W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > March 2019

Minute of SIlver meeting of 1 March 2019

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:13:27 -0500
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e319c6cd-8c13-55c1-f06a-570ae850cef5@spellmanconsulting.com>
Apologies that I forgot to start the bot that creates the nicely 
formatted minutes.  Here is the IRC log.

<LuisG> scribe: LuisG
<Cyborg> did we finish off the last one?
<Cyborg> the design one...?
<Lauriat> Requirements draft, now less drafty: 
<LuisG> Jeanne: I think that's the one we left off on
<LuisG> lauriat: it kind of ended abruptly. we didn't end up doing the 
rewording after the meeting, but I captured what we were talking about...
<Lauriat> The creation process for the guidelines should: Include people 
with disabilities and are important contributors to accessibility 
standards and solutions.
<Cyborg> that doesn't sound right...
<Lauriat> Next: Recognize that people with disabilities have individual 
and intersectional needs.
<LuisG> originally it was all one sentence
<Cyborg> from end of minutes last time:  Include pwd and recognize that 
pwd are important    contributors to accessibility standards and 
solutions    (meaningful involvement). Recognize that pwd have 
individual    and intersectional needs (customization)
<LuisG> lauriat: this just needs to be a sentence and I think we've 
captured it
<LuisG> .. so the first bullet should. this is where we wanted to 
capture meaningful involvement as a design principle
<LuisG> .. the second bullet was recognizing the individual and 
intersectional needs
<Cyborg> where is this now...link please?
<LuisG> jeanne: I have a little concern that this makes it seem like 
these are only important principles for designing silver and not that we 
want to use them in silver itself
<LuisG> lauriat: we have the design principles there for the things we 
want to make sure we keep in mind for the process of creating silver
<LuisG> .. not necessarily things to measure ourselves against in the 
first incarnation
<LuisG> .. things we want to have in silver (like recognizing 
individual/intersectional needs). the creation process needs to keep it 
in mind
<LuisG> .. but we wouldn't say "include X number of intersectional needs"
<LuisG> .. having it as a design principles helps us keep it in mind so 
we're not leaving them out
<LuisG> Cyborg: I can see why it fits in design principles...but it kind 
of implies it's only in creating the guidelines, and not necessarily for 
the guidelines themselves
<LuisG> .. wondering if it belongs in the section where the 1-5 is and 
not where the 6-9 is
<LuisG> .. it shouldn't be about one or the other...it's kind of both
<LuisG> .. if the goal is to have guidelines that include meaningful 
involvement then having it in the framework document is probably 
important for creating that kind of guideline
<LuisG> lauriat: I think it's too specific for a requirements document
<LuisG> .. it should be its own proposal
<LuisG> jeanne: I like the idea of moving 7 up
<LuisG> lauriat: agreed
<LuisG> .. should we make it number 2 or merge it with number 1
<LuisG> jeanne: I could see merging it
<Lauriat> "Support the needs of the widest range of people with 
disabilities, recognizing that people with disabilities have individual 
and intersectional needs."
<LuisG> cyborg: I think it makes sense as 1 as well
<LuisG> .. that's getting to the edge cases, and that's getting to the 
capacity to customize
<LuisG> lauriat: for me it follows very well
<LuisG> .. I think it clarifies in that order
<LuisG> cyborg: is referencing customization too much for the 
requirements document?
<LuisG> lauriat: I feel like it might be too granular. what do others think?
<Chuck> +1 too granular
<LuisG> .. anything that gets prescriptive of the kind of guidance to 
offer would be too granular
<LuisG> .. anything at a high enough level like "including people with 
widest range of disabilities" guides us in a direction instead of to a 
particular thing to do
<LuisG> cyborg: fair enough
<Lauriat> "Support the needs of the widest range of people with 
disabilities and recognize that people with disabilities have individual 
and intersectional needs."
<LuisG> .. could we go back to the second one? "include people with 
<bruce_bailey> +1 looks good
<LuisG> .. the "and are important"
<Lauriat> "Include people with disabilities and recognize that they are 
important contributors
  to accessibility standards and solutions."
<LuisG> lauriat: added a couple of words
<LuisG> cyborg: that first for the purpose of silver. where does it fit 
as encouragement in designing the guideline content
<LuisG> jeanne: I think it's providing the hooks to have meaningful 
involvement as a guideline rather than just saying "pwd should be 
involved in creating Silver content"
* kirkwood (~kirkwood@public.cloak) has joined #silver
<LuisG> lauriat: so this is more inclusion for what today we would call 
<LuisG> jeanne: yes
<LuisG> lauriat: I think the first one (draft we just went over 
previously) covers it as long as we include authoring guidance
<LuisG> .. we mention authoring in the introduction and that's it
<LuisG> .. sounds like we should potentially revisit that. my only 
hesitation is that it gets back to the granularity
<LuisG> .. for authoring that's kind of more as a category.
<Chuck> q+
* Zakim sees Chuck on the speaker queue
<LuisG> cyborg: can you clarify the authoring/user agent component? and 
there has been an emphasis of WCAG as a checklist...if there's going to 
be this guidance added, it's not just another piece of guidance...but a 
culture shift. and it's good to have a hook or reference within 
requirements document
<LuisG> lauriat: jeanne is probably the most to comment on the first aspect
<LuisG> .. agreed on the second part of that
<Chuck> ack Chuck
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<LuisG> jeanne: we don't have anything in here that says we're including 
user agent and authoring tools
<LuisG> lauriat: just something in the introduction
<Lauriat> Introduction mentioned them: 
<LuisG> jeanne: I think it's an important requirement...I'll see if I 
can draft something
<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/atag/
<Lauriat> The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) documents 
explain how to:  make
the authoring tools themselves accessible, so that people with 
disabilities can create web content, and help authors create more 
accessible web content — specifically: enable, support, and promote the 
production of content that conforms to Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines (WCAG).
<Lauriat> UAAG: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/uaag/
<bruce_bailey> Part of the problem is that Authoring Tools and User Agent
<LuisG> bruce_bailey: authoring tool and user agent are the best terms 
we have..but they're not very intuitive
<jeanne> New proposal for 3.8: The guidelines provide guidance for 
content, authoring, user agents and browsers, and assistive technologies.
<LuisG> lauriat: one of the things we talked about was for the scope of 
Silver to include guidance based on the authoring tool and user agent 
<LuisG> LuisG: +1 for jeanne's wording
<bruce_bailey> +1 to what Jeanne just said
<LuisG> cyborg: sounds good and I'm glad it came up. it's important. not 
sure it addresses meaningful involvement
<LuisG> lauriat: part of it..for the authoring.
<LuisG> .. but it's just support, not the entirement of it
<LuisG> cyborg: worried there will be a prototype for a tool or 
something to help them work with their users that could have 
disabilities to make the product more accessible...and the proposal for 
guidelines that provide that support are politically problematic for 
people in this area and without support from the framework there's 
nothing to prevent that from being
<LuisG> .. stopped
<Chuck> q+ on Jeanne's wording
* Zakim sees Chuck on the speaker queue
<LuisG> jeanne: I agree with you very much. the problem is we don't know 
how we can do this yet
<LuisG> .. I don't want to require anything we don't know how to do yet
<LuisG> Chuck: content and authoring are next to each other
<LuisG> .. but content authoring is its own thing
<LuisG> lauriat: with content and authoring and content 
authoring...we're using such overloaded terms..we're at risk of carrying 
over those definitions in these requirements...I want to get away from that
<LuisG> jeanne: perhaps it should be "authoring tools" instead of 
<LuisG> jeanne: I think we should complete meaningful involvement and 
what we're doing around that
<LuisG> cyborg: I wonder where we are in the process. what's the 
timeline before it's opened to wider review beyond Silver folks?
<LuisG> .. a question asked to me, What's the timeline in general? 
What's the timeline for the culture shifts of Silver? Timeline for 
opening things up for review in W3C that aren't Silver folks? Sharing 
mandate with larger community?
<LuisG> jeanne: can we hold that for the next topic?
<LuisG> lauriat: I think we have time to discuss that outside of the 
requirements themselves.
<LuisG> .. maybe a good idea to file a github issue summing up what 
we're talking about and the kind of thing we want to around meaningful 
involvement so we don't lose that
<LuisG> .. in a way that it can be one of the first things we look at
<LuisG> cyborg: I feel it's attached to the shift away from checklists
<LuisG> lauriat: it's at least related to it. I could see how we could 
try putting this in as guidance or a way of measuring success
<LuisG> jeanne: I think we should get a small group to draft how we 
could put meaningful involvement in as a guideline, method, etc. how 
could we do this? what could this look like?
<Lauriat> +1
<LuisG> .. then we'd be in a better position to say how to include it
<Chuck> +1
<LuisG> .. the fall might be a good time to include it in the requirements
<LuisG> LuisG: I would
<AngelaAccessForAll> I would
<Cyborg> yay :) me too
<Cyborg> can we get Dave Sloan in on this again too?
<LuisG> lauriat: to sum up, I think we're in a good space
<Lauriat> "Support the needs of the widest range of people with 
disabilities and recognize that people with disabilities have individual 
and intersectional needs."
<Lauriat> "Include people with disabilities and recognize that they are 
important contributors to accessibility standards and solutions."
<Cyborg> and where is the authoring tools line?
<jeanne> 3.8: The guidelines provide guidance for content, authoring 
tools, user agents and browsers, and assistive technologies.
<LuisG> .. what we didn't do is go back to what you drafted...let's get 
back to that
<Cyborg> and more meaningful involvement to come in the fall after we 
work together in more depth on this...
<LuisG> Chuck: should we break up the +1ing individually instead of 
grouping them all up?
<bruce_bailey> user agents and browser overlap
<LuisG> .. I'm happy to +1 the first and second. let's take some time to 
discuss overloaded terms
<Lauriat> Draft: "The guidelines should provide guidance for a wider 
range of the technology stacks, beyond [don't call if content] alone."
<LuisG> bruce_bailey: try writing that without "authoring tools" or 
"user agents"
<LuisG> jeanne: I wanted to use them because of the very clear 
understanding it has to people in W3C standards work
<LuisG> lauriat: the problem is that "user agent" is already out of date 
and muddled..don't want the terms' baggage
<KimD> +1 to updating term usage!
<Cyborg> now i'm even more confused lol
<LuisG> .. it would cover things like user agents, but situations like 
mobile apps that have web views..but it doesn't matter because it's in 
the technology stack
<LuisG> .. users just want things to work; they don't care about the 
<johnkirkwood>  The guidelines provide guidance for content, authoring 
tools, user agents and browsers, and assistive technologies. ... is an 
Echo, Assitant etc a user agent?
<Cyborg> The guidelines provide guidance for content creation and 
assistive technologies -- what is missing in that?
<LuisG> .. it doesn't have to define the details of the operating system 
<Cyborg> The guidelines provide guidance for content creation and 
assistive technologies -- what is missing in that?
<LuisG> .. it doesn't have to define the details of the operating system 
<LuisG> .. but it should cover accessibility standards that cover a user 
agent (for lack of better term) to assistive technology
<LuisG> Chuck: If we are attempting to chase down a paradigm shift, that 
would be altering the language so it's inclusive of all technology that 
might be in place including those we haven't considered
<johnkirkwood> technology agent?
<Cyborg> The guidelines provide guidance for content and technology 
creation and assistive technologies.
<Cyborg> ?
<LuisG> lauriat: that doesn't include things like browsers...and can't 
think of another word for content
<LuisG> Chuck: I don't know if we'll be able to solve this, but we have 
two preceding ones that I'm good to +1
<LuisG> lauriat: we can put them in there with a note to solidify the 
wording over time
<Cyborg> The guidelines provide guidance for the creation of....?
<LuisG> lauriat: is there a particular wording we have that we can drop 
in so that we can move on
<LuisG> jeanne: I like the topic of scoping...and I like the one with 
the loaded terms because they mean something to the AGWG members
<LuisG> lauriat: for now I'm good going with what you proposed...and 
we'll come to an agreement on what the wording should be
<LuisG> .. we're in agreement of what it should cover
<LuisG> cyborg: maybe another sentence to clarify intent
<LuisG> .. like we've done with other requirements
<LuisG> jeanne: I'll take an action item to draft something.
<KimD> +1 to being clear on our intent
<LuisG> .. let's try to pull this together for next Tuesday
<LuisG> lauriat: to make it clear, I've taken jeanne's proposal and 
added it to the bottom of the Requirements as 3.8
<LuisG> .. 3.8: Scope
<Cyborg> :) thanks
<LuisG> jeanne: We're going to be at CSUN, we're going to have a 
<LuisG> .. what do we want to show people
<LuisG> johnkirkwood: I am not going to be a CSUN after all
<Chuck> Made it last year, can't make it this year.
<Chuck> dial-in great!
<LuisG> jeanne: here's the link for remote participation
<LuisG> .. you don't need to register
<LuisG> .. we're also having a joint meeting
<LuisG> .. with AGWG, you might not be able to open it, but we'll put 
the dial in information in IRC
<Lauriat> Agenda: 
Received on Friday, 1 March 2019 20:13:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 1 March 2019 20:13:55 UTC