W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > June 2019

Minutes of Silver meeting of 4 June 2019

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:03:46 -0400
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4e09007d-d382-8438-2b8d-8d3df8b2fae2@spellmanconsulting.com>
We lost the bots that format the minutes about 15 minutes into the 
meeting.  I recovered the minutes from my local irc log.  I reformatted 
it and pasted it back into the irc channel and ran the bot again. I 
apologize for any errors.

https://www.w3.org/2019/06/04-silver-minutes.html


Text of Minutes:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

04 Jun 2019

Attendees

    Present
           Chuck, Lauriat, Makoto, bruce_bailey, chrisloiselle, JF,
           KimD, AngelaAccessForAll, johnkirkwood, Cyborg, jeanne

    Regrets

    Chair
           Shawn, jeanne

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Silver Structure and Migration
          2. [4]Report on the Charter meeting
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <Lauriat> trackbot, start meeting

    <trackbot> Meeting: Silver Community Group Teleconference

    <trackbot> Date: 04 June 2019

    <bruce_bailey> spreadsheet from AccessU

    <bruce_bailey>
    [7]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibok
    jcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit#gid=0

       [7] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibokjcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit#gid=0

Silver Structure and Migration

    Bruce: we had a diagram at AccessU posted on the wall
    ... that showed the relationship between WCAG 2.1 moving to
    Silver
    ... This is a more detailed description of the part of SIlver

    <Cyborg> please repost link if possible

    Bruce: so the people working on writing Silver migration
    content could see where the information that drives the Silver
    content

    <chrisloiselle>
    [8]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibok
    jcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit#gid=0

       [8] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibokjcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit#gid=0

    [9]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibok
    jcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit#gid=0

       [9] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5CSvU4XxWXNneu4ibokjcYUCsG386xL1rGOiTrDvt8/edit#gid=0

    BB: The Tests come from the Test section of the TEchniques
    ... the Methods relate to the Teqhmiques
    ... the Techniques are in both places
    ... Some success criteria may map as Methods
    ... Step 4 can get information from Understanding, but mostly
    are new content.
    ... Write the Guideline at the end
    ... the Methods relate to the Teqhmiques
    ... the Techniques are in both places
    ... Some success criteria may map as Methods
    ... Step 4 can get information from Understanding, but mostly
    are new content.
    ... Write the Guideline at the end
    ... We haven't determined yet how to assign the Tags
    ... the 3rd column is the WCAG 2.1 components today
    ... It's a work in progress and it is my attempt to capture

    JF: In line 11, will some of the info come from ATAG and UAAG?
    ... I would love to see some of the work from ATAG and UAAG
    rolled into Silver.

    <Cyborg> i'm not sure how this today corresponds/doesn't to the
    work Chuck and I did together

    <Cyborg> also I thought that methods goes to the develop tab

    scribe: it may also include material from ATAG and UAAG

    JF: Then in Step 3, WRite Methods, that New, drawn from ATAG
    and UAAG.

    BB: It will be repurposed
    ... I think ATAG and UAAG will need to be represented in the
    Extended Guidance.

    <Cyborg> is this a different version of what Chuck and I did
    together? should they be integrated?

    [discussion of what to call the Silver Component column]

    JF: It needs to have a list of what we must do.
    ... I have no problem with what we are doing, just what we call
    it.

    Cyborg: Because this is in the content, it isn't part of the
    Requirements, it is Guidance because it includes the step

    JF: At the end of the day, we will need a list of things that
    we create that adds up to Silver.
    ... Understand the problem, here are the things to overcome the
    problem. Overcoming the problem

    Shawn: It is the Silver Guideline. THe Methods are the
    technology-specific thing you do to meet that Guideline.
    ... THe terms are overloaded.

    <Cyborg> Can we please go over the difference between guidance
    and guideline again?

    JF: To conform to WCAG 2.1, you claim 38 success criteria
    ... what is the term of what that is?

    Shawn: It is confusing and unclear because we haven't solidify
    the Conformance model

    JF: How can we write the Methods without knowing the
    COnformance model?

    Shawn: We can write the Methods
    ... there are ways to meet it and ways to make it better.
    ... until we know the scoring, we aren't going to be able to
    finish.

    Jeanne: We are trying to recapture lost time by running two
    tracks - getting some people writing content, while others work
    on conformance.

    JF: We need to have a term of what we call it

    JS: We want to call them Guidelines, but we don't have a name
    for Silver yet, so that may change.

    <Chuck> I'm here, I've a comment but I've been waiting for the
    conversation to have a break.

    Chuck: is it accurate to say that we have to know how to
    measure before writing the Method?

    Shawn: There may be Methods that are easy to write
    ... there may be others where the measurement is necessary to
    understand before writing the Method.
    ... it's not a hard and fast rule

    Chuck: That's ok then.

    Cyborg: Is the idea to capture the Content Writing Process or
    to replace the Content Writing Process?

    JS: We want both, some people learn differently. THey should
    match.
    ... so we are integrating the Chuck+Cybele version and the
    Bruce Bailey version, but keeping the two presentations (style
    guide step list and spreadsheet) and then adding a graphical
    presentation component as well for those who are more visual
    (circles? arrows? tree diagram?)

Report on the Charter meeting

    Jeanne: meeting on Friday with chairs Michael Cooper and Judy,
    at W3C HQ in MA. Allister attended by phone, others F2F. W3C
    CEO and W3C management in charge of specs were there.
    ... they were talking about chartering issues with Silver all
    day.

    Shawn: work mode and process, WG approval paths, comms,
    leadership, timeline, charter scope.

    Jeanne: lots of progress. very upbeat at end. hard issues
    discussed. lots of support for running WCAG 2.2 and Silver in
    parallel and how to do that.
    ... heartened and excited that WCAG 2.2 will use
    processes/workflow more similar to workflow at Silver and
    discussed for years. way we are working is coming more in line,
    very exciting.
    ... much easier for us to work together as result

    JF: any discussion around WCAG 2.2.3?

    Jeanne: mood in room is not to prevent WCAG 2.3, but not to
    have it as goal...
    ... as WCAG 2.2 wraps up, more of intention moves into Silver.

    Shawn: as processes merge, also want contributors in one space
    to be able to contribute in other space as well. helps with
    onboarding of new workflow to contribute

    Jeanne: as 2.2 progresses, Bruce's diagram shows how 2.2 flows
    into Silver. they are making significant changes in 2.2, we
    need to stay closely aligned.
    ... chairs of 2.2 should come to our meetings so we keep
    communication strong
    ... how to approve work, discussed how to have individual
    groups do their call, consensus in smaller email list and
    bigger things in other list. Discussion about how to be more
    efficient than in the past.
    ... no details about timelines/requirements for 2.2

    JF: is 2.2 going to publish in next charter period? publish in
    next charter time frame?

    Jeanne: that didn't come up.

    Shawn: didn't discuss, as similar to 2.1

    JF: as race toward 2.2, there are 20+ requirements coming
    forward that are being worked on as SC for next generation

    <JF>
    [10]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc
    5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/

      [10] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/

    Bruce: were some SC being dropped?

    JF: 4.1.1 being dropped?

    Bruce: we are not giving up backwards compatibility yet?

    JF: not reached conclusion yet, talk about dropping parsing
    requirements of 4.1.1

    Jeanne: one thing agreed on is detailed discussion of scope of
    first version of Silver - migrate WCAG, prioritize list of COGA
    and low vision needs, one or two emerging technologies
    ... at least 4 or 5 examples of how we'll include VR or IoT,
    maybe both.

    Shawn: we want to include in an editor's draft, how Silver can
    work with other technologies, just to prove that we created a
    system that can support new tech

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2019 19:04:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:00 UTC