– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

next week in AG

<luis> jeanne: next week in AGWG. three things WCAG3 related

<jeanne> * CSUN Face to Face meeting attendance Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/CSUN-Face-To-Face/

<jeanne> * Guideline Grouping Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/guideline-org/

<jeanne> * Discussion about Requiring vs. Encouraging

<luis> .. any of the chairs want to add anything to this?

<jeanne> Surveys opening this week closing next week:

<jeanne> * Questions on Editor's Draft Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/draft-revew-Feb-23/

<luis> .. there's another survey opening soon

<luis> .. Michelle has been taking the comments from two weeks ago and updating the draft. This is the survey for the new work

<luis> .. any questions?

review suggestions from COGA task force to the Writing Process document

<luis> ... I had a meeting with members of COGA. They're also working on a guideline for error prevention. And they're working on one for clear language.

<luis> ... here's the main document

<jeanne> Writing Process with Maturity Levels ->

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zW-UubALQOCokCoLnIuQrnGNKLm2uHi36S8yhAojrIE/edit#

<luis> ... the first thing that they asked is that we change "efficient" in the goals section because it has different meanings in different contexts. They wanted us to clarify it. Any ideas?

<luis> ...I think the context of this was "easy to implement" but we don't want to say "easy" because it's not easy. Maybe "clear" would work better.

<uxjennifer> "Define guidance and methods that are clear and efficient to implement"

<luis> lauriat: one of the considerations for evolving technologies was difficulty and barrier to implementation. For some of those, they have become easier over time. I think not "efficient" or "easy" but maybe something on the "understandable" spectrum might work.

<uxjennifer> prudent?

<kirkwood> effort

<luis> jeanne: what about "reduce barriers to implementation?"

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about evolving technology

<luis> toddl: a couple of ideas...maybe "adequate" or "appropriate" instead of "efficient"

<luis> chuck_: I like jeans "reduce the barriers." I think that's closest to what we had in mind at the time.

<luis> jeanne: I think we were looking at problems identified that said the SC were difficult to understand and translate into other languages.

<luis> ... maybe it's not about implementation, but about clear and understandable in multiple languages

<luis> chuck_: I don't want to get rid of the implementing. I recall that being a big part of the topic. I want to keep implementing in there.

<luis> lauriat: I think one of the reasons implementation doesn't necessarily belong is because it's more guidance on user needs and usability as opposed to implementation itself. We will have things that will help that.

<Chuck_> +1 with Jeanne and Shawn, I'm convinced

<luis> ... as an example we'll have guidance where there isn't clear implementation as far as "content authors" but there may be other opportunities for AT or other technologies to fill that gap

<luis> toddl: if we're leaving "implement" in, maybe "suitable" or "sufficient?"

<luis> makoto: we've had challenges translating the other SCs because those documents and techniques are harder to translate into Japanese. So "easy to understand" is a point we should emphasize as a goal

<kirkwood> +1

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to echo that i'm now agreeing that we can focus less on "implementation", that the user needs are the primary focus

<luis> chuck_: agreed

<Chuck_> +1

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note where to specify implementation

<luis> lauriat: I don't think we need to get rid of it entirely, but it should be specific to the guidance which should be clear and understandable. And the methods should be clear and understandable and also easier to understand and meet the guidance.

<ToddL> +1 with Makoto, Chuck_ & Lauriat

<Makoto> +1 to Shawn

<luis> janina: maybe work in that techniques are technology specific

<luis> lauriat: that's not necessariliy always the case

<luis> jeanne: and there is a push in AGWG to include some that are generic

Start the Exploratory section

<Chuck_> The remainder of the meeting is a working session, and does not require scribing.

<luis> jeanne: the rest of the meeting is going to be working in the error prevention document

<jeanne> Error Prevention Draft

<ToddL> +1

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note outreach to stakeholders & partners for this kind of work

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note the illustrative aspect

<jeanne> Errors User Needs Summary

<kirkwood> changing to only “notification” gets rid of the “guidance” part, no? i guess it was eliminated?

<kirkwood> makes sense

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about redundancy, severity, etc. of errors

+1 to Chuck_, maybe a good question of where to note things as they come to mind?

+1, incredibly well thought out!