Minutes of the Silver meeting of 6 April 2018

Formatted version of the minutes:


Text version of the minutes:


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

                                - DRAFT -

                     Silver Task Force Teleconference

06 Apr 2018


           chaals, Charles, Jeanne_Shawn, Luis

           Jemma, Jan, Shari, JohnR, JohnK

           Jeanne, Shawn



      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]update on table summaries from the CSUN Design
          2. [4]layout of Design Sprint report and invitation to
             further work?
          3. [5]AccessU meeting?
          4. [6]layout of Design Sprint report and invitation to
             further work?
          5. [7]Plain language vs Simple language for writing
          6. [8]Other concurrent work
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      * [10]Summary of Resolutions

    <scribe> scribe: jeanne

update on table summaries from the CSUN Design Sprint

    Jeanne: Finished Table 2 including the summary

    Shawn: I added the summary for Table 5, what we were trying for
    Strictly Testable, but we got beyond it in a complementary way.

    <Charles> So, there is a pattern here, where table prototypes
    addressed more than one problem.

    <Lauriat> Table 5 looked at how testers would go about
    assessing a web application using measurements along a gradient
    of accessibility as opposed to a strict pass/fail result. The
    tool to put together a report of the assessment puts an
    emphasis on:

    <chaals> [that is helpful. We have a lot of problems to

    <Lauriat> 1. personas: users’ needs come first

    <Lauriat> 2. task-based assessment, rather than component-based
    assessment. A properly marked up button doesn’t help anything
    if the user can’t complete the task at hand. Note: this also
    makes a good midpoint of grading between component/tag
    assessment and full page / complete processes compliance in the
    WCAG conformance model.

    Jeanne: We did the same at Table 2. We had also discussed
    Difficult to Read, and added some elements from that discussion
    into Accessibility Supported prototype.

layout of Design Sprint report and invitation to further work?

    Jeanne: I was thinking of organizing it by problem statement,
    and asking people for ideas or prototypes where we need more.

    Shawn: There is too much detail. We could put all the HMW in a
    wiki page

    Chaals: We should put a summary of the pathway that we want to
    go down, and include all the places where we don't know where
    we want to go.
    ... I would put it at the beginning. Here is our conclusion and
    this is how we got there.

    <Charles> A possible prioritization of those paths may be based
    on degree of completion. So that means we have (at least) 5
    prototypes that are in-progress, and (at least) 10 ideas for
    prototypes that are conceptual.

    <scribe> ACTION: jeanne to organize the rough first draft of
    the report

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-168 - Organize the rough first draft
    of the report [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2018-04-13].

    Chaals: Degree of completion and who is doing the work is
    always a good first cut.

    Shawn: Pull together the summary, the next steps and how to
    investigate the feasibility of doing it.

AccessU meeting?


      [11] https://knowbility.org/programs/accessu/

    Sharron Rush invited us to have a room to meet there.

    Jan McSorley suggested that people could drop in the room and
    work on a prototype or do user testing and put things in front
    of it.

    Chaals: We need to get prototypes in front of people and then
    be prepared to make changes based on the feedback.
    ... then the person who designed the prototype has to commit to
    moving it forward.
    ... If people come in and hack on it, then you get a lot of
    value, and other people can add to it.

    <Charles> If the goal is contribution, then the prototype(s)
    must be somewhere that contributors can access, like GitHub

    Chaals: It should be somewhere that people can see.
    ... having something where people can see what you have done on
    the first day, so I can poke it and make comments the next

    <Charles> Then we also need a place and method for comments

    Shawn: Who can be there?


      [12] https://knowbility.org/programs/accessu/

    Jeanne, yes. Jan & Shari are yes. Shawn is no. Chaals and
    Charles are remote possibilities.

    scribe: Luis is not attending.

    Charles: Even if we don't have progress on prototypes for
    people to interact with, it can at least be a recruiting
    effort, where we show what we have done so far and talk about
    our needs for the summer.

layout of Design Sprint report and invitation to further work?

    <Charles> It is also on CodePen already:

      [13] https://codepen.io/hallmedia/full/zWpoEd/

    Chaals: I could move the prototype from Table 4 into Github.

    <Charles> [14]https://github.com/w3c

      [14] https://github.com/w3c

    Chaals: I'll make a repo and hand over the ownership later when
    we have a Silver repo
    ... both Github and Google docs cause problems for some people.
    We do end up shuffling things across different systems and
    accommodate people.

Plain language vs Simple language for writing Silver

    Charles: I gathered a bunch of resources that can be pasted
    into a working draft of research on the topic so we can easily
    access the sources if we want to cite them
    ... the fundamental thing that must be sorted out first is
    whether or not we adopt and existing standard or whether we
    create them.
    ... in order to make that decision, we need to look at the
    existing standards. Globally, there an almost infinite number
    -- some of which are hard to find.
    ... in the US, there are models that go back decades that maps
    plain language to an education grade level based.

    Chaals: We have the option of using what they actually say and
    adapting that to the best of our ability. We aren't required to
    use someone else's standard.
    ... my experience is that writing simple or plain language is
    very hard and we shouldn't get to caught up in the "how-to" of
    it. We need to make it, and let people comment on it.
    ... we don't want to spend months on it.

    Charles: Let's have the people who have expertise in this area
    advance it to the next step.
    ... I just prepared resource materials.
    ... do we need to create a style guide to continue writing to
    meet that standard?
    ... Jeanne mentioned a volunteer effort to convert existing
    WCAG 2.1 to plain language.
    ... the Alan Dalton article last November converted each
    success criteria to plain simple language.


      [15] https://24ways.org/2017/wcag-for-people-who-havent-read-them/

    Shawn: ANy discussion of needing a style guide should be held
    with someone who has expertise in the area.
    ... let's get a general overview from John Rochford and have
    him guide us through the discussion. Then work on the details
    of whether we should have our own style guide.

    Charles: My hope is that he takes an action item to organize
    and lead that effort.

    Jeanne: We have five people who have volunteered. I hope one of
    them would be willing to organize it.
    ... we could write the style guide as we go, so we can be
    responsive to what works and what doesn't.

    Chaals: I think we should write the style guide as we go.

Other concurrent work

    Charles: I'm going to see Peter Morville next Wednesday. He is
    one of the top 5 IA people in the industry.

    Jeanne: Invite him to sign up for the CG. We should have the
    draft of the Design Sprint Report for him to look at.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: jeanne to organize the rough first draft of the

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]

Received on Friday, 6 April 2018 19:08:42 UTC