Meeting minutes
New Business
sheri: i've had a couple people reach out looking to start new standard efforts, like ISO.
Fazio: MM stuff?
Sheri: yes.
Sheri: will add to the minutes when i find the conversation.
<Mark_Miller> I need to step out. I'll be back.
Sheri: seem to also be started outside of the US
Janina: certainly relationships between ISO and W3C. groups are usually country based. So this is curious.
Sheri: letting people know in case they ping you
Fazio: any other new business?
Jeff: on the prior topic, there's a guy out of UK - Jonathan Hassel, able to get 8878 converted or morphed into an ISO standard.
Jeff: mentioning bc of potential concern on having things being converted to ISO - what's the process?
GitHub issue #346 Describe proof points; Review New Spreadsheet Examples
<CharlesL> w3c/
<gb> Issue 346 Describe proof points (by iadawn)
Fazio: goes into comment from 346 issue, adding descriptions to proof points to help people understand why it's needed. We have Jeff's spreadsheet. 3.1.2.1 (as an example) - when talking about proof points that's not clear enough, are we telling them the proof points to MM are these are suggestions (bullets or the categories or both)?
Jeff: are we saying they're suggestions?
Fazio: yes, you might not have all, you might have some, but need to have them to meet. We suggest you use, that we identify that will meet the dimensions will meet the requirements. It's not prescriptive.
Jeff: need to be careful as well taht it doesn't get diluted
Fazio: what are the proof points? Foundations for successful communication or the bullets below it?
Jeff: the subcategory and then the bullets are the proof points
Jeff: what if subcategory was section or parts or something so people wouldn't try to evaluate that as a proof point?
Fazio: lots to parse when doing this work. So are we agreeing to switch the dimension category to hierarchy of where proof points are? category > proof points
<Fazio> Hierarchy is currently: 3.1.2 Proof Points
<Fazio> Communications proof points may include but are not limited to:
<Fazio> 3.1.2.1 Foundation for Accessible Communication
<Fazio> There are accessible corporate document templates.
<Fazio> There are documented HTML or PDF conversion procedures to support accessibility features.
<Fazio> Processes, procedures, and requirements for creating accessible communications are documented and available to employees.
<Fazio> Accessible collaboration tools are available (e.g., e-meeting, webinar, conferencing, chat).
Jeff: yes...might be some confusion addressing them as a proof point. Rename as "part 1 or 2" and then the prof points with numbering convention?
<Fazio> We may need to swap the order
Jeff: number each one of the proof points so people could reference them
charles: one, yes, those subcategories are for organization to help understand what the set of proof points are. There was a lot of confusion especially when moved from doc to tool (excel), a lot of category titles got status in cell beside them. So considered proof points but weren't, took a long time to go though and fix that. If we did number
them and have bullets for proof points only, would have helped. and in the tool tried to make the subititles to not have status levels and whole row got a different color so clear not to mark those.
fazio: points out some limitations on using excel vs the system. makes more sense to reorder this and make more clear and clarity for issue 346.
charles: at benetech we started with the spreadsheet then created a web version. going between these two there was what's a proof point and what wasn't, so we numbered each proof point COM 001 or KS 001, etc. which helped especially when you got the data. So it was built in and you knew which was which
Fazio: move categories to where proof points are and proof points to where categories are? right now proof point is the parent 3.1.2 is the parent. then 3.1.2.1 and then bullets...and so on. the goal is to have a foundation for accessible communication...
Jeff: will need to find a way to roll up. want to track the proof points...category under the communication dimension and a way to organize them.
fazio: what are we looking for, why, and why does it matter is what 346 is looking for. if you have these examples, then you likely have a foundation for accessible communication. Give them a structure that's logical and comprehensible.
Jeff: charles' suggestion, proof points labeled with some identifier is good. Spreadsheet doesn't have a status level for subcategories, no dropdown to rate that, but underneath it, there are.
… someone was tlaking about theres confusion from earlier spreadhsheet on status level on black fields. Can only rate the ones in the white or orange fields.
Charles: you'd rate things that were a category or subcateogry. so an ID for each proof point, these are the ones you rate
Sheri: agfree, helps people with cognitive disabilites. Like having unique titles.
Charles: all proof points were under the main dimension iteself. Need subcategories to be consistent.
Jeff: i think they all do now
janina: we did it a doezen years ago with media a11y requirements. we gave them acronyms to keep clear which came from where. Down side is maybe do it when mature enough and shifting, because you have to remember a lot of things.
… if neumonics along with proof points, we'd have in both places not just in one place
charles: if you decide comms not needed, you'd have to renumber all of that below it
janina: is this a good idea? And when think done with structure, then do the labels in both text and spreadsheet
fazio: 346 and narrative document. or are you saying to pause?
sheri: comment we like the comments but want to wait so we make the changes once.
… we're going to do it but at end of editing process so we only do it once. let user know we accept the idea and track in the comment
Jeff: we kinda went into taxonomy thing, which is different than the comment.
Janina: mnemonics and ordering in separate issues?
Fazio: if we clarify each bullet, that's a ton to read and a ton to do, and makes the doc hard to use. First question, what are we describing. Let's look at the hierarchy. Look at descriptions Jeff gave us and have notebook LLM to do a concise...
Janina: we've agreed to annotate the comment but not close it
Fazio: should we start doing the work (Stacey volunteered) - or pause and wait?
Janina: wait until we know we're done with the structure.
Fazio: pausing for the moment, Stacey can get into the hierarchy.mneumonics when structure is solid
axk charlesL
charles: evaluation with AI makes sense. agree we woudlnt' want to do all the different status descriptions for every proof point in this doc. COmpanion doc that could get generated, like a techiques and how to get there doc where that would go. Go there when trying to implement to get to a specific level for a proof point. And then I can create
the new issue saying we'd like to add mnemonics and numbering.
Fazio: create, assign to Stacey, if we need a separate doc, we should do a better job in this document so we don't have to go to multiple docs to access. "window effect"...keep in one doc, easy to digest, etc. that should be the goal. but we'll see what works.
Fazio: issue 338, scope seems redundant
<Fazio> Github Issue #338 Scope seems redundant
<Fazio> w3c/
<gb> Issue 338 Scope seems redundant (by iadawn)
Fazio: if the scope has no value, how does it have value to move to another area?
Jeff: could move it to the how to use the doc?
Fazio: if we insert into that section does it make sense? let's try it out.
Stacey: maybe up in 1.1 "about" not "how" to use
… not just a cut and paste. See if it's already covered
<CharlesL> Here is the new Github issues on having unique IDs for each proof point that has been assigned to Stacey.
<CharlesL> w3c/
Jeff: Review and see if it adds value or not.
<gb> Issue 367 Add IDs to each proof point for improved clarity (by clapierre)
Neha: I volunteer to review the content
<Sheri_B-H> I need to drop, thanks everyone
Fazio: anything else before we adjourn?