W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > August 2018

Minutes of Silver meeting of 28 August 2018

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 13:04:42 -0400
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4a1ca39d-fd4d-5b31-ecc8-8e1613f29f98@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted version of the minutes:


Text version:


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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Task Force and Community Group

28 Aug 2018


           Charles, kirkwood, jeanne, AngelaAccessForAll,
           mikeCrabb, Lauriat, Imelda, LuisG, KimD, Jan, jemma,
           Shawn, Wilco, Shari


           Shawn, jeanne



      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]CSUN face to face
          2. [4]Information architecture
          3. [5]Tagging
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions

    <Imelda> +1

    <scribe> scribe: jeanne

CSUN face to face

    SL: The survey for CSUN F2F had enough people to go forward,
    the preference was for Monday and Tuesday.
    ... we will go ahead and get a room to meet for those dates
    ... we should send out a email to the list

Information architecture

    MCr: I set up a document on information architecture and put it
    out for comments

    <Charles> I had to dial in via Skype. WebEx audio not working.
    Finally on. Sorry.


       [8] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBk9qG5u5LGJa9pIvou5JsqxnZFiROyeuUN6fmhU3D8/edit#heading=h.ha5990ol4jtn

    scribe: I removed the POUR architecture, so we could have a
    more flexible architecture
    ... I took out A, AA, AAA
    ... then I added the tagging engine with the same "chemistry"
    theme -- Hessite AgTe
    ... Jeanne set up a document just on the Tagging ideas, which
    has had a number of comments
    ... now we are at the stage of refining the ideas based on the

    Charles: I'm concerned that people could interpret "engine" to
    mean that the tagging is automated.

    MikeCr: I will clarify

    Charles: I like removing the numbering

    <kirkwood> good work! tagging is very powerful and useful

    Shawn: I like removing the number
    ... it stops the people that reference things by number
    ... it allows more flexible maintence, since you can add SC and
    not have to change the numbering system.

    Jeanne: WCAG today has a unique short name for each success

    MikeCr: Inside a database it could have a unique id, but we
    wouldn't show that to the public. Maybe it would appear in the
    API or maybe it would appear in a uRL address.
    ... the web team in my org is excited about an API so they
    always have the most up-to-date information. They haven't
    updated the internal information since 2005 because it is so
    difficult to scrape the W3C. They have old information.

    Jeanne: I hadn't thought about it because W3C is oriented
    toward "don't fork the standard" but people need to customize
    information in-house, so we might as well give it to them

    MikeCr: The guidelines would be owned by W3C and updated by
    them, and the methods could be updated by the community.
    ... this gets over the hurdle of what is stable and standard,
    and also with the flexibility for future-proofing

    Shawn: What is the difference between what we do now with SC
    and Techniques?

    MikeCr: It isn't a big difference, just having the tagging
    engine to connect them in more flexible ways
    ... and condensing the information to show the thing you are

    Jeanne: Another difference is to have broader input on the

    MikeCr: Which does raise the challenge of how to maintain the
    quality, but it's a good challenge to have.

    Shawn: This is exciting stuff.

    MikeCr: I'm not attached to the current state. I want people to
    comment and make it better.

    Shawn: A next step would be to set up a mini-prototype using
    existing WCAG content
    ... just simulate the tagging engine so that people can see how
    it could work
    ... we can take the normative guidelines and generate the one
    document that is the TR normative document that goes through
    W3C process.

    <LuisG> Jeanne: Very few documents are generated by hand now

    <LuisG> ... most are generated

    Imelda: Mike, congratulations on a great document. It looks
    very good.

    <kirkwood> +1 to a great coument. I really like the tagging


    <Lauriat> +1

    <kirkwood> i meant document. ;)

    <KimD> +1

    Shawn: Everyone please read and add comments


    Jeanne: New Tagging Ideas document

       [9] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nqyIuJ9_goXGHKPa3o9l7pXk-CYzfsEn22HKK3V61C4/edit#heading=h.t2qkc1obqa4y

    <LuisG> Jeanne: Threw together a quick document to gather ideas
    and it took off.

    <LuisG> ... I took the things Mike had in his IA document to
    get people started with it.

    <LuisG> ... should we go into detail here?

    <LuisG> Shawn: High level and then the details

    <LuisG> ... project role maybe by activity instead of role
    since folks may do different activities despite their role

    +1 for Activity instead of role

    <LuisG> ... thinking it may make sense to merge activities and
    project stage

    <Cyborg> is there a link to the document being discussed?


      [10] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nqyIuJ9_goXGHKPa3o9l7pXk-CYzfsEn22HKK3V61C4/edit#heading=h.t2qkc1obqa4y

    <Cyborg> if you go with activity, just important to be
    consistent about that across all

    <LuisG> Charles: I don't think everyone considers "web work" a
    project. Some of it is "sustain" some of it is "remediation"
    which wouldn't be a project.

    <LuisG> ... want to make sure it's understood in context

    <LuisG> mikeCrabb: Our web team is interested in it applying to
    more than just web so we can send it over to marketing

    <LuisG> Charles: Or app, etc.

    <Cyborg> yes re: dividing design

    <Cyborg> especially if you want to include more usability

    <LuisG> Jeanne: Cameron also said there could be different
    kinds of "designer"

    <Cyborg> there is an issue with graphics people doing usability
    testing without any related experience

    <LuisG> Shawn: Merged project role and project stage into
    activity. Added debugging to testing activity...someone trying
    to make something correct might not look in the "testing"
    activity, but might look in "debugging" activity.

    <Cyborg> is debugging not part of maintenance?

    <LuisG> ... for the technology side of things, we could have it
    by technology but with web/mobile "mobile web" ends up having
    same overall requirements as the hardware interface.

    <LuisG> ... I'm not against having technology, just talking
    through how we have those two related ideas. Interactions being
    "I have a mouse/keyboard/monitor" or "I have a touch screen
    with nothing else"

    <LuisG> mikeCrabb: I was thinking of development technology.

    <Cyborg> I think the Assistive Technology issue is what type of
    assistive tech is being used for specific criteria?

    <Cyborg> some criteria might apply to some AT and some might
    apply to others?

    <LuisG> ... do we make a distinction between the device and the

    <LuisG> Shawn: I started with "interactions" because...you may
    have a small Chromebook running a desktop version of Chrome and
    next to that you can put a tablet that has a hardware keyboard
    and it will look the same, but one is running Chrome and
    another running Android so two completely different interfaces
    for Google Docs

    <LuisG> ... the interactions as far as the hardware goes is the

    <LuisG> ... we could have keyboard, mouse, touch screen, etc.
    interactions...VR interactions

    <LuisG> mikeCrabb: Should we have an interaction tagging

    <LuisG> Shawn: I think...so. You could have the same spoken
    interface with your phone as with some flower pot device.

    <LuisG> Jenna: We may eventually need to get to the device
    level in the methods. The interactions could be different on
    different devices. I like doing it based on interactions.

    <LuisG> Charles: There are hundreds of input devices, and all
    sorts of screen types

    <LuisG> ... I can use a sip/puff with my phone, or switch with
    laptop, braille device with laptop, etc.

    <LuisG> Jemma: If you're using switch, we talk about
    accessibility of the switch.

    <LuisG> ... Jeanne said "we should deal with device
    eventually." what do you mean by that?

    <LuisG> Jeanne: Kind of what Shawn was saying about it becoming
    fractal. It shouldn't be a part of our architecture.

    <LuisG> mikeCrabb: Where is the responsibility of
    designers/developers to implement this. When does the a11y tree
    take over?

    <LuisG> Shawn: example, the sip and puff or switch...these are
    things that rely heavily on correct use of semantics and click
    target size, but the guidelines don't exist for the
    devices...it's just that the guideline enables that
    interaction. "A spatial screen with some device interacting
    with it."

    <LuisG> Jeanne: It's an interesting problem. John McNabb
    brought this up a while ago. We used to say switch devices were
    covered under keyboard...but actually it doesn't work the same
    under mobile...they need separate guidance.

    <LuisG> ... this is why I like doing it by interaction

    <LuisG> Jemma: I think interaction comes first and device

    <LuisG> Shawn: That's a good way to put it.

    <LuisG> ... how does this scale up? It's difficult to
    articulate what level it should be at. Once we involve the
    world and rest of the working group...we would need to make it
    absoluately clear so that it's impossible to misunderstand what
    level it's at.

    <LuisG> ... however, activities and technology platforms that's
    a little more straight-forward. Want to include something about
    interactions, but when it comes to tagging, other people not
    here will contribute to the tagging.

    <LuisG> Jemma: Keyboard interaction would be viable since

    <LuisG> Shawn: Some of it comes down to where are the
    boundaries? There are guidelines around game controllers and
    designing interactions so that it's more accessible.

    <kirkwood> Establishing a specificl ane powerful tagging
    protococl/methodolgy could result in a fantastic end result of

    <LuisG> Shawn: +1 to that

    <mikeCrabb> Same! +1


    <LuisG> ... going through this exercise can make it more clear
    for someone coming in

    <scribe> scribe: jeanne

    Kim: I have developers that want to know: "I want to know
    everything about headings" or "I want to know everything about
    page structure" Where would that go?

    Shawn: We don't have a category for that.
    ... I think there is a point where we have to rely on others
    about it. Like: ARIA can tell you everything you need for a
    slider. On the platform level, there are accessibility
    guidelines for Android. We might link to it.

    jeanne: I would like that.

    MikeCr: That could be done in the tagging engine, we could link
    to an external resource.

    Shawn: The challenge would be for brand-new technologies that
    don't have robust documentation of how to do accessibility. For
    example, virtual reality doesn't have robust documentation.

    <Charles> I think the tagging should avoid naming UI patterns
    – even if they only link to external resources. UI patterns are
    typically the result of trends vs usability and change fairly
    frequently as a result.

    Shawn: we could contact companies who develop platforms and ask
    them to create documentation than we can reference it. It would
    prod people into doing the right thing. Increasing the
    accessibility overall.

    <jemma> jemma: Dr.Westine and I am wondering whether we can
    share GAG and WCAG survey research result with Silver TF

    <jemma> jeanne: We are at the different project stage and have
    multiple meeting agenda items

    Jeanne: We have been running over the agendas for each meeting,
    and we aren't working on content right now. I would really like
    to address this after we have the architecture and prototypes
    ... I think this would be valuable when we reach the content
    stage. I think we want to include gaming.

    <jemma> jemma: I think it is ok. We just wanted to know whether
    we can have 5 min time slot during Friday meeting.

    <jemma> jemma: we just wanted to give thanks for all the
    support from Silver TF.

    <jemma> we were very appreciative of your support.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2018 17:05:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:43 UTC