long text alternative 15:35:39 ...What if there was a criteria only for images 15:35:53 ...Text alternative: describe brief, accurate 15:36:14 ...Research could probably arrive on what is brief 15:36:21 ...It might not be perfect, but it could be more testable 15:36:27 ...There could be a criteria for important images 15:36:32 ...This could be flagged by the author 15:36:51 ...Equivalent purpose could be used for important images 15:37:06 ...Majority of users needs to be considered 15:37:40 ...Discussion also needs to happen about longdesc 15:37:58 ...Smaller set of images now need discussion around equivalent purpose 15:38:14 ...All of this would take a lot of research 15:38:28 ...This might get us closer to something for a subjective condition, and more objective results for 1.1.1 15:38:32 ...(slide 17) 15:38:55 Francis: Dogs are clearly important - per the chat discussion! 15:39:02 ...(reads from slide 17) 15:39:21 ...On slide 18 it breaks this down 15:39:31 ...Objective tests for label in name 15:40:12 ...(slide 19): Subjective tests for Label in Name 15:40:13 JF has joined #ag 15:40:21 present+ 15:40:24 ...what jumps out to me is the one about images of text 15:40:35 Mbgower: (slide 20) 15:40:44 ...Some of the strategies that when into improving reliability 15:40:53 ...Objective outcomes could help 15:40:59 ...We can get to more measurable baseline 15:41:11 ...(reads from slide) 15:41:36 ...Changes of context: made without user's awareness 15:41:47 ...Then there is a list of different things that constitute that 15:42:00 ...Where do we put them? What if they are not exhausted? 15:42:25 ...The condition itself doesn't have to be perfect 15:42:32 ...But using them makes things more testable 15:42:34 For those who may have recently joined, I will process queue at the conclusion of this presentation 15:42:53 ...If you only think about a question around a component - maybe there is a way to arrive at clarity that way 15:43:00 ...Decision trees can help 15:43:12 ...This can improve reliability 15:43:28 ...Things don't always break down to subjective/objective 15:43:32 ...(slide 21) 15:43:40 ...This slide has scoping terminology from the Spring 15:44:02 ...We are wondering if item is really descriptive enough? 15:44:08 ...Maybe we have a list like UIC image 15:44:19 ...A baseline item we want to consider 15:44:33 ...Views - page at URI or other, container... 15:44:39 ...View seems to be something people can live with 15:44:44 ThompsonS has joined #ag 15:44:46 q+ to say goal is to create a temporary shared way of talking about these terms 15:44:46 ...It seems to serve its purpose right now 15:44:50 ...An earlier draft said processes 15:45:01 ...That seems to have held up pretty well 15:45:15 ...It is kind of, like view, let's us assess things beyond the component level 15:45:22 ...Finally - aggregate 15:45:27 ...Whole site? 15:45:35 ...At the moment, we don't need to nail this down more 15:45:45 ...Our view: the terminology for these are holding up 15:45:51 ...but consider a few items 15:45:55 ...(slide 22) 15:46:06 ...We think slight differences in terminology would be helpful 15:46:11 ...Usually something has a condition 15:46:16 ...Unconditional is confusing 15:46:21 ...3 second audio is a condition 15:46:26 ...leads to a consistent outcome 15:46:31 ...I have a star by binary 15:46:46 ...What can we get away with high reliability? 15:46:56 ...Can the measure be 100% but not the outcome? 15:47:11 ...For conditional: educated judgement call may change reliability 15:47:34 ...We had some other terms, but quality and objective - if we can agreement on those, that might help 15:47:42 ...The procedural subgroup is working on the definition 15:47:58 ...Conventional: this is a bit of a curve ball 15:48:06 ...This is a good point to hand this over to Shawn 15:48:10 ...(slide 23) 15:48:28 Shawn: Yes, I dug into multiple ways 15:48:31 q+ need more rigor regarding alternative text 15:48:34 ...(reads from slide 23) 15:48:38 q+ 15:49:13 ...(slide 24) 15:49:24 ...There really aren't any objective aspects 15:49:40 ...This is measurable in pieces, but requires you to look at the aggregate overall 15:50:04 ...Site map and search are in the Understanding Document, but not a complete list 15:50:10 ...There are subjective bits 15:50:16 ...I have some here, there are probably more 15:50:22 ...(reads from slide) 15:50:34 ...Can you get to every page through search? 15:50:43 ...Do you need to know a particular title to get there through search? 15:50:56 ...(slide 25) 15:51:03 ...Test case 15:51:16 ...needs context of the larger site 15:51:20 ...This needs a test case 15:51:32 ...The ways we can help people create test cases for their own context 15:51:38 ...(reads from slides) 15:51:58 ...This is now more objective 15:52:15 ...Do all of these pages exist in the outline listed here? Needs this context built through the test case 15:52:21 ...(slide 26) 15:52:26 ...There are more test cases that can be built 15:52:33 ...(reads from slide) 15:53:02 ...There is the question of quantifying the usability of these things 15:53:09 ...But you can build up for the full site 15:53:15 Mbgower: (slide 27) 15:53:26 ...This doesn't solve all the problems, but has questions for TPAC 15:53:39 ...(reads from the slide) 15:53:46 ...Right now we test by failures 15:53:52 ...What if we count what is right? 15:54:09 qv? 15:54:39 ...The question about overlap - is someone classifies it one way, and another does this another way, will this be a problem? 15:54:48 ...That concludes the discussion 15:54:49 ack Gregg 15:54:53 Q+ 15:54:55 Q+ to discuss UIC and text equivalents 15:54:59 Gregg: This is a really interesting presentation 15:55:06 ...Some are historical 15:55:11 ...Your unit of measure 15:55:17 ...We looked at that a lot! 15:55:27 ...WCAG 2 ICT - we looked at view 15:55:32 ...We could never make it work 15:55:41 ...We can talk about that more another time 15:55:51 ...The view in web apps keeps changing 15:56:11 ...Objective/subjective - you were talking about 3 being subjective because you didn't know the science behind it 15:56:15 ...It was arbitrary 15:56:27 ...Selecting it can be arbitrary 15:56:41 ...3 is 3 to an infinite number of zeros unless a tolerance is specified 15:56:54 ...sounds like a bias towards deciding something is subjective 15:57:09 ...A reliance on markup language 15:57:19 ack Ch 15:57:19 Chuck, you wanted to ask about alternate versions and to ask about "objective" testing and evaluating such 15:57:23 ...If you make it HTML only, a lot of vagueness came from trying to make it technology agnostic 15:57:39 ...If HTML only it will become easier to read, clearer, and everything would be more cut and dried 15:57:47 ...But wouldn't be used anywhere other than HTML 15:58:04 ...Purpose of a picture can only be determined by the author 15:58:16 ...If licenses page, photo of a dog 15:58:28 ...The purpose is to make it easy to identify the type of license (not fish) 15:58:39 ...The purpose can only be determined by the person 15:58:44 ...Accurate: you said 2 things that need to happen 15:58:55 ...Code is good - you talked about trying to separate them 15:59:07 ...We tried to make that one of the success criteria, and you had to do that one 15:59:20 ...We didn't do reporting 15:59:33 ...(lost his audio briefly) 15:59:40 ...You talk about test case and test process 15:59:45 ...They should be kept separate 16:00:04 ...Some also have a test at the end of the document - that is an interesting thing to do 16:00:17 ...Objective, qualitative and user process - I think that is great 16:00:39 scribe: mbogwer 16:00:44 scribe: mbgower 16:01:04 q? 16:01:07 Chuck: Keep comments brief; discussion is for TPAC 16:01:07 ack Jeanne 16:01:07 jeanne, you wanted to say This is very useful and helpful work, kudos! Did you look at the work that Test Reliability did in how to write Outcomes and Methods? 16:01:25 Jeanne: Excellent work. 16:01:26 +1 to kudos! 16:01:59 Jeanne: Was going to ask if you had coordinated with test reliability. Is there a plan to update or include some insight in the work that test reliability did on writing outcomes and methods? 16:02:08 ack Rach 16:02:08 Rachael, you wanted to say goal is to create a temporary shared way of talking about these terms 16:02:38 q- 16:02:49 Rachael: This presentation had 2 goals: update some of the foundational ideas for TPAC, as well as terminology to use. We don't need a perfect set of terms, but we need one we all use as we go forward. 16:02:49 ack Jan 16:03:08 Janina: Nitpicking about Alternative text. 16:03:21 Janina: 2-5 words for short would be wonderful. We tried for 50 and failed. 16:03:46 Janina: Missing understanding was a difference between a push and a pull. 16:04:24 Janina: We fought for longdesc. It became an extension in HTML5. Thinks it's deprecated. Concept of a longdesc is important. The mechanism is important. 16:04:31 ack JF 16:04:39 John: Joined call late, so playing behind. A few questions 16:04:55 John: Fault tolerance. I have 10 images, 9 have good. It's not a pass, but is it a fail? 16:05:19 John: What are we testing for? Optimizied/maximized usability? 16:05:53 John: There is a second goal of conformance. Orgnaizations are legally mandated to achieve a level of accessibility. What's our score? Am I conformant? I'm not sure we tackled that sufficently. 16:06:12 John: Testing based on user needs. Which user? 16:06:35 zakim, close the queue 16:06:35 ok, jeanne, the speaker queue is closed 16:07:00 John: I saw some questions on captions. There is a divergence of opinion on what constitutes a good caption. Straight verbosity? Cleaned up? It's a matter of opinion within a specific community of use. How do we get around that? 16:07:19 zakim, take up next item 16:07:19 agendum 3 -- Subgroup Intros and Q&A -- taken up [from Chuck] 16:07:27 Chuck: Conversation can occur asynchronously, and can take place at TPAC. 16:08:01 Shadi: Test types and terminology. This ties very nicely from the presentation. 16:08:09 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1crGP5tfsVj_CTgWsImrLqPHsNvrIH9m5bBVmW7Vt8W4/edit# 16:08:26 MelanieP has joined #ag 16:08:35 present+ 16:08:41 Shadi: There was one slide on test types and terminology. We are a group of 4, but haven't all been able to meet. Still a bit choppy. Started looking at the background. 16:09:06 Shadi: In section 4 at the top of it, there is an editor's note with lots of useful information. 16:09:28 Shadi: The approach we decided is to go with the existing test types in 2.x. 16:10:14 Shadi: We've done 2 of the 4. We are coming to the conclusion of "qualitative" or "computational". Not to be confused with automated. It's early on, so please don't jump on the terms. 16:10:36 Shadi: We do hope that we will also identify potential gaps. 16:10:47 Shadi: midway we would like to come back and present to group. 16:11:08 Shadi: We meet Monday's at 8am Eastern US. 16:11:19 q? 16:11:28 https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Test-Types-%26-Terminology-Subgroup 16:11:36 Francis: Issue severity 16:12:06 Thx Shadi! 16:12:08 Issue severity: https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Issue-Severity-Subgroup 16:12:13 Francis: We meet Wednedsay at 8am Eastern. Started with a round of introductions. Started with core questions. Working document lists out current methods and user impact. 16:12:31 rrsagent, make minutes 16:12:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/26-ag-minutes.html jeanne 16:12:37 Francis: Tomorrow's meeting follows week 2 structure in the handbook. 16:12:52 q? 16:12:59 Francis: Planning to do a mid- presentation. Alastair is away but everyone else should be there. 16:12:59 Accessibility Supported Sub-group https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Accessibility-supported-Subgroup 16:13:18 Makoto: Accessibility support has meeting on Tuesday 8am Eastern. 9pm for me. 16:13:59 Makoto: We had our second meeting today. ONly 2 participants this week. Last week 4. There are 6 persons. We might need more participants. Have not finalized goal yet. Today AWK and me agreed with the possible goal. 16:14:47 Makoto: To present pros and cons on two options: 1) keep accessibilty Supported 2) not keep Accessibility Supported. We will put together concepts and discuss 2 options. 16:15:09 Starting document "Accessibility supported in WCAG 2" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XxzwsgWZSDh2EDqTag-nYfrqAT3b6Glpu8DGbVpTd9M/ 16:15:29 Makoto: We have some anonymous comments. If you wrote your comments, please let us know which are yours. 16:16:03 Makoto: Starts with wcag 2 use. I added how Japan is adding information 16:16:40 Makoto: Other members might be able to more. Such as how Adobe supports Acc. Supported. How 508 supports, etc. Then we will discuss pros and cons. 16:17:04 q? 16:17:04 Makoto: We need to reach concensus. 16:17:06 q+ 16:17:38 mbgower: Mention that IBM created it's own SC to measure that, it's been useful for people doing testing, when they don't know why for instance screen reader isn't working. 16:17:54 mbgower: It's useful for when you are testing and you don't know why but you know something is wrong with supporting. 16:17:59 ack mb 16:18:08 Equity Subgroup -> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Equity-Subgroup 16:18:10 scribe: mbgower 16:19:02 Jeanne: Last week we reveiwed the research from Silver around equity. Goals: define, evaluate level of support; the challenges; the challenges from time frames; biases. 16:19:19 Jeanne: Met yesterday and discussed definition. 16:19:23 q? 16:20:20 Chuck: TPAC agenda is in process 16:20:36 Rachael: Thanks for the subgroup work. 16:21:03 Michael Cooper and John Foliot have presentations on work done in protocols for next week. 16:21:13 kirkwood_ has joined #ag 16:21:36 Short and brief subgroup updates will probably be added to the agenda. 16:21:43 zakim, take up next item 16:21:43 agendum 4 -- Silver Task Force Transition -- taken up [from Chuck] 16:21:52 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uGDMEAuB2CM8FgrI8FoSJeLMcVvQhWuTtLiyNH4RZIY/edit#heading=h.pxaaw1yoj5j4 16:22:34 Rachael: As part of the charter, we planned to close the Silver TF. Still a few months left and a few pieces to consider. 16:22:59 Rachael: We wanted to run through some key considerations. Not a decision today but start of conversation 16:23:20 Rachael: What are the goals and work? Update and consolidate Guideline writing process 16:23:42 Rachael: Also reviewing WCAG 3 content before it comes to WG. 16:23:50 q? 16:24:19 Rachael: Second question is around Friday call time. Working well, so intention is to keep, but will officially be an AG time slot. 16:24:36 Q+ 16:24:48 Rachael: very much a working meeting 16:24:52 ack JF 16:25:16 JF: I wanted to express a concern about time commitment. Already dedicating 2 hours per week in Tuesday. Friday not working for me. Concerned about amount of time. 16:25:29 JF: Is intention to reduce Tuesday call to 2 hours. 16:25:56 q+ to invite the Scoping people to attend a Silver meeting and talk about how we can incorporate their insights into the Guideline Writing Process 16:26:03 Rachael: Intention was to keep Friday for folks who can come. Smaller working meeting. Actual final decision made on Tuesdays. 16:26:16 q? 16:26:21 ack jeanne 16:26:21 jeanne, you wanted to invite the Scoping people to attend a Silver meeting and talk about how we can incorporate their insights into the Guideline Writing Process 16:26:21 q+ 16:26:26 JF: Decisions on Friday will have to be redone on Tuesday. There's a lot of circling back that has to come. 16:26:53 Jeanne: A different topic. I would like to invite the scoping people to come to a Silver meeting. 16:26:55 ack Gregg 16:27:23 Gregg: I wanted to echo. I was concerned about breaking into the small groups, but thought I'd watch to see what happened. 16:28:08 Gregg: It's frustrating to work on something and have something later come apart. I would always allow anyone to join, but make sure that anyone had a strong opinion was on it -- including anyone who was opposed to an approach. 16:28:16 +1 to Gregg 16:28:26 Gregg: Working in small groups only works when the key players are involved. 16:28:38 q+ 16:28:43 q+ 16:28:45 Gregg: You're going to have a lot of time with people without the voices they need. They can feel like it's a waste of time. 16:28:51 +1 and we've heard about this problem directly before 16:29:25 ack Mich 16:29:26 Gregg: I thought with slightly bigger groups maybe, but smaller groups are running concurrently. 16:30:14 +1 to that comment from Michael 16:30:23 Michael: I hear concerns about the groups. Chairs have found subgroups offer a way to getting things done where the larger group is having difficulty. 16:30:50 q? 16:30:52 ack Chu 16:30:57 Michael: The subgroups mission is to do a little sprint and help the larger group move forward. It's a challenge, but I think it's better than other things we've tried. 16:31:39 good luck tough nut 16:31:39 Chuck: We're talking an approach we think has the greatest success, but realize it is not perfect. Noted concerns, and hope we can accommodate. 16:32:19 scribe+ jeanne 16:32:26 Rachael: Will be retrospective on subgroup process at TPAC 16:32:50 Rachael: What will happen to the Silver Community Group 16:32:51 Mike we appreciate your scribing efforts, very helpful! 16:33:09 ... lists the actions of the Silver Community Group 16:33:17 ... we want continued engagement 16:33:18 q? 16:33:37 ... there will be some issuess, such as the Patent Policy, that need more research and discussion 16:33:55 q? 16:34:13 zakim, take up next item 16:34:13 agendum 5 -- Revisiting Functional and User Needs -- taken up [from Chuck] 16:34:15 Rachael: WHat will happen to the taskforce facilitators? Jeanne and Shawn continue on the leadership as editors 16:34:25 https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ZeCqTRTY0lmWvp1Xv_wO0iH1OzyECBa1UXQ_UeocjQ/edit#heading=h.1t50noaffchk 16:34:32 zakim, take up next 16:34:32 agendum 5 was just opened, jeanne 16:35:00 MC: Functional Needs group has formally moved to APA. 16:35:13 ... continuing to refine the functional needs 16:35:25 ... input from Childrens Accessibility Community Group 16:35:31 ... input from COGA 16:35:51 ... probably will not have @@ ready before TPAC 16:36:00 ... intend to stay in touch with AG 16:36:22 ... Outcomes apply to Authoring and User Agents 16:36:49 ... expect to have a list of OUtcomes for AG -- not to be automatically included, but to support the work 16:36:53 sounds like an intersection of Accessibility Supported and Scoring/Scoping 16:37:21 CA: How useful was it? Is it too detailed or not enough? 16:37:56 MC: People who worked on the Categorization Exercise gave feedback that they were hard to work with 16:38:01 q? 16:38:15 ... we understand the challenges and are looking to improve the usability of the list 16:38:17 q+ 16:38:22 Q+ 16:38:56 jeanne: One of the things... I worked with this list a lot. I've done a lot of the sc that went through exercise. The granularity of different sections of functional needs does not seem equivalent. 16:39:21 q+ 16:39:24 jeanne: I would like to ask for review the functional needs granularity for an even-ness through them, so that they are more usable. 16:39:54 jeanne: We could use for an equivalent evaluation. Granularity for reviewing new guideilnes, would be helpful for consistency. 16:39:59 ack Jea 16:40:01 ack JF 16:40:39 ack Mich 16:40:40 JF: I am trying to understand the different beteween functional needs and functional outcomes? Is the EN 301 549 requirements included in this discussion? 16:40:59 https://w3c.github.io/fast/#functional-needs 16:41:11 s/Is the EN 301 549 requirements included in this discussion?/Is the EN 301 549 & Section 508 requirements included in this discussion? 16:41:15 MC: We definitely having challenges with granularity and need to address it. 16:41:35 ... Functional Needs are being moved into FAST and it is less granualar 16:42:13 q+ 16:42:18 MC: Functional Needs vs User Needs -- some of it came out of a desire for affirmative positive phrasing of what the user needs rather than the barrier 16:42:31 ack Ch 16:42:37 CA: Do we have a means of providing APA the feedback? 16:42:47 q? 16:42:58 q+ 16:42:58 MC: Normal comment procedures -- contact members of group or make comments in the spec 16:43:03 ack Rac 16:43:21 Rachael: Michael, can you talk more about how you see these being used? 16:43:53 MC: The Functional Needs is meant to become a comprehensive list of all the touchpoints of accessibility 16:44:08 ... we have only documented the needs that cross the accessibility space 16:44:29 ... having a comprehensive set of functional needs helps us not leave anyone out 16:44:55 ... this approach may catch accessibility use cases that we may not otherwise identify 16:45:26 ... this will also be included in the FAST - the accessibile specification technology spec 16:45:26 q? 16:45:50 rrsagent, make minutes 16:45:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/26-ag-minutes.html jeanne 16:46:26 janina_ has left #ag 16:48:48 bye all 16:55:11 Thx! 17:00:30 mbgower has joined #ag 17:05:45 jamesn has joined #ag 17:26:42 s/Rachael, are you able to join the call a bit early?// 17:26:47 rrsagent, make minutes 17:26:47 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/26-ag-minutes.html jeanne 17:27:56 trackbot, end meeting 17:27:56 Zakim, list attendees 17:27:56 As of this point the attendees have been alastairc, chuck, janina, wilco, GreggV, Jeanne, Francis, Ben_Tillyer, jon_avila, iankersey, Lauriat, ShawnT, Makoto_, maryjom, 17:27:59 ... sarahhorton, shadi, StefanS, kirkwood, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Laura_Carlson, AWK, jweismantel, JF, mbgower, Jen_G, .75, ToddL, Azlan, SuzanneTaylor, MelanieP, laura, GN, Rachael, 17:27:59 ... Jennie, Francis_Storr, joweismantel, MichaelC, Fazio, Makoto, Peter_Bossley 17:28:04 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:28:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/07/26-ag-minutes.html trackbot 17:28:05 RRSAgent, bye 17:28:05 I see no action items