Minutes of Silver meeting of 29 May 2018

Formatted Minutes

Text of Minutes:

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

                                - DRAFT -


29 May 2018


           mikeCrabb, kirkwood, LuisG, Charles, jeanne, Jan, Shari,





      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Requirements document
          2. [4]Project plan updates
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions

Requirements document

    <scribe> Scribe: LuisG

    <jeanne> [7]https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues

       [7] https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues

    Jeanne: We got an email with comments on requirements document.

    <kirkwood> agree with the reordering

    Jeanne: Leonie is suggesting reordering the sections.

    <jeanne> [8]https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/master/requirements/
    <- Requirements draft

       [8] https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/master/requirements/

    <jeanne> [9]https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/5 <- Issue

       [9] https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/5

    <chaals> [+1 to Léonie's suggestions.]

    Jeane: here is Leonie's suggestion: I'd be tempted to reorder
    the content. Describing the principles before the problem space
    seems counter-intuitive to me. Describing the problem space,
    and then describing the proposed solution/design principles,
    feels like a better narrative to me.

    Charles: Think she meant "requirements before problem space is
    counter-intuitive." Principles still makes sense as first

    Shari: I'm not interpreting it that way at all. Wouldn't we
    want the background, then principles, and then solutions.

    Charles: These are overarching problems; higher than the
    principles themselves.

    <kirkwood> agree with what Shari problem should be first

    Shari: Weren't the principles developed because we knew what
    the issues were?

    <kirkwood> sorry with agree with what Shari says problem should
    be first, then principals

    Shari: Principles do more than just solutions to the
    issues...that's what the requirements are for

    Jeanne: Can you live with putting problems first?

    Charles: Now that I'm rereading the final edit of them, I think
    it does make sense. Some of them are rather explicit.
    ... which wasn't intentional.

    Jeanne: What would you want to see as next step? Principles as
    next step?

    Charles: Great question. I think next comment she made is even
    more important. I've tried to insert a few times...which is it
    seems heavy leaning towards disabilities rather than...I don't
    know the best way of describing range would be "disabilities or
    impairments in context of situations"

    <imelda> +1

    Charles: Leonie is concerned we're excluding people by just
    saying the word "disabilities" because it implies permanent
    disability. If we reword it to be less explicit about

    Shari: I think we need to be more explicit about the definition
    of disability, because nowhere does it say it's permanent. In
    fact more are temporary and not permanent.
    ... If we make it clear up front, don't have to worry about it
    excluding other people.

    Charles: Think the solution is adding a definition?

    Shari: It would be remiss of us if we don't say how it's
    defined. We don't want people to assume that all are permanent.
    And we don't want them thinking we're excluding a large amount
    of people.

    <kirkwood> “impairment that substantially limits one or more
    major life activity” (according to US ADA)

    Shari: we need to somehow make it clear what the definition of
    disability means.

    Charles: I typically avoid listing any disability and use
    broader generic terms. But if we say what it means "herein" and
    how it's used in this document, it makes sense to say what we
    mean and then continue to use the word it should address the
    problem of people with disabilities being forgotten.

    Jeanne: Actually, does WCAG have a definition of disability. I
    would use ADA, but it's US-oriented.

    Charles: Core part missing in ADA definition is "moment in
    time." It's omitting that it can be temporary.

    <kirkwood> To be clearer: “The ADA defines a person with a
    disability as a person who has a physical or mental impairment
    that substantially limits one or more major life activity. This
    includes people who have a record of such an impairment, even
    if they do not currently have a disability.”

    Charles: Reordering the document makes sense. Having a
    definition inside introduction makes sense. So we just have to
    write a definition and reorder the sections.

    <kirkwood> the current part speaks to what Charles was saying

    Charles: It's a really interesting definition to say a person
    with a disability that no longer has is still considered to
    have a disability
    ... we're trying to make sure that access in the current tense
    is covered.
    ... Doesn't matter if I had and no longer have the disability.
    It matters that I can't get access.

    MikeCrabb: We're not tryingto add for disability, but access.

    Jeanne: WCAG doesn't have a definition of disability in the
    normative section.

    <jeanne> The Intro of WCAG states: Web Content Accessibility
    Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 defines how to make Web content more
    accessible to people with disabilities. Accessibility involves
    a wide range of disabilities, including visual, auditory,
    physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, and
    neurological disabilities.

    Charles: If we're listing them it's a challenge. But if we
    define that they can be permanent or temporary. Maybe it's
    "disability or impairment" or "situation or context"...

    Jeanne: Maybe we say disability is a barrier. People have
    impairments, but the environment causes the disability.
    ... therefore anyone could have a disability.

    Charles: I love the social model. It's not about the person.
    It's about the gap.

    Luis: I like the social modal, but I've only ever heard it
    unofficially. Is it used somewhere officially?

    <kirkwood> “impairment that substantially limits the use of the
    internet [major life activity]” ? -just a thought

    Charles: The WHO uses it.

    <Charles> An impairment is a problem in body function or
    structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered
    by an individual in executing a task or action; while a
    participation restriction is a problem experienced by an
    individual in involvement in life situations.

    <Jan> An impairment is a problem in body function or structure;
    an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an
    individual in executing a task or action; while a participation
    restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in
    involvement in life situations. Disability is thus not just a
    health problem.

    <Charles> [10]http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/

      [10] http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/

    <Jan> This is from the World Health Organization

    <kirkwood> major life activty is how they defined , — sorry mic
    issue on my end

    <Jan> www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/

    <Jan> jinx, Charles!

    Charles: I have to drop off. I agree with reordering and adding
    definition as long as we can agree on one.

    Jeanne: So this is a major new direction if we dive into a
    change of definition of something so fundamental.
    ... not sure I want to make a big decision like this.

    LuisG: Agreed. I don't think we should make big decisions like
    this without both of y'all here.

    Jeanne: Well we're supposed to be presenting it right after he
    gets back.
    ... If people could consider and think of definitions that
    would be useful for us. Please look to the Github issues page
    that I linked earlier and make comments in the Github issue
    that way our discussion is recorded and people can go back and
    review how we made the decision.



    Mike Crabb: I did a workshop with developers...

    Jeanne: I think the BBC people...well I have nothing but
    admiration for their work.

    mikeCrabb: We looked at "disability challenge areas"
    ... we broke them up and then let people come up with how to
    divide them. Once I have more data I'll update.

    <Jan> [12]http://www.who.int/features/qa/50/en/... WHO's
    definition of e-accessibility

      [12] http://www.who.int/features/qa/50/en/

    mikeCrabb: "intersectional" is if you have multiple
    disabilities grouped up what are the unique challenges that
    come up.

    Jeanne: What's interesting is that it includes, "draws
    attention to the need to ensure access to ICTs for persons with
    disabilities on an equal basis with others and will help to
    eliminate barriers to information, including through the
    ... but I think we should leave this topic for now. Let people
    think about it and discuss it in the Github issues page. If we
    can put some of the definitions there that would help.

Project plan updates



    Jeanne: As far as prereqs, we're still struggling with Github.
    I sent an email to MichaelC asking to help us resolve the
    master branch problem we're having.

    mikeCrabb: Are we going to have two separate branches?

    Jeanne: Everything will be on gh pages probably. Everything we
    make will be HTML.
    ... okay, in the prereqs for things to do before June (later
    this week) we did the design spring report. Plain vs simple
    language has become moot because at the time we were struggling
    with it as a semantic issue and I think the direction we're
    currently going is experimenting with our own styleguide to see
    what's most appropriate for what we're trying to do.
    ... one of the things we haven't talked about is that we may
    have different levels of simple language depending on the
    ... much of the guidance should be in simple language and we
    can recommendations of the level. When we're giving device to
    developers we should keep it as plain as possible but allow
    some technical terms which wouldn't meet styleguide for simple

    Luis: I think this makes sense as a way of operating.

    <kirkwood> sure. we always used plain language guidelines in

    <kirkwood> [14]https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/

      [14] https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/

    <kirkwood> granted that’s US

    Jeanne: I want to mark this as complete.
    ... "finish the requirements" document. I'm going to push that
    off to June 12
    ... and the Github APIs is back on me...and Angela.
    ... AccessU is complete. GAAD is complete. ID24 in June? It's
    not something I added. Does anyone have a date for ID24 and is
    there any interest?

    <mikeCrabb> [15]https://www.inclusivedesign24.org/

      [15] https://www.inclusivedesign24.org/

    mikeCrabb: The website for ID24 says the next one is in October
    and not in June. It was in June in 2017.

    Jeanne: Oh yeah, we can make sure to do that.
    ... setting up pilot test of plain language work...John
    Rockford did a pilot test and Angela is reaching out to do
    another. So that one is in progress.
    ... writing the styleguide that will probably be an activity to
    start in mid June
    ... homepage design probably can't start yet since we're
    waiting for the information architecture
    ... prototype design I started last week. It needs more work
    and it's in Github but I'm not sure how you can see it. So let
    me get that in a way that can be seen.
    ... If we get conformance document polished enough to send out
    how do we want to do it? Charles said last week that he wanted
    to have different variations on it so people could compare and
    vote on different version of it. I think of it like a W3
    person, you develop one thing, let people comment, make
    changes, let them comment again.

    Jan: I'm concerned it would confuse people to have multiple
    options. Eventually you're going to have to go down to one
    ... not sure how we could have them different enough to have
    multiple options.

    Luis: Do we have an idea of how large the conformance document
    would be?

    Jeanne: Let me see if I can bring it up in rawgit



    Jeanne: It worked!

    Luis: We could maybe have it all in one document, but have
    multiple options of each section.
    ... well wherever we have sufficient enough of a difference in
    content as Jan brought up

    Jeanne: Okay it's time. I think we're making progress.
    Hopefully we'll have the Github issues should be fixed on

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 14:40:28 UTC