Minutes from the Silver meeting of 24 July 2018

Formatted minutes:

Text of minutes:


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

                               - DRAFT -

                 Silver Community Group Teleconference

24 Jul 2018


          Lauriat, jemma, mikeCrabb, KimD, shari,
          AngelaAccessForAll, jeanne, jennison, jan, kirkwood,





     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Plain language
         2. [4]Style guide
         3. [5]IA Doc
         4. [6]Plain language
         5. [7]Silver Basics doc
         6. [8]Requirements comments
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions

Plain language

   jeanne: We have a new plain language prototype available in


     [11] https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/PlainLanguage/site/index.html

   Last week, Kim asked that we have a version of the plain
   language that looks like the flavor prototype with tabs to
   switch back and forth to compare between different versions

   Take a look at 2.4.10 (Sections Headings) we have 4 different


     [12] https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/PlainLanguage/site/2-4-10/index.html

   Important thing here is to look at what people did and see how
   they did it

   scribe: Alt 1 is very similar to WCAG2, Alt 2 is another layout
   including Why, Who it Helps, How, Exceptions, Technical Tips,
   and Examples
   ... Alt 3 is what you need to know, what to do, what not to do
   and examples
   ... Alt 4 is very simple one with some notes
   ... 4 possibilities here, hoping that we get some more

   Angela: I haven't received any more and am still working on one

   Jeanne: So how do we evaluate this? We need something to give
   the IA people to put into their prototypes so that the right
   language is going through. We now have something that is
   testable, so how do we go about doing this?

   <Lauriat> MikeCrabb: The first thing we need to do is define
   what the definition of "best" is. Someone might say that they
   like #4 because it's easy to understand, while someone else
   might say that they don't because it doesn't give them concrete
   things to do.

   Jan: Do you think that we could look at how this relates to
   previous comments/critisisms that we have had. We might need to
   do tasks or just get opinions, but we need to make sure tha we
   are not ignoring what the redesign is for

   Isobelle: One concern that I have is that part of the audience
   are not currently engaged, are we getting criticism from people
   that are using this all the time, so how do we get in touch
   with those that don't use it?

   Jan: I agree

   Jeanne: Yes, need to do both. Research what we have and look at
   how to find audience that don't currently use WCAG, any ideas
   on how to do this?

   <kirkwood> I think COGA might be a good idea

   Isobelle: Targeted focusing of people, grass roots approach.
   Look at community of people (service community?), trying to get
   a cross section of poeple, what are the challenges that people
   have and also a call to the #a11y community
   ... university incubators are a good place to look, these are
   people who are looking to get things started

   Jenison: Maybe, but it can be difficult to get their attention
   if they are trying to get a lot more done

   mikeCrabb: I'll reach out to uni incubators etc.

   Isabelle: I can look around Toronto and find links there

   Jeanne: Lets get all the information and get this together for
   next week. Need to work on developing a list of tests

   Kim: Is the goal here to decide on 1 format or is it to gather

   Jeanne: Start with general information and then refine
   prototypes based on this?
   ... can create a googleForm for this and then tweet that out

   Isabelle: Can include demographics on this to get more
   information about the community that is taking part. Will give
   more information about the different backgrounds of people
   taking part

   Jeanne: Drop me an email with what questions should be in this
   and we can talk about this more on Friday

Style guide

IA Doc

   <jeanne> MikeCr: MarkT did a document where he sorted the WCAG
   2.1 guidance into Categories, like Focus, Images/Media, etc.

   <kirkwood> very good point about limiting to screen size, and
   augmented erality!

   <jeanne> ... This is very interesting approach

   <kirkwood> erality/reality

   <jeanne> ... it could be a good card-sorting exercise


     [13] https://twitter.com/mike_crabb/status/1021700008612126721

   <jeanne> Jeanne: Also include technologies that are beyond web,
   so we make sure we are thinking broadly.

   <jeanne> Mike: I have a student doing a project that could be
   adapted to look at these issues in augmented reality.

   <Charles> unable to join call

   Jeanne: Lots of new poeple have joined the community group,
   hoping that we can get some new material from poeple from this

   Jenison: Im working with Sean to coordinate a meeting with
   people that are interested in IA
   ... hoping to hear back from those people today/tomorrow to
   start looking at this
   ... I'll forward the notes that I sent yesterday
   ... hoping that summer holidays wont impact but we should get
   on with this even not with 100% of people on it

Plain language

   <jeanne> zakim take up item 4


     [14] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b_v525dP8bw---yEYE1LxZF5Ek16br_4Exf5x0-kBjA/edit

   This is the document that we can give to people as we are
   getting a lot of new people coming into the group.

   Jeanne: Can also be used for people in the WCAG WG that are
   looking at silver and not knowing how we are working, please
   comment on this
   ... talking about the history and an overview of the research
   results, what you can expect re culture of meetings and how we
   are working, things we are currently working on, a reading
   list, and a relationship between W3C and WCAG 2.0

   zakim take up item 5

Silver Basics doc

Requirements comments

   <jemma> *rapid fire ;-)

   <jeanne> Shawn: Lots of comments on a Github issue

   <Lauriat> [15]https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/22

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/22

   Lauriat: Quite a thread on the requirements for an issue that
   has been opened

   Jeanne: Survey due in at end of August, typically the way this
   works is that we send out something to say that it has been
   revised and people can give comments

   <Lauriat> [16]https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/25

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/25

   <Lauriat> [17]https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/19

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/19

   Lauriat: Another comment that was added that looked at the
   introduction and if it can provide more context, very good one
   ... we came to the conclusion that it raised a lot of good
   points that could be incorporated in the requirements

   Jeanne: Can anyone work on drafting the language that Mike is
   asking us to do, and then we can look at it on Friday?

   Lauriat: Can send out something to the community group and get
   people there involved

   <Lauriat> Pull request:

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/24

   Jeanne: Other thing is a pull request with suggested changes
   from alastc


     [19] https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/&doc2=https://labs.w3.org/spec-generator/?type=respec&url=https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/9ae17fac69f4cae1d2fa0124340bc652bbdebf05/requirements/index.html

   Jeanne: he wants to add a sentence before conformance model:

   <jemma> "There are several areas for exploration in how
   conformance can work. These opportunities may or may not be
   incorporated. Then need to work together, and that interplay
   will be governed by the design principles. "

   <jeanne> jeanne: It's a little more hesitant than I like, but I
   could be ok with it.

   Lauriat: Theres another thread on github with a request to
   backtrack and not do measurability, if the model doesnt work or
   there is to much pushback then we can fall back to strict
   ... nothing is set in stone, could be down to prototyping but
   language that we want to do it may be too much for some. The
   pull request is a compromise between the two extremes. We are
   going to investigate these things and explore these things, it
   will be governed by desgn principles but these may or may not
   be incorporated.

   Jeanne: I'm ok with adding the first sentence, please +1 or -1
   if you approve/dis


   <jeanne> +1

   <KimD> +1 (but not gleefully)

   <AngelaAccessForAll> +1

   <kirkwood> +1

   <Lauriat> +1 (likewise with lack of glee)

   Jeanne: Next one -
   ... Some requirements may be more important for certain
   websites and be very dependent on context. For example using
   plain language terminology in navigation is very difficult to
   test reliably given the constraints and context an ecommerce
   site has compared to a public sector website. Providing for a
   process to follow and document may be more appropriate for some
   requirements than either measurable or task-based approaches.

   Lauriat: I agree with sentiment of this but not sure on wording

   Jeanne: Lets work on wording and talk about it on friday

   mikeCrabb: I'll put a PR for it on gitHub

   Jeanne: Working on a method for getting the difference between
   pull requests shown in a meeting more easily
   ... last one on Technology Neutral
   ... "The guidelines should cover all web technologies available
   to users. It is likely that a layer of the guidance will be
   written to be technology neutral, but the guidelines should be
   able to include criteria that do not work across all
   ... we have a lot more on this since we wrote this initially

   Lauriat: agree with sentiment but needs different wording

   <jeanne> -1 because of the scope issues

   <jeanne> +1 for the layer of technologies part.

   Lauriat: Get rid of first sentence and reword second

   <KimD> -1 (it's very restrictive)

   Lauriat: this is focusing on things in a negative way, we want
   to look towards inclusive methods and not -ve

   <Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2018 14:36:32 UTC