MInutes of the Silver meeting of 2 October 2018

Formatted minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/10/02-silver-minutes.html


Text of Minutes:
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

02 Oct 2018

Attendees

    Present
           Lauriat, Jennison, LuisG_, kirkwood, Charles, jeanne,
           Shawn, Angela

    Regrets
           Jan, Mike, Shari, Charles

    Chair
           Shawn, jeanne

    Scribe
           LuisG_

Contents

      * [2]Topics: Prep for TPAC meeting
 * Information Architecture prototype and tagging prototype
 * Plain Language prototype
 * Conformance prototype and example tests
      * [3]Summary of Action Items
      * [4]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <Charles> lurking in IRC only. cannot join call.

    Welcome

    We're talking about the keeping the POUR acronym thing.

    Lauriat: We have things like activity/planning/developing. With
    other IA prototypes, we're already kind of incorporating that.
    I would argue against including those types of tags for now.
    ... partially because it would get a bit speculative and up for
    interpretation really quickly.

    Jeanne: That's one of the things that came out of the needs
    from the research.

    <Charles> I would prefer to keep the principles but not the
    acronym, so that we can add principles

    Lauriat: I'm talking about what to have in th tagging prototype
    in two weeks.
    ... We're already including that information, but I don't think
    we need the tags.

    Jeanne: We will need them

    Lauriat: In time, but I don't think we need them now.

    <kirkwood> I’m a little confused now about the stated purpose
    of the tags?

    Lauriat: The tags help for navigating and understanding
    "Success Criteria" in Silver.

    <kirkwood> “Filter by tag” would be a functional way of
    interacting with Silver?

    Lauriat: If you're trying to account for all the things that
    are "perceivable" and you notice the tag, it gives you a quick
    way to find all things that would need to be addressed

    Jeanne: Which do you think are the most appropriate tags to
    have in two weeks?

    Shawn: POUR principles...because a lot of people find them very
    helpful. Not necessarily in terms of architecture, but in terms
    of understanding the success criteria themselves

    Lauriat: POUR principles and functional need

    Note: Shaun replied to Jeanne...I just misscribed

    thanks, Jeanne

    Jennison: If there's interest in what people thought of the
    other tags, you could add that as a question. "We're thinking
    of these other tags, what do people think?"

    Lauriat: One reason for not including disability or functional
    need in the tags. Charles created a document...and there's a
    lot. There would be the potential for the list to explode. by
    listing some, we'd be excluding some

    Jeanne: In that case, we're better doing just POUR for now.

    Lauriat: Why not include the high-level activities as well?

    Jeanne: Yeah, good. Thank you.

    Lauriat: So, given that. How do we want to construct the tag
    prototype?

    Jeanne: I think we're going to use the plain language prototype
    files to mock show how it fits together.

    Lauriat: On Friday, Cyborg was going to write an invite for
    developers to help write the methods for the plain language
    prototype..I need to look at that

    Jeanne: We should look at the EasyChecks. We could pull stuff
    right out of that.

    We've sort of drifted a little to the Plain Language Agenda
    Item

    <jeanne> Jeanne: We needto credit EO for anything we take from
    EasyChecks.

    Lauriat: Looks like we're good on plain language and tagging.
    Can we move on to Conformance.
    ... we should have something for conformance. We're not going
    to have a big solid prototype in time for TPAC. We need to be
    prepared.

    Jeanne: We need to have some tests.

    <jeanne> Jeanne: My priority will be working on tests - I will
    write up the "does the alt text make sense" example and at
    least one COGA example

    Lauriat: So for those tests, would it make sense to tackle the
    same success criteria as we have for the plain language
    prototype?

    Jeanne: Yes, then we could show how it all goes together.

    Lauriat: Not necessarily all one big thing, but just reference
    the others.

    Jeanne: We're deep diving a little into tests
    ... In the Plain Language, we have headings...

    Lauriat: Name, Role, Value
    ... I have the document
    ... Sensory Characteristics, and Pause, Stop, Hide

    Jeanne: If you look at the document, in each section there's an
    original and the proposed.
    ... I think Name, Role, Value will all be pass/fail stuff, so
    we don't need to do a lot with that one

    Lauriat: There are times when you have a toggle button,
    checkbox, and switch...and they're not necessarily wrong, but
    some are better than others.
    ... In Google Docs, we have a "Star" icon. What role should
    that have?
    ... it's to mark the document as important.
    ... it could be toggle button, but we went with checkbox;
    because toggle buttons don't work with VoiceOver
    ... it could also be a switch. I'd argue that checkbox is the
    worst option because typically it's associated with a form and
    checking a checkbox doesn't have an immediate interaction

    Jennison: I think that role is going to be important the more
    widgets we have

    Lauriat: Yeah, like it may be better to use table instead of
    grid...so I think there's a lot of room for interpretation when
    it comes to these
    ... and for Heading, it can be complicated. Like on a news
    site, there may be subsections within another section.
    ... do you add another heading, or would that just add more
    noise to the page?
    ... if you're getting to heading level 6, you've probably gone
    too far
    ... We need to balance between meeting the letter of the law,
    but failing the user; not meeting the letter, but helping the
    user; and meeting the letter and making it work for everyone

    Jennison: We need to be forward thinking about new technologies
    and understanding that they don't support everything in the
    beginning.

    Lauriat: And this raises a question from my perspective. If we
    tie tests to the technology...and what the technology supports,
    it very rapidly continues the accessibility-supported aspect of
    WCAG

    Jeanne: Keep in mind, we have three structural things that
    intersect. The guidelines, the methods, and the points system
    in conformance which allows us to associate methods with
    technology.
    ... We have the ability with this system to continue the
    methods into new technologies without having to do an update of
    Silver in theory
    ... the principles and guidelines will go into guidelines. The
    techniques and some success criteria will go into methods.
    ... and the methods can be "assigned" or something by the
    points system.
    ... we could have methods that are more appropriate to certain
    technologies. Or certain types of web technologies. Like more
    appropriate for static or eCommerce sites.
    ... so we have a lot of flexibility on how to make them work
    together

    Lauriat: I think that's more than a solid enough start for what
    we can do for TPAC

    Jeanne: Is anyone good at drawing diagrams? We're going to need
    some for TPAC
    ... that's a good start for now.

    Lauriat: Anything else we need to discuss related to
    conformance?
    ... If not, we get 10 minutes back

    Jeanne: well how about we think about Sensory characteristics?

    <Lauriat> 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics: Instructions provided
    for understanding and operating content do not rely solely on
    sensory characteristics of components such as shape, size,
    visual location, orientation, or sound.

    Jeanne: And what about pause, stop, hide?

    <Lauriat> Auto-updating: For any auto-updating information that
    (1) starts automatically and (2) is presented in parallel with
    other content, there is a mechanism for the user to pause,
    stop, or hide it or to control the frequency of the update
    unless the auto-updating is part of an activity where it is
    essential.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2018 15:02:48 UTC