Minutes of the Silver meeting of 10 July 2018

Formatted minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/07/10-silver-minutes.html

Text of minutes:

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                 Silver Community Group Teleconference

10 Jul 2018

Attendees

   Present
          Lauriat, LuisG, Jennison, kirkwood, AngelaAccessForAll,
          jeanne, Cybele, alastairc, chaals, KimD

   Regrets

   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          Lauriat

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Prototypes
         2. [4]Plain language
     * [5]Summary of Action Items
     * [6]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <alastairc> WCAG thread on 'what to work on':
   [7]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JulSep/t
   hread.html#msg14

      [7] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JulSep/thread.html#msg14

Prototypes

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

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

   <jeanne>
   [9]https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/FlavorPrototype/inde
   x.html

      [9] https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/FlavorPrototype/index.html

   Jeanne: Additional ideas for prototypes? For one: use the tab
   panel concept, but organizing it by role. We could have a tab
   for a general one, giving the plain language description, and
   then tabs for designers, developers, testers, all the different
   roles that we want to use.
   ... This prototype would fit under the technical, developer
   section.

   <alastairc>
   [10]http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/m
   obile

     [10] http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile

   <chaals> [I'm a little bit sceptical about diividing stuff
   according to roles, since it means we need to describe roles in
   ways that everyone understands - or teach everyone how to
   understand the ways that *we* define them...]

   Alastair: Something like this will be a necessary approach.
   (link)

   +1 to Chaals.

   Alastair: Something like this is essential to explain things in
   plain language for everyone to understand, but to also include
   things inherently testable.

   <chaals> SL: people use names of roles in differnt ways, or
   don't have a concept of them at all,just try to do some task.

   <chaals> ... so support basing division on technology instead
   of role.

   Chaals: If we can be clear about the technology, that would
   help explain what people would need to know more specifically.

   <Charles> side note: the BBC link is a blank white page for me
   in Chrome. inspecting to try to find the culprit.

   <chaals> ... like the tab navigation approach. But sometimes I
   want to be able to search the giant wall of text

   Jeanne: I like the way BBC did it, divided up into each role.

   Alastair: I will say that in my experience in different
   companies, the roles didn't match up in any way. Very difficult
   to do well.

   <Charles> while roles are subjective in the absence of
   definitions, we do have stakeholders already defined.

   Charles: If we have it by roles, wouldn't it still have the
   possibility of redundancy of information in each section?

   <chaals> [I don't think redundancy is a problem - things can
   appear in more than one category. (That's a feature of
   tag-based systems instead of strictly enforcing a split...]

   Charles: I could see the design one would look slightly
   different from the developer one.

   Lauriat: I'd rather have it organized by activity rather than
   role, since that'd better match up.

   Jennison: We could organize by both, right? We have a big push
   going on to talk about accessibility in terms of the
   responsibilities of each role.

   Lauriat: We could prototype both and do some usability testing.

   Alastair: Concrete labels will always beat roles or abstract
   concepts.

   <Charles> Apologies. I have zero updates on any prototyping
   effort(s). Other work has been prohibitive. But my primary idea
   was to start with the Michael Crabb structure of 2.0 document,
   and revise for needs we have identified:
   [11]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GniLcfhw1M37UkgBsewDfVW
   c3QlE741HzC3xpnryRjQ/edit#heading=h.qib5txeh9czh This would
   include accounting for stakeholder/role.

     [11] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GniLcfhw1M37UkgBsewDfVWc3QlE741HzC3xpnryRjQ/edit#heading=h.qib5txeh9czh

   Jeanne: I'm very in favor of that.
   ... Anyone up for playing with this idea?

   <alastairc>
   [12]http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard/functional-statemen
   ts

     [12] http://mandate376.standards.eu/standard/functional-statements

   Alastair: I'll follow up.
   ... Categorization by "using without hearing" and such would
   cover disabilities in a clear way.

   Lauriat: Chaals' and Charles' table at the design sprint worked
   on something along those lines, which I think worked rather
   well. Not sure of the state of it at the moment?

   Charles: Chaals put it on github a little while back.

   Jeanne: Any other ideas to talk through today?

   <Charles> start here:
   [13]https://github.com/w3c/silver/tree/master/prototypes

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/silver/tree/master/prototypes

   James: New to github and on the call. Is there an email thread
   I can look at for more information about things?

   <chaals> [14]video prototype from design sprint

     [14] https://chaals.github.io/proto-silver/atc18/videoAccessibility.html

   Jeanne: Apologies, we should've started with introductions! We
   have the public Silver mailing list, the github repo, and some
   basic information on the main Silver page.

Plain language

   <jeanne>
   [15]https://drive.google.com/open?id=10OgYFsH4U_IWFU3-n-_9mBtz_
   SerU9xq

     [15] https://drive.google.com/open?id=10OgYFsH4U_IWFU3-n-_9mBtz_SerU9xq

   Jeanne: We have been doing an experiment, asking people who
   have volunteered to work on plain language. We asked them to
   take four current WCAG SC, translating those into plain
   language.
   ... We've had two responses so far. I did this in Word so I
   could expand/collapse by heading to make it easier to compare
   the before and after.
   ... We have one plain language version that looks so close to
   the original that I had to look closely to see if it was
   different (which it is).
   ... Alastair, I think we should look at this for even WCAG 2.2,
   if we do a 2.2, as it has a great impact on the readability.
   ... Anyway, that's a separate issue.
   ... The next example used a very different approach.
   ... Targeting to audience:

   "-startup teams, non-technical managers in charge of website
   (including in government, non-profits, commercial enterprise),
   product and project managers, designers and researchers, as
   well as developers."

   "-aiming for common language so they can all communicate
   together"

   "-readable by general public so they can hold organizations and
   website owners to account"

   "-easy to understand intent and expectation"

   "-reduces barriers for people to understand content and know
   how to use it. In particular, understandable by people with
   cognitive disabilities and who speak English as a Second
   Language."

   scribe: The cool thing, is I think the second example seems
   very close to what table 4 did in the design sprint.

   Cybele: I just started from the premise of the barriers that
   people face, and tried to break down why that way happening and
   what might overcome it.
   ... I thought that they maybe just didn't understand the
   purpose of the SC. You can see very clearly "what do I have to
   do?" in plain language.
   ... "Why should I have to? Who does this really help?" … "I
   still don't totally get it, give me an example."

   <Charles> the table 4 design sprint outline / description is at
   the end of this doc:
   [16]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zTij1pH9NumEmMJoTFlsnpk
   UHpM6SmP852jmkNDjAd0/edit#heading=h.ovrbv6kzks7b

     [16] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zTij1pH9NumEmMJoTFlsnpkUHpM6SmP852jmkNDjAd0/edit#heading=h.ovrbv6kzks7b

   Jeanne: If you scroll down in the document and look at the
   second one, 4.1.2 is one of the most complex
   [17]https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#ensure-compat-rsv

     [17] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#ensure-compat-rsv

   "Use the format: Name, Role, Value, for all user interface
   components you add or change."

   "Name is the label or name you call your feature. E.g. CAR"

   "Role is the function that attribute achieves. E.g. DOOR (on
   the car)"

   "And value is whether it is on/off, yes/no, or
   checked/unchecked. E.g. OPEN (car door is open)"

   Jeanne: I'm hoping we get some more examples to talk through on
   Friday, so that we can talk through how to translate the
   existing SC and guidance for Silver.
   ... Friday, we'll have more people from the plain language
   group to talk about this and the work ahead.
   ... Looking at status updates, I see ID24 talk submissions have
   opened. If anyone would like to speak there about Silver,
   please do let me know?
   ... Second one: a presentation for accessibility camps in the
   Fall.
   ... We have a presentation I gave at Accessibility Toronto, and
   anyone can use that presentation for accessibility camps in the
   Fall.
   ... Plain language, we're making progress on…
   ... Information Architecture: Where are we and what do we need
   to do next there?
   ... I know we have the prototypes rolling, we've recruited
   volunteers, we've gotten in touch with Education & Outreach,
   we've outlines of the current structure…
   ... I'm not sure where to go next, though.

   <Charles> time check. I have a hard stop for another call in 2
   minutes.

   <Charles> I have no updates on prototyping or tasks other than
   intent that I have had no time to get to

   Lauriat: I think we need to play around with different
   structures in terms of what to include, and how it may expand
   in different dimensions, like technologies, updates, and
   information included.

   trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]