Silver Task Force & Community Group

10 February 2023


Chuck_, janina, jeanne, Lauriat, maryjom, Rachael
jeanne, Shawn

Meeting minutes

<jeanne> Scribe List

<jeanne> queue:

<jeanne> s/queue: //

<jeanne> s|queue: ||

<jeanne> s|s/queue: // ||

<jeanne> ok, I give up. I fail the syntax IQ test

Preview of Tuesday's AG WG call

<jeanne> Email of agenda

<jeanne> our plan: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k_rCBUVPQj2myECC06rQtnC1Mks_UsI5P9Wmpc4nBCk/edit#

Rachael: This is a step-by-step on how we are going to move forward.
… There will be some in-depth conversations about conformance at the AG WG meeting

jeanne: Let's present the plan and get feedback.

Plan for next 6 months

<jeanne> RM: our plan: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k_rCBUVPQj2myECC06rQtnC1Mks_UsI5P9Wmpc4nBCk/edit#

Rachael: We are right now putting content we've been working on in the last 6 months into the draft, including exploratory content.

Rachael: This will be put out, not as a wide review draft, but a working draft especially so regulators can take a look at it.

Rachael: We are hoping to publish it in March.

Rachael: We want to have the review with the core questions that will get evaluated.

Rachael: We'll close out all issues to the new draft as well as hold meetings with regulators.

Rachael: We want to walk through the writing process and create an exploratory list of outcomes.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say Silver TF is doing two big things are same time

Rachael: Goal is that we'll have 4 fully fleshed out examples, a full exploratory list of guidelines and outcomes and then publish again.

jeanne: Concerned that there are 2 big tasks for silver happening at the same time.

jeanne: Thinks that captions being fully fleshed out would be a good priority.

Rachael: Thinks error prevention may be a better one to focus on.

janina: Are we still thinking about having the conformance claims data available in a machine readable format

Rachael: We do need that reminder, if you will please open an issue.

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask about machine readable conformance claims?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say the opposite, I think we should prioritize building out the full shape with placeholders

Lauriat: Thinks we should prioritize having the placeholders for outcomes, guidelines.

Rachael: We'd need to have a sub-group focused on this.


jeanne: No objections to Silver writing placeholder content for all future guidelines. We talked about this in the writing process last week.

<jeanne> Process for writing Guidelines using Maturity levels

Map out writing placeholder content

<jeanne> Process for writing Guidelines using Maturity levels

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to discuss a point of order

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to answer

<Chuck_> +1

<Chuck_> We (AGWG) should encourage and solicit for participation.

jeanne: The section we talked about last week was the captions example, in the placeholder section.

<jeanne> Captions

<jeanne> Description:

<jeanne> People who are deaf or have a hearing loss can access the auditory information in the synchronized media content through captions. (from Understanding)

<jeanne> Functional Needs

<jeanne> Deafness, Hard of Hearing

<jeanne> Use with limited ability to comprehend spoken language

<jeanne> Outcomes

<jeanne> Has Captions

<jeanne> Quality of Captions

<jeanne> Consistent style of captions

<jeanne> Captions are synchronous

<jeanne> Captions are complete

<jeanne> Captions are properly placed

jeanne: We'd have a description, then the functional needs, and then the outcomes.

<Rachael> ...Do we want functional needs or detailed user needs?

<Chuck_> Rachael: Practical question. Can we put in a note that this is a working session?

<Rachael> Working on Document. Light to no scribing.

<jeanne> Placeholder example:

<Chuck_> NOTE: The Silver Task Force is transitioning to a working session, for which scribing is not required.

<Chuck_> +1 functional needs

<Chuck_> +1 to tentative outcomes

<janina> Maybe we need to acknowledge the process is often not strictly linear?

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_eXtFaHSD8y5b2W8FcyubSEH1k8ZTvygEd6QuFrtg-g/edit#slide=id.g2073df47411_0_11

Rachael: Experienced the same problem with circular analysis and regrouping of outcomes and tests when working on clear language.

<Rachael> +1

Rachael: Seems there will need to be a process or explanation for doing this.

janina: It's not unusual for this to be the case and we may want to define things to check after the initial analysis.

jeanne: This is what the test group was doing when they were working on the tests for outcomes.

<Chuck_> s/so that are/so that our/

<Rachael> +1 to premature so how do we handle this?

jeanne: People want outcomes, but we need to go through the user needs. Think it's premature to work on outcomes at this point.

Rachael: Perhaps just have some sample outcomes
… and maybe label them exploratory.

<Chuck_> +1 Example Outcomes

<Lauriat> +1

<Rachael> maybe: 1) existence and quality (two tests), 2) synchronized, 3) location

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say this is an example list

janina: Media accessibility user requirements may have all the user needs we need for this.

<janina> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/

<Chuck_> -1

jeanne: we'll look at organization next week. There's a few options.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).


Succeeded: s/zakim, clear queue//

Failed: s/queue: //

Failed: s|queue: ||

Failed: s|s/queue: // ||

Succeeded: s/janina:/jeanne:/

Failed: s/so that are/so that our/

All speakers: janina, jeanne, Lauriat, Rachael

Active on IRC: Chuck_, janina, jeanne, Lauriat, maryjom, Rachael