Re: Requirements survey tasks from AG WG call

Thanks, Jeanne!

Seems like we should work through these Friday in order to get the
Requirements totally solid for call for consensus?

1. "Change Multiple Ways to Display" to "Multiple Ways to Present"
>

Seems like a simple enough word swap.


> 2. Add a new requirement that we will support different types of
> organizations (see Alastair's comment)
>

Would you or someone else in the conversation mind adding a summary of what
this means? I can't get meaning from 2+ hours of minutes. As stated, it
seems kind of redundant with the context of making a Recommendation at W3C,
which inherently needs to support different types of organizations, so
guessing I missed a key point (or three) from the conversation.


> 3. Add a new requirement around Accessibility Supported defining what the
> author's responsibility is.  Alastair did say he was willing to wait for
> that one until a later version of Requirements, but others asked for it.


Same question around more context from the conversation for this, as well.
We do have Accessibility Supported noted in the Conformance Model Areas of
Opportunity
<https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#oppotunities_conformance>, but
that seems more like an enforcement thing at the technical level, and
something too specific to include at the Requirements level. We'd risk
painting ourselves into a corner by requiring something impossible given
the landscape of all assistive technologies, user agents, and platforms.
WCAG already even includes an out for this in the first note in the
glossary definition for accessibility supported
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-accessibility-supported>, probably for
that reason (likely also among others): "The WCAG Working group and the W3C
do not specify which or how much support by assistive technologies there
must be for a particular use of a Web technology in order for it to be
classified as accessibility supported."

Honestly, if we can keep the list of Requirements as we have them today,
with the other edits agreed to today, I think I'd prefer that.

-Shawn

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jeanne Spellman <
jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com> wrote:

> I updated the Requirements doc with the editorial changes requested by
> AGWG:
>
> situational -> recurring (David Mc Donald)
> Explanation of calling out low vision and cognitive (Marc Johlic)
> Fixed Typos (Thanks, Mike Gower!)
> Move DP10 -> DP6.  Numbering changes. (AWK)
> are available -> can be used (Laura Carlson)
>
>
> The remaining items will take more discussion, which we will do on
> Friday.  If anyone can draft proposals to address these items before
> Friday, that will save time.
>
> jeanne
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: Requirements survey tasks from AG WG call
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:49:13 -0400
> From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
> <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
> To: public-silver@w3.org
>
> *Additional Changes Requested to Requirements*
>
>    1. "Change Multiple Ways to Display" to "Multiple Ways to Present"
>    2. Add a new requirement that we will support different types of
>    organizations (see Alastair's comment)
>    3. Add a new requirement around Accessibility Supported defining what
>    the author's responsibility is.  Alastair did say he was willing to wait
>    for that one until a later version of Requirements, but others asked for
>    it.
>
> On 4/23/2019 12:45 PM, Shawn Lauriat wrote:
>
> *Design Principles*
>
>    1. Fix typos and grammar things pointed out in the survey results.
>    2. Clarify language around research?
>    3. Move the Automation one from Process into Guidelines.
>
> *Requirements*
>
>    1. Intro: "Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or situational
>    limitations." episodic? different kinds of temporary?
>    2. Technology Neutral wording bakes-in guidelines vs. methods, see if
>    we can improve that.
>
> I then had to leave the call as the group continued on, so hoping someone
> else noted any other tasks that came from the discussion!
>
> -Shawn
>
>