Minutes of the Silver meeting of 19 February 2019

FOrmatted minutes: https://www.w3.org/2019/02/19-silver-minutes.html


Text of minutes:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

19 Feb 2019

Attendees

    Present
           johnkirkwood, Charles, JF,  jeanne,
           kirkwood, Cyborg,
           AngelaAccessForAll,
           bruce_bailey, RedRoxProjects, Rachael,
           CharlesHall

    Regrets
           Shawn

    Chair
           jeanne

    Scribe
           Rachael

Contents

      * [2]Topics
      * [3]Summary of Action Items
      * [4]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <jeanne>
    [5]https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html

       [5] https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html

    <Cyborg> i can't get into meeting room

    <jeanne> Last week's proposal: The guidelines should be
    understandable by non-technical audience. All text and
    presentation should be usable and understandable through the
    use of simple language.

    <scribe> scribe: Rachael

    Jeanne: What are the thoughts on this after reviewing it this
    weekend? I have concerns about how restrictive this is.

    <RedRoxProjects> I think it's fine to drop all

    <Cyborg> what is code to get in?

    If we drop the word "All" I think it would be sufficient. If
    you all like it as is though, +1 and we'll move on

    <Cyborg> the one on the notice isn't working for me

    <jeanne>
    [6]https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html

       [6] https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html

    JF: My only concern here is while the guidelines need to be
    that way, the larger document will need to use code. That won't
    be usable and understandable to everybody.

    jeanne: That is my thought. All really restricts it.

    We need to give us some wiggle room.

    ?: The use of simple language only applies to part of it.
    Simple language cant' solve everything alone. Presentation is
    part of it.

    <Cyborg> i can only see here, can't hear on the call, can't get
    in, sorry

    JF: Simple language has been a key component throughout but to
    say "all text" is restrictive. "Guideline text" certainly. But
    testing methodology will be difficult. Some require DOM
    examinations.

    <RedRoxProjects> Do you need the call code for online or for
    dial in?

    If you don't know how to do DOM inspection, we can't teach
    that.

    The simple language is important for non experts but the
    technical language is needed in some places

    Jeanne: If we drop the all, this becomes more a guideline and
    less restrictive.

    <kirkwood> The text and presentation should be made
    understandable through the use of simple language.

    JF: Correct. I am +1 for removing "all" and capitalizing the T

    Jeanne: Does anyone disagree with removing "All"?

    <RedRoxProjects> +1

    <JF> +1

    <Cyborg> i'd like to comment but can't hear

    <Cyborg> i tried dialing in 4 times...

    <Cyborg> will try a 5th

    <kirkwood> +1 to text-is simple language and clear presentation
    ?\

    <RedRoxProjects> "accessible design"

    Charles: Expressed concern about the presentation.

    <JF> How about "Text and presentation should be usable and
    understandable through the use of simple language, layout and
    design"?.

    <RedRoxProjects> +1 to that JF

    JF: Proposal about suggested edit.

    <kirkwood> , respectively. ;)

    <kirkwood> +1

    +1 to JF's proposal.

    Charles: We can drop layout.

    We are technically just saying that the document itself is
    required to be usable and understandable. The second half of
    the sentence is proscriptive and getting into How.

    <JF> Text and presentation should be usable and understandable
    through the use of simple language, structure and design

    We could just say design without specifying layout.

    Suggested modification above.

    <jeanne> +1

    <CharlesHall> +1

    JF: I don't want to use the phrase information architecture
    because that isn't simple.

    <kirkwood> +1

    Charles: I agree. that is perfect.

    +1

    <Cyborg> if we are talking structure and design, is it worth
    adding the word navigable?

    Jeanne: Is there anyone who disagrees?

    JF: No to adding navigable since it is an action.

    If the structure and design is done well, navigation would be
    an outcome.

    <Cyborg> thanks Jeanne. will just stay here then for hour.
    resolve after...

    Jeanne: We have done some work on readability. We have a new
    proposal. Current proposal: Text and presentation should be
    usable and understandable through the use of simple language,
    layout and design.

    Bruce: Are we using active voice, must, shall, etc?

    JF: In WCAG 2.x they use must, use, may. Does RFC 21 19 specify
    the language? Should we reference the normative definitions of
    those terms?

    Jeanne: I lean towards not, because we are not doing technical
    documents right now. We will trip over ourselves.

    JF: When we get to the technical documents, we will need to do
    so there. This is the requirements document.

    Jeanne: Right.

    Bruce, is that acceptable to you?

    Bruce: It is acceptable to me either way. I think we can write
    it without using must, shall, etc. I think we can avoid the
    terms.

    JF: If you exclude it, you assume a must

    <jeanne> The guidelines are understandable by non-technical
    audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable
    through the use of simple language, structure and design.

    <RedRoxProjects> +1 to those suggestions re tense

    Jeanne: We can avoid the terms. Example above.

    <bruce_bailey> present infinitive tense -- i like that

    JF: We need to go back to other standards and adjust them. I +1
    to that. Good catch.

    <jeanne> 3.4 Guidelines are worded so they can apply to
    multiple technologies.

    Jeanne: Is everyone good with the revised 3.5?

    <bruce_bailey> +1

    <JF> +1 for 3.5

    <JF> +1 for 3.4

    <jeanne> 3.5 The guidelines are understandable by non-technical
    audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable
    through the use of simple language, structure and design.

    +1

    <AngelaAccessForAll> +1

    <jeanne> +1

    <Cyborg> +1

    <kirkwood> +1

    RESOLUTION: Wording for 3.5 "The guidelines are understandable
    by non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and
    understandable through the use of simple language, structure
    and design."

    <jeanne> 3.4 Guidelines are worded so they can apply to
    multiple technologies. The technical detail is easily
    available, but isn't required to understand the guideline.
    Technology neutral wording give the ability to apply guidelines
    to current and emerging technology, even if the technical
    advice doesn't exist yet.

    <jeanne> 3.5 Readability/Usability

    jeanne: Slight edit "3.4 Guidelines are worded so they can
    apply to multiple technologies. The technical detail is easily
    available, but isn't required to understand the guideline.
    Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply
    guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the
    technical advice doesn't exist yet."

    JF: If we say multiple technologies we try to be as broad as
    possible while recognizing that all is not possible.

    Charles: I encourage us to be broader than "multiple" I suggest
    "across technologies"

    Jeanne: I like "across technologies" That is what was done in
    WCAG ICT

    <JF> Definition: having or involving several parts, elements,
    or members. "multiple occupancy"

    3.4 Guidelines are worded so they can apply across
    technologies. The technical detail is easily available, but
    isn't required to understand the guideline. Technology neutral
    wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and
    emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist
    yet

    <bruce_bailey> +1

    JF: My only concern with that is there is no hint that there
    are limitations. All isn't there but it implies all.

    The reality is that it is some but not all

    Jeanne: "Applicable technologies?"

    JF: How do we know what is applicable?

    Charles: "As many as possible?"

    JF: multiple?

    <Cyborg> can guidelines iterate too or only methods, as tech
    changes?

    Charles: I don't like multiple.

    <JF> Guidelines must be worded so they can apply to varied
    technologies.

    Jeanne: Any guidelines that applies to something visual
    wouldn't apply to something without a visual interface. I don't
    think we want to constrain ourselves.

    <Cyborg> across varied technologies?

    JF: varied or various technologies?

    <Cyborg> JF - does that provide a loophole?

    <Cyborg> various?

    <Cyborg> is various a loophole?

    JF: REad Cyborg's question. Answer: Sort of. The larger answer
    is yes but the process is complicated. Silver is an iteration
    of WCAG

    Jeanne: They iterate but its difficult. We want to set up
    methods so iterating is easy.

    <bruce_bailey> Silver Guidelines are not technology-specific

    <Cyborg> Rachael - yes I understand that part. i'm wondering if
    a reference to iteration is worthwhile, given emerging tech

    Charles: The other option is to say that guidelines are worded
    to not be technology specific.

    <jeanne> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology specific. The technical
    detail is easily available, but isn't required to understand
    the guideline. Technology neutral wording give the ability to
    apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if
    the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

    <bruce_bailey> +1

    <jeanne> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied
    technologies, and avoid being technology specific. The
    technical detail is easily available, but isn't required to
    understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording gives the
    ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology,
    even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

    <CharlesHall> the last several items scribed as ‘charles’ are
    not.

    <jeanne> +1

    Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology specific. The technical
    detail is easily available, but isn't required to understand
    the guideline. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to
    apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if
    the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

    <bruce_bailey> +1

    Rachael: I don't understand "is easily available"

    <RedRoxProjects> Could it be said that it is referenced?

    Jeanne: That means that they are linked but not required

    Bruce: Perhaps we can reword a bit

    <RedRoxProjects> +1 to discoverable

    "Technical details is easily discoverable"

    <jeanne> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied
    technologies, and avoid being technology specific. The
    technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn't required to
    understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording gives the
    ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology,
    even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

    <jeanne> +1

    Rachael Suggestion: Technical details are discoverable but not
    required to understand the guideline.

    <RedRoxProjects> +1

    <CharlesHall> +1

    <JF> +1

    <kirkwood> +1

    <Cyborg> ability vs opportunity

    Bruce: We have three sentences. I think the third sentence
    should follow the first.

    <Cyborg> take out the from guideline - Technical details are
    discoverable (methods) but not required to understand
    guidelines?

    <bruce_bailey> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across
    varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific.
    Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply
    guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the
    technical advice doesn't exist yet. The Guidelines are formated
    so that the technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn't
    required to understand the Guideline.

    Jeanne: Bruce, can you add your thoughts on IRC? Everyone else,
    can you scroll back to the opportunities section. Is there
    anything there should be a requirement? Is there something we
    missed?

    Michael Cooper suggested we take what we have in the
    opportunities and make them requirements.

    <Cyborg> i find the new bruce bailey version confusing...

    <bruce_bailey> suggestion: Guidelines are worded so they can
    apply across varied technologies, and avoid being technology
    specific. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply
    guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the
    technical advice doesn't exist yet. The Guidelines are formated
    so that the technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn't
    required to understand Guidelines.

    JF: Under maintenance, there is a bullet on governance. I am
    still concerned about measurement and replication of methods.
    This document will assume legal status. We are not currently
    writing requirements to support the governance goal

    Jeanne: Should we?

    I don't think the current governance is about legal issues. I
    think its about the governance of the working group to
    encourage involvement.

    JF: That may be the existing requirements but we should ensure
    testable and repeatable methods.

    They need to be defensible in a court of law.

    <Cyborg> suggestion: Guidelines are worded to apply across
    varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific.
    Technical details are discoverable method but not required to
    understand guidelines. Technology-neutral wording provides the
    opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging
    technology, even if technical advice doesn't yet exist.

    Jeanne: I am good with adding a requirement about that though I
    don't think we should use the terms defensible in a court of
    law.

    <bruce_bailey> one more try since i hate neutral quotes...

    JF: I agree with not including it in the document but we should
    be mindful of the point.

    <Cyborg> discoverable methods...

    Jeanne: How do you want to phrase that? We need to address
    that. People say its not going to be usable in the legal
    environment.

    <bruce_bailey> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across
    varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific.
    Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply
    guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the
    technical advice doesn’t exist yet. The Guidelines are formated
    so that the technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn’t
    required to understand Guidelines.

    Rachael suggestion: "Guidelines support use in a regulatory
    environment"

    <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss when ready for my
    edit

    JF: "Guidelines should be adaptable to a regulatory
    environment."

    Jeanne: Bruce has a proposal so we are stepping back. Read's
    most recent post from Bruce.

    <Cyborg> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technical
    details are discoverable methods but not required to understand
    guidelines. Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity
    to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if
    technical advice doesn't yet exist.

    <Cyborg> ^counter-proposal to Bruce Bailey

    <bruce_bailey> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across
    varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific.
    Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply
    principles to current and emerging technology, even if the
    technical advice doesn’t exist yet. Guidelines are formated so
    that the technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn’t
    required to understand the guidelines.

    Jeanne: Cyborg is a plain language expert.

    JF: I'd add the word "these"

    when I'm faced with a tricky technical issue, I go back to the
    WCAG principles.

    Bruce: I think Cyborg is correct with guidelines instead of
    principles.

    Jeanne: I like guidelines as well. JF can you put in a version
    of yours?

    <JF> Proposal: Technology neutral wording gives the ability to
    apply the guideline's principles to current and emerging
    technology, even if the technical advice doesn’t exist yet.

    Rachael: Should we remove the word methods from the second
    sentence?

    Charles: I think its better to remove methods and principles
    and focus on just guidelines.

    <JF> Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply the
    guideline's intent to current and emerging technology, even if
    the technical advice doesn’t exist yet.

    JF: Forward looking without promising anything.

    That is our intention. Flexible enough to address emerging
    technology

    <Cyborg> reason for including methods was to clarify the
    difference in the prototypes we were working on...this matches
    what we were doing.

    <Cyborg> i like the word intent - JF

    Jeanne: You are right Cyborg but for more political reasons we
    probably don't want to do that yet

    <CharlesHall> +1 to JF statement

    Lets do the requirements first and then once we have buy in
    from the WCAG group, then we say how to do that. Then we handle
    that at the next meeting.

    <JF> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies
    and avoid being technology-specific. Technical details are
    discoverable methods but not required to understand guidelines.
    Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity to apply
    the guideline's intent to current and emerging technology, even
    if technical advice doesn't yet exist.

    <Cyborg> The intent of technology-neutral wording gives the
    ability to apply the guidelines to current and emerging
    technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist.

    <Cyborg> just wondering if more emphasis on intent is good - it
    explains reason for third sentence

    <jeanne> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technical
    details are discoverable but not required to understand
    guidelines. Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity
    to apply the guideline's intent to current and emerging
    technology, even if technical advice doesn't yet exist.

    All: Gave a few more comments. Jeanne has pasted the most
    recent version. Everyone look and revise.

    <Cyborg> sorry - the intent of technology-neutral wording is to
    provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and
    emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet
    exist.

    <Cyborg> thoughts about moving up intent?

    <jeanne> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technical
    details are discoverable but not required to understand
    guidelines. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to
    provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and
    emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet
    exist.

    See revised wording above.

    Jeanne: Bruce had switched sentences and we lost that.

    <Cyborg> i found the switching confusing and i think maybe the
    addition of intent gets at what Bruce was thinking - but ask
    Bruce

    Bruce: We lost that the technical details are discoverable.

    <jeanne> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of
    technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to
    apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if
    the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are
    discoverable in the document structure but not required to
    understand guidelines.

    Bruce wants to move the second sentence to the end and say what
    it is.

    <Cyborg> i still prefer the original 1-2-3 order

    Jeanne is reading her suggestion above and Bruce is working on
    a revision.

    <bruce_bailey> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology-specific.
    Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity to apply
    the guideline's intent to current and emerging technology, even
    if technical advice doesn't yet exist. The technical details
    are discoverable in the document structure but not required to
    understand guidelines.

    bruce: The first two sentences are about the guidelines and hte
    last about the structure.

    Jeanne: We need to wrap this.

    <jeanne> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of
    technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to
    apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if
    the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are
    discoverable in the document structure but are not required to
    understand guidelines.

    JF: I'm with Bruce with regards to the structure but still am
    unsure about the specific wording.

    <JF> +1 to Jeanne's latest draft

    <RedRoxProjects> +1 to Jeanne's suggestion

    Jeanne: We will continue this Friday and add a new requirement
    about using this in a regulatory environment

    <jeanne> To be continued. Also to add a new requirement about
    can be used in a regularatory environment.

    Guidelines should be adaptable to a regulatory environment

    <bruce_bailey> +1 to 3.6 on requirement for suitability in
    regulatory environment

    Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment

    <Cyborg> where is 3.6?

    RESOLUTION: Keep 3.4 open with most recent wording: "Guidelines
    are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being
    technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording
    is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current
    and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't
    yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the document
    structure but are not required to understand guidelines."
    ... Create a new 3.6 with possible wording "Guidelines support
    use in a regulatory environment" or "Guidelines support use in
    a regulatory environment"

    trackbot end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [7]Wording for 3.5 "The guidelines are understandable by
        non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable
        and understandable through the use of simple language,
        structure and design."
     2. [8]Keep 3.4 open with most recent wording: "Guidelines are
        worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being
        technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral
        wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines
        to current and emerging technology, even if the technical
        advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are
        discoverable in the document structure but are not required
        to understand guidelines."

    [End of minutes]