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

Minutes of Silver meeting 19 March 2019

From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 11:54:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGQw2hnurfUfNPQsydHH7Ng4_=9RY31xGEv1q0cOVpCrE4VSqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Formatted minutes <https://www.w3.org/2019/03/19-silver-minutes.html>

Text of minutes:


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

                               - DRAFT -

                 Silver Community Group Teleconference

19 Mar 2019


          jeanne, Chuck, JF, Charles, AngelaAccessForAll, shari,
          Lauriat, Jennison, Cyborg, Jan, LuisG, KimD,
          JohnRochford, Lauriat_, RedRoxProjects, bruce_bailey,
          corbb, Makoto, kirkwood, RedRoxProjects_, dboudreau,

          Charles, Angela, JohnF, Bruce

          Shawn, Jeanne

          Rachael, Jan


     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Face to Face meeting at TPAC in September?
         2. [4]F2F highlights
         3. [5]Updates to Silver Requirements
         4. [6]Silver Requirements
     * [7]Summary of Action Items
     * [8]Summary of Resolutions

   <Shri> I am not able to join the telecon meeting . Hasn't it
   started yet?

Face to Face meeting at TPAC in September?

   <jeanne> 16-20 September 2019

   <jeanne> Hilton Fukuoka Sea Hawk

   <jeanne> 2-2-3, Jigyohama

   <jeanne> Chuo-ku, Fukuoka-shi 810-8650, Japan



   <jeanne> charles_oracle: I will go

   <jeanne> Denis: regrets - conflicts with Deque meeting

   <KimD> Probably not me

   <jeanne> jeanne: will attend by phone

   <jeanne> Shri: I don't know but will connect somehow

   <jeanne> Jan: Pearson won't attend this year

   <jeanne> Rachael: I will attend remotely.

   <jeanne> SHawn: We will keep asking about this.

F2F highlights

   <jeanne> Jeanne: pleased that we had a lot of agreement on the
   Requirements from AGWG

   <Lauriat> Silver Project Plan:


   <jeanne> Charles: As AGWG learns more, the fear of the unknown

   <jeanne> Shawn: The project plan is very rough, as we try to
   identify what SMEs are needed.

   <dboudreau> I can act as the one person from EOWG

   <jeanne> ... we have the overall outline of what kinds of
   things we need to work through

   <jeanne> ... start of a project plan -- not finished. Good for
   starting converstation with the chairs.

   <Lauriat> WCAG to Silver Outline Map:


   <jeanne> ... we also worked on a WCAG to Silver outline map

   <Rachael_> scribe: Rachael

   <Rachael_> Shaun: How do we add content and how do we fold in
   user guidance? For WCAG to Silver migration, we break down SC
   to user needs. Then we build up the same process that we would
   for new guidance...

   <Rachael_> We would need to add more sanity checks to ensure
   that if someone passes today, they don't fail tomorrow in

   <Rachael_> We went through about 1/3 SC in an outline form. We
   started conceptually clumping things. First, non text content
   and images of text

   <Rachael_> Both break down to anything that isn't text needs
   text equivilent.

   <Rachael_> This isn't final wording since we don't need text on
   decorative borders.

   <Rachael_> Then we have timed media that groups together. For
   instance audio description - there are 3 SC which would all
   turn into a single guideline in silver. It gives us a range of

   <Rachael_> Instead of 3 tests, we get a gradient of how helpful
   something is

   <Rachael_> We got through perceivable. Started in on operable.

   <Rachael_> Did get some progress there.

   <Rachael_> There was one that broke out into 3 different

   <Rachael_> It was helpful to get Wayne to join us and work
   through guidance. What came out of research and what didn't.

   <Rachael_> We can keep going to get all of WCAG mapped out like
   this so we can start building up the user needs.

   <Rachael_> This will also go a long way to demonstrating how to
   do the migration

   <Rachael_> Shaun: Anything else we missed?

   <Rachael_> Shri: I think you have everything

   <Rachael_> Shaun: Also had a fun activity to brainstorm names.

   <Rachael_> We didn't arrive an a new name but we talked through
   some possibilities.

   <Rachael_> Jeanne: That list is in the google drive prototype

   <Lauriat> Silver names brainstorming doc:


   <KimD> I don't have permission to see that doc

   <dboudreau> me neither... requested it

   <Rachael_> Yatil: Have you talked about where the boundaries
   might lie with the emerging tech? Where is the boundary around
   what will or won't be covered?

   <Lauriat> Wrong link, sorry:


   <Rachael_> Jeanne: It won't be fully flushed out for quite some

   <Rachael_> There is serious pushback from some members of W3C
   about us going beyond web. We know we can do anything web
   related but beyond that, we need to keep going forward and not
   think we have it written in stone.

   <KimD> Thx

   <Rachael_> Yatil: How does that relate to people who were
   saying we want more emerging tech in it?

   <Rachael_> Jeanne: Noone in Silver or AG object to going beyond
   web. It is a wider W3C issue. This is why we have to keep going
   forward and expect that there will be compromises made but at a
   level above us.

   <Rachael_> Shaun: So long as we build everything so that it can
   cover other technologies it will give it flexibility.

   <Rachael_> Rachael: If it's built to cover everything,
   regardless of the final decisions, people will adopt.

   <Rachael_> Jeanne: If they build it, they will come. There are
   a lot of higher level issues that need to be considered at the
   higher levels. Don't worry about it too much, just do the best
   we can do.

   <KimD> +1

   <Rachael_> doudreau: The first of along list of questions. The
   point of going from WCAG to AG, was to go beyond web. What is
   the rationale behind anyone objecting to going beyond web.

   <Rachael_> Jeanne: There are W3C members active in other member
   orgs who think W3C should not go beyond web. We can go beyond
   WCAG with authoring tools, etc but how far we can go, we don't
   know. And won't for a while.

   <Rachael_> Shaun: Even if we are confined to guidance around
   how to use web standards. Web standards covers pretty much
   every possible HCI so we have a very wide range.

   <Rachael_> Another way of looking at it, is that if we create
   standards that include the web, but if others choose to adopt
   our well crafted language, so much the better.

   <Rachael_> Jeanne: I think everyone here would agree. I think
   we can move on.

Updates to Silver Requirements

   <Jan> scribe: Jan

Silver Requirements

   <Lauriat> Requirements:

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

   Jeanne: There's a feature in github that would display
   branches, but we're not sure what it's called or how to use it.
   ... we could work on the two new ones that AG wanted

   <Lauriat> Suggested addition about the ability to support
   automated testing when possible and provide a method for
   repeatable test process when manual testing is required?

   Shawn: There were two issues around testing ... supporting
   automated testing where possible and where manual testing is
   required, provide a method for repeatable test process

   Jeanne: Task completion tests are not going to be automated, so
   I think we need to be careful about this being applied to

   Shri: When we are saying to use automated testing where
   possible in every guideline, if we could say in each guideline
   what can be tested automatically and what needs to be tested
   manually, that would be helpful
   ... if we have that specific guidance, then companies can
   better build their processes around it.

   Shawn: I think it would help to work with ACT on this because
   they are already working on this.
   ... you can automate test for failure conditions, but just
   passing that, does not mean that you have met the guideline ...
   it's just a step before you would need to do manual testing.

   ACT = Accessibility Conformance Testing

   Shawn: Should we split this between design principle and
   requirement, or two bullets under the same requirement?
   ... actually, it was suggested as a design principle - it was
   not suggested as a requirement for Silver itself.

   <Lauriat> Survey results:


   <Lauriat> Question: Are there ways to embed inclusive design
   principles into accessibility design principles?

   Jeanne: I would agree with that. I don't know that we're NOT
   doing that.

   Cyborg: What is the difference between the design principles
   and the design guidelines?

   Shawn: I think we just have the design principles and then
   separately from that we have the requirements for Silver

   Cyborg: When I think of Inclusive Design, we need to support
   the edges; when we use the language of intersectional needs ...
   widest range; the other is customization component and the
   third is the codesign component - embedding inclusive design;
   not sure what is missing in addition to that.

   <dboudreau> Could I get a URL to the page that talks about
   these principles please?

   Cyborg: there was some discussion of what "intersectional"
   meant. There was some discussion about "shared," but
   intersectional is bigger than that. It also addressed combined
   and amplified needs.

   Jeanne: I found a definition of intersectional. I found one
   that I think covers what we want, but was told that OCAD has a
   good definition at the Inclusive Design Center.

   <Lauriat> Questions from Andrew in the additional Requirements
   section of the survey:

   <Lauriat> 1) We need to specify explicitly whether native apps
   are intended to be covered (this is possibly part of the
   ATAG/UAAG/WCAG combo bit).

   <Lauriat> 2) I think that we need to consider whether we can
   establish guidance that results in non-overlap between SC (or
   whatever we call them).

   <Lauriat> 3) Clarity around partial or substantially effective

   Shawn: 1st suggestion, we already decided that we are not going
   to specify this at this time
   ... For the second suggestion, we need more information from
   Andrew about what he meant
   ... Andrew's third point about substantially effective
   conformance ... I think this would refer to a case where
   someone mostly conforms and where they don't, it doesn't affect
   people materially or it affects them very little. I don't think
   that we would say that if you don't conform, you do conform,
   but we could give people a way to explain their conformance.
   Still, we should take this back to Andrew and ask him to give
   more detail about what he meant here.
   ... Multiple ways to measure had some questions
   ... on Friday, we should probably go through Jeanne's changes
   to the requirements and finish going through the survey results
   to address questions and also address questions from the
   face-to-face meeting.

   <Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2019 15:55:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 19 March 2019 15:55:02 UTC