Minutes of Silver meeting of 19 June 2018

Formatted Minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/06/19-silver-minutes.html


Text of Minutes:
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

19 Jun 2018

Attendees

    Present
           KimD, Charles, jeanne, MikeCrabb, kirkwood, MichaelC,
           imelda, Peter

    Regrets
           Jan, Shawn

    Chair
           jeanne

    Scribe
           mikeCrabb

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]TPAC
          2. [4]Requirements survey
          3. [5]WCAG Structure document
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

TPAC

    <jeanne> [8]https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/

       [8] https://www.w3.org/2018/10/TPAC/

    Jeanne: Lets talk TPAC (link above) . Email was sent out with
    lots of info about TPAC, registration is now open and for those
    that are interesting in attending there are 2 days of face to
    face meetings.

    Days are October 22nd and 23rd in Lyon (France), lots of
    details on the W3C TPAC pages including hotels, airports,
    transport. Registration is open, there is a fee for each day.
    Normally a week long conference:

    --Mon nad Tues (working group meeting)

    --Wed (group meetings)

    <Charles> Charles thinks it is not clear how CG members attend
    WG Plenary sessions on Wednesday

    proposed Silver meeting on Wednesday

    Charles: How do community group members fit into plenary
    sessions? Some sessions are "by invite of the chair only"?

    Michael Cooper: Wednesday is called plenary, its for anybody
    really. A few presentations from management and then breakout
    sessions nominated by the participants

    Charles: I'll be there Mon-Wed

    Jeanne: similar

    ;)

Requirements survey

    <jeanne>
    [9]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-requirements/

       [9] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-requirements/

    Jeanne: Members of the Accessibility guideline working group
    (i.e. not community group), we have presented silver
    requirements to accessibility guidelines working group. It is a
    survey being presented so anyone that has access to this,
    please complete it. We would really like to have comments on it
    from the people that are familiar with it.
    ... Please do this before 11 EST today - that is when the AG
    Working Group meeting is

WCAG Structure document

    [10]https://github.com/mikecrabb/silver_guidelineAPI/tree/maste
    r/documentation

      [10] 
https://github.com/mikecrabb/silver_guidelineAPI/tree/master/documentation

    <jeanne> MikeCrabb: Start with the existing structure of WCAG
    as a basis of creating a new structure for Silver

    <jeanne> ... there is the SC, the way you can test them, and ??

    <jeanne> ... there are techniques and failures with examples

    <jeanne> ... passing technique has a technology associated with
    it.

    <jeanne> ... there can also be a situation where the SC applies

    <jeanne> ... I have put it into a database and created an API

    API Link: [11]https://github.com/mikecrabb/silver_guidelineAPI

      [11] https://github.com/mikecrabb/silver_guidelineAPI

    <jeanne> ... so we can get the information for each success
    criteria

    <jeanne> ... it makes it easier to build the prototype

    example Passing Technique call:
    [12]http://35.178.161.137/passingTest/ARIA6

      [12] http://35.178.161.137/passingTest/ARIA6

    example for all success criteria:
    [13]http://35.178.161.137/example/allSuccessCriteria

      [13] http://35.178.161.137/example/allSuccessCriteria

    <jeanne> ... it gives a model of the data that we can use to
    start displaying the information

    <jeanne> ... none of it models the guidelines, just how we meet
    the guidelines

    <jeanne> ... there is a demo of it in github

    <jeanne> MichaelC: I do want to be careful not to be so focused
    on WCAG2, that we end up basing all the Silver work on it.

    <MichaelC> WCAG 2 JSON:
    [14]https://rawgit.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/gh-pages/_data/wca
    g21.json

      [14] 
https://rawgit.com/w3c/wai-wcag-quickref/gh-pages/_data/wcag21.json

    <jeanne> ... I haven't had time to look at the JSON, but that
    link is an existing JSON file that drives the WCAG 2 QuickRef

    <Charles> Agree with Michael C. This is very useful for
    comparative testing with proposed / prototype structures.

    <jeanne> ... the SQL diagram is missing Advisory techniques

    <jeanne> ... we classify all techniques as either Sufficient,
    Advisory, or Failures.

    <jeanne> ... Failures should never have been called Techniques

    <jeanne> ... some success criteria have situations, others
    don't. The situation SC can have different sets of Techniques
    based on the situation.

    <jeanne> MikeCrabb: We shouldn't use this as a template for
    Silver, we should look for what information that people are
    after, and then use that information to inform SIlver

    <jeanne> ... do we have log files?

    <jeanne> MichaelC: There are log files for the W3C site, but I
    don't know if we would be able to use them.

    <jeanne> ... there is some logging for WAI resources, but I
    don't know what it captures and whether we could have access to
    it.

    <jeanne> ACTION: MichaelC to look into the possibility of log
    files on use of WCAG2 information

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-193 - Look into the possibility of
    log files on use of wcag2 information [on Michael Cooper - due
    2018-06-26].

    <jeanne> Charles: Another handy datum would be the originating
    link

    Jeanne: I'll spend some time looking at the API and how we can
    look at the information differently. I agree that we need to
    look at a different structure but this is cool!

    exceptions:
    [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/text-equiv-all.h
    tml

      [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/text-equiv-all.html

    Jeanne: it would be great to get a tool that could look at
    different components and how they could be made accessibly, it
    would be difficult, but when we are looking at things like
    tagging it would be useful
    ... when Charles Hall was looking at word analysis for WCAG2,
    one of the things that I thought about was to capture examples
    of where the techniques apply. I think there is a lot more to
    do with this

    MichaelC: I agree it would be useful, my concerns about this
    and implementability - we dont have full information for all
    widgets and it would be a lot of work to obtain it. Also
    concerns around exclusion by ommision. Anything that we dont
    know about could lack guidance. Tagging is good whre we have
    that information but at that granular level it would be
    difficult

    Jeanne: Exclusion by omission is important, need to ensure that
    whatever we do we keep that in mind
    ... any other questions? Exciting to have a tool that means we
    can create prototypes that have data in them

    Charles: I'll need some time to wrap my head around looking at
    the structure and looking at best path forward. One of the
    things that we've talked about is looking at comparative
    usability testing (take prototype of new structure and compare
    against old structure). Need to look at how we describe the
    deltas - what is the difference between this structure and
    current structure

    Jeanne: I can see us looking at 1 prototype and another, but
    what is the importance of comparing to WCAG2?

    Charles: e.g. parent child relationship of some categories.
    Existing structure has a clear relationship. If we reverse that
    or have a different structure or one that is not parent/child
    then we have 2 things to compare in the context of a task, but
    should we also describe the difference?

    Jeanne: at an early stage, yes. But for the *last* one, it will
    be difficult. We woudl have to spend a lot of time if we wanted
    to continually compare to original WCAG. We're going to have a
    lot of differences so may not want to do that?
    ... Peter, any comments or impressions?

    Pete_kennaugh: Having something that better describes the
    structure in WCAG is good and an interesting tool to have, will
    help when it comes to looking at how to put guidelines into a
    different format. By understanding this we will avoid
    repetition.

    Jeanne: Also want to introduce Peter to Mike and to Charles. 3
    people that are most interested and have expertise in the data
    design.
    ... please feel free to connect outside this meeting also

    Charles: I also completed the list of contacts to look at PwD
    with guidelines

    Jeanne: Great! Is it worth having a separate meeting about IA?

    mikeCrabb: +1 yes!

    pete_kennaugh +1

    Jeanne: Timeline is to have a few prototypes in July, settling
    on one in September
    ... is this doable timeline wise? If not please let me know

    Charles: do you mean that this is done enough to test?

    Jeanne: testing in August and then end of september is the one
    that we want to propose to AGWG in October

    Charles: What volume of prototypes makes that
    reasonable/unreasonable to do? 3? Sounds like a good number to
    test and talk about, but if we go beyond that it will really
    impact on the timeline

    Jeanne: If we have multiple prototypes beyond 3, we should be
    looking at picking best features of each one based on
    requirements and making sure that when we get to user testing
    we have best 3, or best of the 3
    ... if this isnt realistic then we can look at it then
    ... anything else on IA?

    mikeC: gitHub pull requests

    Jeanne: have an action to deal with these
    ... do you want your accepted?

    mikeCrabb: Yes, please. Just gives a bit more detail to pull
    requests

    <Zakim> KimD, you wanted to ask if 2.1 was included

    Kim: Does the prototype look at 2.0 or 2.1?

    <jeanne> Kim: Does it include 2.1?

    MikeCrabb: just 2.0. Took a deep approach to look at IA first
    then will work on getting data in after

    <jeanne> chair: jeanne

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: MichaelC to look into the possibility of log
    files on use of WCAG2 information

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2018 14:31:57 UTC