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

Minutes of Silver meeting 5 March 2019

From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 10:31:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGQw2h=QkKhCVKNoWRHKUBOg+NA=j+nKxzFjV6XvXWD=4DXawQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Formatted minutes <https://www.w3.org/2019/03/05-silver-minutes.html>

Plain text of minutes:

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                 Silver Community Group Teleconference

05 Mar 2019

Attendees

   Present
          Lauriat, kirkwood, KimD, CharlesHall, JF, Cyborg,
          jeanne, bruce_bailey, Chuck, LuisG, AngelaAccessForAll,
          Charles, shari, Rachael, RedRoxProjects, Makoto

   Regrets

   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          Chuck, Chuck_

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]CSUN agenda
         2. [4]CSUN presentation
     * [5]Summary of Action Items
     * [6]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <Chuck> scribe: Chuck

CSUN agenda

   Shawn: CSUN agenda, this coming Monday and Tuesday. Had initial
   agenda sketched out.
   ... Met with AGWG chairs for joing sessions. have more solid
   agenda. Still tentative. here's link:

   <Lauriat> Updated proposed agenda:
   [7]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/2019_CSUN_
   F2F_Meeting#Agenda_Topics.2C_timing_tentative

      [7]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/2019_CSUN_F2F_Meeting#Agenda_Topics.2C_timing_tentative

   Shawn: One of the things we want to do is specifically have the
   conversation with overall working group around a silver
   requirements document as early as possible in the week.
   ... Essentially we want... the requirements will set the map of
   where it is we are going and what we are trying to do, we want
   agreement on that (for quite a while).
   ... We have opportunity to lead structured session to go
   through point by point of requirements and get agreement. What
   everyone agrees on in spirit but needs work, and...
   ... What we can't get agreement on (things we should mark as
   removing). My <Shawn> plan is to have a structured and to the
   point conversation.
   ... Having ironed out what requirements should include. We
   won't get consensus because we won't have everyone, but we'll
   have good cross session. We'll send out later today to ask...
   ... For feedback (via survey). Each Q will be a point of
   requirement. If you agree, answer positive, if not, provide
   why.
   ... Any q?

   Bruce: bigger thing. For those of us who are new to silver, I'm
   assuming preference is for Chuck and JF and me to be at silver
   session as opposed to the other session.

   Shawn: That would be great, but I understand there are
   conflicting sessions. Up to the attendees to decide which
   session is best to attend.
   ... New AGWG charter discussion requires everyone. Asside from
   that we have some working sessions. As we get closer to next
   week, agendas will solidify.
   ... Selfishly... join us! But I'm realistic.

   Bruce: JF will split his time more than me. I plan on being at
   Silver.

   Shawn: Our plan for the requirements discussion once we finish
   joint session. Take all feedback and conclusions for each point
   and while one recruit members of AGWG...
   ... Flag individuals to help us define the requirement of the
   point.
   ... Once we have everything solidified as everything that
   should be included IS included, and everything we can't get
   concensus on we remove, and send results to overall WG.
   ... Realistically, there's a very real possibility that we get
   a bunch of removals as a result of this session. I think that's
   ok, that helps drive discussion around what silver should do.

   Someone: Can you be more explicit?

   <Lauriat> [8]https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/

      [8] https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/

   <Lauriat> "Different guidance has potential for different
   measurement beyond a simple true false success criterion so
   that more needs of people with disabilities can be included."

   Shawn: For instance we have a requirement... (example link)
   first one in fact, multiple ways to measure. Current draft of
   that requirement. <reads req>
   ... I know a few members of the wg have wanted to better
   understand how that works before they support this. Next week
   if we go through the requirements.
   ... We may flag this as we should remove this requirement if we
   don't get consensus. That would later on spark the conversation
   on how we would include Coga for instance...
   ... One of the main features of this requirement. This helps us
   have the larger discussion of what we are trying to do with
   silver.
   ... So far discussion around requirements has been around "all
   or nothing", my fault on how we framed it. Conversations have
   been mixed between very high and very low level.
   ... I want to go through each design principals and each
   requirements and get consensus.

   Someone: So if they say remove it, is it a fixed removal, or is
   that one instead that we can rejustify?

   Shawn: More the latter. We would flag for removal. If we can't
   get consensus for half requirements, half would be flagged,
   then review the remaining and see if sensible to build on.

   Someone: One more question about this "multiple ways". Would a
   concrete example be required. Specifically related at the
   granular level (coga type criteria). Do they need something
   like that?
   ... Or can it remain high level?

   Shawn: I want to keep it high level. One of the difficulties is
   that no matter how we build an example, it never seems flushed
   out enough.
   ... I want us to have a conversation on what goes into silver,
   we've fallen into a trap for the last six months.

   <Charles> note to Chuck. that ‘someone’ was Cybell (Cyborg)

   Shawn: Any other comments, thoughts, q?
   ... I'd love to have opinions from individuals with more
   experience than I with the WG.

   Bruce: You've done a good job characterizing the problems, I
   think your approach is good.

   JF: There is some discussion in the larger wg in bringing more
   resources to the silver wg. I don't know where that will land.
   I know people feel AGWG should be spending more on silver.
   ... There may be more activity here.

   Shawn: had discussion with chairs, monthly quick sync up. Over
   the last three months hasn't been as coordinated. yesterday we
   had special meeting (2x length and fun). This was a topic.
   ... We knew was coming. Got a lot of steam behind it.

   JF: It's kicked off, talking about recharter process. Needs to
   be finished by mid-summer.

   Shawn: I think before then.

   <Charles> reminder, many of us are not W3C members or AGWG
   members / invited experts, but only Community Group members. I
   would be interested in attending those meetings, but I am not
   in the group.

   JF: Draft before then. Wrapped up by mid summer. goes through
   W3C and reps. Larger working group has been talking about new
   charter.
   ... We will have to make determination about state of silver in
   18 months/2 years.

   Shawn: for the agenda I proposed to chairs, the new charter
   discussion with overall WG will happen Tuesday morning (joint
   session).
   ... I want requirements discussion before then. I know
   different sets of thoughts and no agreement.
   ... Number of people on silver is moot until rest is defined.
   ... The other thing I want to do in requirements discussion is
   get everyone on the same page.

   JF: I agree. I reactivated my participation is to understand
   from all perspectives.

   Shawn: Moving on. Afternoon we have two sessions with silver
   folks. First cognative pallate clenser. Brain storming for a
   permanent name for silver.
   ... Want to come up with possibilities for names, then as part
   of charter discussion... lighter topic... (bronze silver gold),
   overloading name would be best avoided.

   JF: Do that as an activity of task force or larger group?

   Shawn: Task force. So that we can come up with possibilities.
   We don't want to go to larger group with "lets now name it"?

   JF: There may be a never-ending like process.

   Shawn: A couple of years ago. When we work through different
   possibilities of how to design and build silver, Jean and I
   lead a session with overall WG, we mentioned 2 or 3
   possibilities...
   ... On how we build silver. We combined 2 of them into this
   process. Very productive way of handling the conversation.
   Avoided an open discussion and framed things to avoid churn.
   ... We are trying to do that at each point. Discussion is
   unavoidable, but trying to streamline some of the conversation.
   ... Some name suggestions won't be real, but some will be, and
   we'll provide possibilities. CPC.
   ... Then a working session and training session for content
   creation.

   <Charles> are there times posted for these meetings yet?

   Shawn: Since we need to coordinate with "them", then this may
   need to move around.
   ... Tuesday morning. Mentioned AGWG charter discussion. Jotted
   down as Tues morning. Requires coordination with overall wg.
   Time dependent on how chairs are planning to run...
   ... discussion. We want to be there for that. Take part in it.
   ... We have a placeholder in to review latest editor's silver
   draft.
   ... I don't think it would be as productive as other sessions,
   but helpful to show people where we are going.
   ... May help to show prototype work coga has been producing.
   ... Then tues afternoon Silver specific sessions. 2 sessions.
   Left vague and high level, strategy session. After some
   training with ... working group, we have a better idea of work
   we need to do.
   ... We can think of how we best fold in other members of
   working group on how we work on content. Then define content
   creation story. 2nd session..
   ... PM documentation and.... JF, to your point, how we handle
   10 more people. Work remaining on structure, building out from
   there, getting into content creation, what the work is,
   ... SME expertise, etc.
   ... That's a lot for two days. Expecting that we won't get to
   everything. Hoping we can, structured time. I'm hoping too that
   from joint sessions (around reqs) that we get more casual
   ... working sessions, and get more feedback. Over lunch or at
   the bar we talk about it.
   ... I think that will be helpful having everyone in one space.

   <Charles> is there any way to capture resolutions that come
   from at the bar conversations?

   Shawn: Any comments, q, concerns with overall agenda? There's a
   lot.
   ... <reads Charles q>. I hope so. I jot down notes in my phone.
   Leave it to all participants to document the ideas.

   JF: Any formal decisions need to happen in a formal meeting.
   ... If we come up with a good idea, make sure it is added to
   the agenda. Shared responsibility.

   Shawn: If nothing more, moving to next topic.

CSUN presentation

   Shawn: Other thing that's happenning is CSUN. We have preso to
   give on end of day on Wed. Want to discuss on what we should
   include and focus on.
   ... Quite a while since last preso, lots of content to go
   through. My thinking is to give a similar-ish "here's what
   silver is, where we came from, here's where we are in that
   map"...
   ... Then go through some prototypes. Not planning to talk about
   balance of prior work. If asked about it, will deflect
   question. More focused on practical stuff of what we plan to
   include...
   ... and what it looks like.
   ... Other thoughts or ideas?

   <Lauriat> (last year's presentation) Re-Imagining Accessibility
   Guidelines [9]https://goo.gl/1dyJck

      [9] https://goo.gl/1dyJck

   Shawn: Last year we walked through background, around WCAG
   work, where silver came from, then went into some of the goals.
   Since we have a reasonable draft of requirements, we can...
   ... reshape slides to discuss opportunities with silver, can be
   specific about what we want to hold silver to. If we get into
   conversations that go off rails, and if everything gets
   deleted...
   ... We won't present just one single requirement, we'll give an
   overall of all the reqs.
   ... We have timeline itself. Need to update as prototyping has
   extended. Structure is dependent on requirements, want to get a
   little more real.
   ... We have the research done.
   ... Recruiting is still fairly important. Community group has
   been awesome.
   ... I would like to hilight participation from overall WG. Been
   super helpful.

   Cybel: Any way to highlight contributions from community group?
   ... Curious what I'm missing.

   Shawn: bulk of prototyping has come from community group.
   Members of overall wg, biggest pieces we've had have been
   discussions around requirements, also a lot of...
   ... experimentation of the prototypes (coga task force).
   members of the wg on that. We have several members on call
   today helping us work through bigger topics and complicated
   issues.

   Cybel: Other thing that may be useful to tie goals to what's
   been achieved so far. It's quite cool (slide 4) a lot has been
   put into practice already.

   Shawn: Absolutely.
   ... Made copy of slides, will add comments and capture our
   thoughts. Wait.... nobody can see it.
   ... I'll make a note.

   Charles: Also worth summarizing on a slide or two the gist of
   large spans of conversations for example. We've talked about
   conformance for a year. We've come along way as a result.

   Shawn: Definitely.

   Bruce: For bringing AGWGers along, there aren't that many
   slides. Maybe you can... like slide 4, all of those are done.
   Show slides with them checked off. Show timeline, gant chart of
   progress.
   ... Show work done.

   Michele: Maybe not ready to show this, I'd want to see a before
   and after of a guideline example. Would bring it home.

   +1

   <RedRoxProjects> +1

   Michele: Risk, but would get feedback.

   Shawn: Putting together a top level view. Something that gives
   kind of a top level of what the guidelines could look like
   compared to existing guidelines.
   ... Both at top level and when you go deeper.

   <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if this for AGWG or
   public CSUN session

   Shawn: I also want to include some of the writing that other
   task forces have done, on guideance for sc that didn't make it
   in to prior guildelines.

   <Lauriat> CSUN Presentation link "Future of Accessibility
   Guidelines for Web and ICT"
   [10]https://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/2019/sessions/index.php
   /public/presentations/view/1278

     [10]
https://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/2019/sessions/index.php/public/presentations/view/1278

   <Rachael> s/michelle:/rachael:/

   <Lauriat> Abstract: "The next major version of W3C
   Accessibility Guidelines is progressing. See improved
   usability, examples of WCAG guidance written in simple
   language, and more flexible conformance."

   <Chuck_> Scribe: Chuck

   <Chuck_> Cybel: The preso we are talking about, is that going
   to highlight things like information architecture, plain
   language, etc?

   <Chuck_> Shawn: Yep.

   <Chuck_> Shawn: Let me link to session itself. We had to put
   the time in many months ago. We didn't know where we'd get to.

   <bruce_bailey> Scribe: Chuck_

   Shawn: Abstract itself. Intentionally left vague. Next major
   version...

   Cybel: There was another slide deck that showed the 3... bronze
   silver gold, I can't remember where it is. The that you used
   last meeting. Is that one useful?

   Shawn: This deck made a while ago. I think you are talking
   about potentially this other slide deck...

   <Lauriat> This slide deck? [11]http://goo.gl/XqwaM4

     [11] http://goo.gl/XqwaM4

   Shawn: That links to preso at TPAC.
   ... This had info architecture, tagging engine. As well as desc
   of how content would move to silver.

   <Lauriat>
   [12]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1V_nYD27N6kx8gRha0rr
   dQK8aKyvg7kKXu6rs44We7IU/edit#slide=id.g44e0248110_0_0

     [12]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1V_nYD27N6kx8gRha0rrdQK8aKyvg7kKXu6rs44We7IU/edit#slide=id.g44e0248110_0_0

   Shawn: Was this the slide...?

   Cybel: Not at this level, but yes, I saw in earlier draft.

   Shawn: We can take some of the slides that talk about
   prototypes, especially plain language, info architecture. We
   have examples that have gone further. We'll shuffle previous
   format and this content.
   ... As well as content we worked through with other task
   forces. We'll pair down to half an hour.
   ... Maybe 40 minutes.

   <bruce_bailey> Slide 22 has the bronze/silver/gold

   Cybel: One thing that came up... has moved since... maybe not
   ready this week... is concept of having the guidance at 3
   levels. Instead of this... task based, overall based.
   ... There are levels that way too. Is that ready for
   illustration? Where are we at?

   Shawn: We need to flush out more, we could potentially bring it
   up as a point of conformance.
   ... Making note of those three levels for my todo bits for
   preso.

   Cybel: Maybe even a reference to that. I have q on how that
   fits in info architecture. Not getting "just a matter of
   tagging".

   <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about Leed comparison

   Bruce: Remembering a conversation about using the green
   building certification as a model, Jeanne talking about how we
   want to look into that. Concerns with "bicycle parking decks"
   to get more points, but in Alaska..
   ... going to follow up with folks here (buildings people), but
   not done that yet.
   ... Any more info about that conversation?

   <Cyborg> The simplest possible "overall guidance" that we came
   up with was an accessibility statement.

   Shawn: One of the things we were working through....

   Bruce: You don't have to know now, but might be a good topic.

   Shawn: We want to provide a way for people to build up more
   points, go beyond minimum. having a min set of requirements so
   that you don't pile up on things for low vision functional
   needs ...
   ... And completely neglect people that are centered around
   cognative. To your point, not setting up a system that can pile
   up on one thing.
   ... That gets challenging quickly.
   ... We can provide framework for people who go above and
   beyond, but have a clear minimum.

   thanks Bruce!

   Shawn: For CSUN preso, any other points that we should think to
   include?
   ... I've a bunch of self notes. We can turn this into a real
   preso. I think ... any other topics?
   ... From here I have a pile of things to do. Going to be
   sending survey for requirements to the chairs so that they can
   send out asap.
   ... going to work with Jeanne to work on preso, working with
   chairs on agenda, will email silver list a things solidify. We
   will give you idea of what's happening when and where, so you
   can
   ... Plan your attendance.

   Cybel: Remote participation?

   Shawn: We'll have webex setup. We'll figure it out. We know
   we've a number of people dialing in. AV setup has not been
   setup. We got last minute help from Jan (not on call).
   ... We'll have remote participation possible, will go out with
   agenda.

   Cybel: If you are looking for a quick reference to overall
   guidance, the accessibility statement is a great resource. Easy
   to explain.

   Shawn: Thanks everyone.

   <Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2019 15:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 March 2019 15:32:03 UTC