– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

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

W3C transition updates

Lauriat: catching folks up on the W3C transition, Chuck will

Chuck: over the holidays there was a bit of turmoil during the MIT - W3C transfer due to funds issues.

Chuck: W3C would have been in trouble and unable to continue based on the finances.

Chuck: Want to recognize that MIT recognized the predicament and didn't take any hard ball positions.

Chuck: W3C was set up by four member states, and MIT took a lot the initial responsibility.

Chuck: MIT & W3C were able to come to an arrangement.

Chuck: it provided W3C some operational funds and more may come a bit later.

Chuck: it was really intense and didn't look good for W3C for a bit.

Chuck: also certain members have left, such as Wendy Seltzer and Judy Brewer, for other opportunities.

Chuck: we have a new chief officer… some transitioning occurring.

Chuck: Michael Cooper continues to work for MIT and continues to fill the role Judy had in the past.

Janina: among the services that need to transfer is this very Zoom channel and we have until June 30th to figure it out with Philippe. So lots of bookmarks and links will change soon.

Chuck: remember another key point, given MIT Is an independent org, the board of director are focused on the operational health and the standards bodies that currently exist will continue. The bod will not meddle in standards creation.

Lauriat: Offer massive thank you to those that navigated that allows us to continue to do what we do without having to think about it.

Chuck: as I was once Oracle

<Chuck> +1!

<Chuck> JenStrickland: I happened to be included in various email lists, and saw that there was a lot of activity preceding the holidays, and there were a lot of cool heads that allowed this to succeed.

Chuck: as I was once Oracle's AC rep, I used to see a lot of communication, and W3C has been very transparent.

Jeanne: this has been talked about and in the planning since about 2014.

Jeanne: it's great that it's happened and W3C will have a lot of opportunities now that they are disconnected from MIT.

<Chuck> https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to discuss one more announcement

Lauriat: TPAC 2023 will be in Spain, TPAC 2023 Hybrid Meeting 11-15 September 2023 Main in-person hub: Meliá Sevilla Hotel Calle Dr. Pedro de Castro, 1 41004 Sevilla Spain

chuck: W3C reminds us that we do operate under a code of ethics and professional conduct, and that we agree to follow it, respect opinions, viewports and work to resolve disagreements respectfully.

Provided link to PWETF - which is where the code is documented.

Where we are and where we might go from here

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yzR1H0SnNFRELGchb_BJr4Necsrj6xVjDF1n7Tc0kTc/edit#gid=1247745107

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_3_Timeline

Lauriat: for next topic, we are reviewing where we are. With the New Year we haven't met in a while.

<Rachael> +1

Lauriat: so, we have this spreadsheet with a list of potential topics, some tackled, some not.

Jeanne: one direction is that we could go forward as a "super sub-group" -- I've been discouraged that a lot of the work done, that AG feels they need to do it over. I hate wasting people's time.

Jeanne: I'm interested in the creative thoughts of this group in where we go to get WCAG3 done and what should we be working on?

Jeanne: Rachael, if you have something to add?

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MUf5dY9NJjikBYJIo8az2uSVGm_A5RDNI3i8G9JsgD4/edit#slide=id.p

Rachael: we are nearing a point wfor silver merging fully into the AGWG. once we wrap up 2.2, then we switch to the charter, and we wanna make sure we're engaging people in the most positive and useful way, respectful of expertise everyone brings.

Lauriat: reading the slide aloud, it's the tentative schedule publishing 2.2 by April

Lauriat: publish an updating working draft for WCAG3 in March, to remove updated content including status markings, test section, include options for conformance for public comment.

Lauriat: just want to mention that we know AGWG has had an operational procedure where various activities and decision are done at subgroup levels. We're looking at other ways of doing things to make things more efficient.

above Lauriat s/b Chuck.

Chuck: we don't have any solutions yet but we are working on it.

Rachael: a few things that the chairs are discussing…

Rachael: if we can't stand up an accessibility-supported group, then this group could work on that concept, and Makoto is here, thank you.

Rachael: continue to work on the way to write guidelines, process would be another, and last would be potentially dividing the guidelines work up

Rachael: but I don't think it's limited to that, open to ideas

Jeanne: what ideas / interests do people have?

Janina: I thought we were doing some breakthrough work in December re conceiving outcomes, making things user-centric. did that survive?

Jeanne: that's related to what I personally would like to work on, develop the framework for guidelines.

Jeanne: so that when AG is finished with conformance process, we're not starting over.

Jeanne: and they have a guideline process to include the work we're doing on outcomes, integrating the AG work on testing and the work the design group is doing on what 3 is going to look like.

Jeanne: this is what I'd like to work on, happy to go with the group.

Chuck: every time I hear "accessibility supported" I think Makoto.

+1

<Chuck> JenStrickland: I think what I understood from Jeanne, as somebody who has worked on the Symantec structure group. I've been working with Equity, and the terms jumble.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: When we were working on structured content, lacking that structure made things difficult to progress. I was excited that conformance was advancing.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: We can prepare for when conformance work is ready.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: It sounds like you all heard us, and you are doing what needs to happen so we can come back and do what needs to be done.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: Planning and structure for the subject areas is a great use of this groups time.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: I also think of Makoto when I think accessibility supported, and I would join that effort but I've a lot already on my plate.

Jeanne: I'd like to hear from Suzanne, Mary Jo, and Azlan…

SuzanneTaylor: originally when I joined silver it was doing it's central work and managing subgroups

SuzanneTaylor: including XR which is something I'm interested in and is an enormous topic.

SuzanneTaylor: I'm interested in the augmented reality (AR) and I wonder if the topic could be broken up to be more productive.

SuzanneTaylor: we don't want 3 to be a rewritten 2 — some folks might, I don't know.

SuzanneTaylor: we need subgroups, and it's a lot of work to manage and organize those subgroups, and how do we divide?

SuzanneTaylor: we need to become more familiar before reaching out. there's a lot of strategy that goes into these collabs and that's something that silver could work on before we take on 3.

Jeanne: I think that's a great idea. and it needs to be done whether in 3 or that group.

SuzanneTaylor: and its a surprising amount of work to organize just to get started.

+1

<Lauriat> +1

I've found it to be a lot of work organizing the equity subgroup — and doing the strategy ahead would have helped a LOT.

Lauriat: one thing we could do is in looking at migrating some 2.x content we could also include examples of how that guidance could apply to other spaces, ie. XR and build up a writing process to ensure it can be applied across different kinds of modalities on the web.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to build on that as a potential

Chuck: re are we ready? I need to consult with my peer chairs.

<Azlan> I have to jump out now

Chuck: my immediate thought is that while this would be 'fun' work I wouldn't want to lead AGWG into the direction of…there's so much to share / distribute, that I don't see how we would succeed unless we do that.

SuzanneTaylor: I don't think we should wait in anyway

+1 !!!!

SuzanneTaylor: we do need people to take on that role, assume the responsibility, begin socializing it, finding those with the perfect a11y backg

SuzanneTaylor: that takes a long time, and if we wait we will rush

SuzanneTaylor: when 2 was written we had a long history, and 3 won't have that history.

SuzanneTaylor: we don't want that idea to get knocked down 6 mos in

Jeanne: thanks, good argument!

<Zakim> JenStrickland, you wanted to reinforce what SuzanneTaylor said

<Chuck> JenStrickland: 2 things. Mary Jo, you don't speak often, but when you do it's wonderful. I'm hoping you've ideas you can share. I always find your contributions value. What Suzanne said I want to emphasize.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: Some people get discouraged when their work gets redone. I think doing this ahead of time is valuable. I know people who would love to be involved. W/O that guiding structure that makes things clear, it's hard to know what to contribute.

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 we need to groups to attract more participants

<Lauriat> Big +1 to all of that

maryjom: I've been at a loss recently with silver… where are we going now? it's such a huge project.

maryjom: we have to choose wisely where we want to focus to start with

+1 Yes!

maryjom: I do see we have a list of topics, a huge backlog of issue -- has anyone done any analysis of common themes that might need to be addressed?

jeanne: I know Francis worked on analysis of wcag 2 issues

maryjom: there's 333 open silver issues

jeanne: so many of those could be closed but we're not allowed to close them

maryjom: I wonder if there are any common themes in those 333 silver issues that could be a clue to what we should focus on in 3.

<Lauriat> Silver issues in github

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yzR1H0SnNFRELGchb_BJr4Necsrj6xVjDF1n7Tc0kTc/edit#gid=1247745107

Rachael: we have done an analysis and in the spreadsheet is a list based on the analysis

<Chuck> +1

Rachael: we're working on that spreadsheet and working on rewrite of draft.

Rachael: that should address many of the themes. depending on what we decide as a larger group to shift direction, close issues as being addressed, or addressed bcz we've switched directions.

Jeanne: the work going forward is based on the comments that came in. What do you think we should do next week?

SuzanneTaylor: I think next week we should write up a list of the topic areas where more research is likely needed. Then, how those could be divided up to be digestible by a small group

then once we have that we identify who to reach out to and create those subgroups

SuzanneTaylor:

then we can reach out to folks like Thomas Logan, and invite them.

SuzanneTaylor: silver doesn't require membership

<Chuck> +1!

SuzanneTaylor: then those members have an opt to join the groups

<Chuck> JenStrickland: 2 things. I'm encouraged helping Thomas Logan find the door. It would be great if we came up with a document that made it clear to people at large how to participate in the W3C.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: This is more broadly at the AB level. It's been a theme year after year. Thomas could become a member now if he wanted, it's not that complicated. He could become an invited expert.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: With this identifying the topics and how we divide them up, another thing needed is a working structure and working agreements and guidelines and a template of expectations.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: With equity we've been doing 8 weeks of bursts. We went through cycles and confronted reality. There is a rythm.

<Chuck> JenStrickland: Outcomes, methods, all that stuff that's been documented. There should be a subgroup that worked on content governance? That would be really helpful.

<Zakim> Makoto, you wanted to share FYI on Thomas

Makoto: Thomas Logan is living in Tokyo and I work with him closely.

Makoto: we are starting A11yTokyo meetup. so I can contact him any time, so please lmk

Jeanne: I also want to point out that you didn't chime in re a11y-supported comments.

Makoto: yes, I'm still interested in how 3 should support a11y supported. over the holidays I came up with an idea that may make us more optimistic.

Makoto: so if there is no other topic, we should discuss on Friday's call I'd be happy to share the info and discussion to date.

Makoto: I'd be happy to contribute how we can make 3 more internationalized guidelines.

jeanne: I think we've given the chairs a lot to think about and we need to regroup — unless chairs want to pipe in now.

jeanne: I think we could do that on Friday and put together longer term directions.

Chuck: I'm not ready to cite a direction yet, we need to get together. I have a bias towards a11y supported.

Chuck: I do think we need to support the other suggestions we heard today. so I really do want to collaborate with the other chairs to come up with a plan.

<Rachael> +1

jeanne: thanks, I expected that was the direction we should go.

jeanne: there's been a lot of great ideas, and that's what I hoped for out of this mtg.

<Lauriat> +1, thank you all for talking through this today!

jeanne: more info to come after mtg on Wednesday when we have the planning meeting.

jeanne: thank you all for talking through this today! good way to start the new year.