Minutes of the Silver Meeting of 7 June 2019

Link to Formatted Minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2019/06/07-silver-minutes.html


Text of Minutes:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

07 Jun 2019

Attendees

    Present
           jeanne, Rachael, JF, bruce_bailey, Jennison

    Regrets
           Shawn, Denis, Makoto, Cyborg

    Chair
           jeanne

    Scribe
           Rachael

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]TPAC early registration discount ends 21 June
          2. [4]quick review of changes to the Phase 4 folder in
             Google Drive
          3. [5]Review Headings with the improved Content Process
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <Rachael> scribe: Rachael

TPAC early registration discount ends 21 June

    <jeanne> [8]https://www.w3.org/2019/09/TPAC/registration.html

       [8] https://www.w3.org/2019/09/TPAC/registration.html

    jeanne: Reminder to everyone attending TPAC in person in Japan,
    early bird registration closes on June 21

quick review of changes to the Phase 4 folder in Google Drive

    jeanne: I made organization changes to the Google drive
    folders. As we solidify, it changes how I look at the folders.

    <jeanne>
    [9]https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15u5P_VwQUu--1NXSzu2W
    wsj-QalDCt_W

       [9] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15u5P_VwQUu--1NXSzu2Wwsj-QalDCt_W

    jeanne: That is a link to phase 4. I got rid of the templates
    folder because it made no sense for people to learn how to move
    between google folders. Tool hard.

    s/tool/too

    I renamed templates so they sort to the top.

    There is a new document with new permissions. All old documents
    have link to the new doc. Update the new doc!

Review Headings with the improved Content Process

    <jeanne>
    [10]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcCyt9PJKUIjj341qc_ERiQ
    rwoMUCWMP-exGXZgkzEk/edit#

      [10] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcCyt9PJKUIjj341qc_ERiQrwoMUCWMP-exGXZgkzEk/edit

    jeanne: Updated template document to bring together all the
    proposals on how to do the content process.

    I'd like to take headings document and walk through the new
    process and see how the new process works.

    <jeanne>
    [11]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IVmg0MVHeJipg2ovENQtIkC
    zbq2izWeGKWaIqYLf0M4/edit#

      [11] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IVmg0MVHeJipg2ovENQtIkCzbq2izWeGKWaIqYLf0M4/edit

    This document won't pass the process as it was written early
    on.

    scribe: but I thought it would be a good way to test it out.

    <jeanne>
    [12]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qs4EkOLTs2VWZ6RHiLJ
    quIAEp4tlUqeZ0kp7ZE7j2Lk/edit#gid=0

      [12] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qs4EkOLTs2VWZ6RHiLJquIAEp4tlUqeZ0kp7ZE7j2Lk/edit#gid=0

    scribe: also a spreadsheet. Both are useful; different
    purposes. We will update the template document today and then
    update the spreadsheet
    ... look at the extended description of user needs. We don't
    have a bullet list of users.

    One challenge in 2.1 was the number of discussions happening in
    many places. We've been proposing different ways to address
    that. A new proposal was to create a parallel document that is
    the discussion at the same time we create a document. Whoever
    owns the SC is responsible for summarizing the issues in the
    discussion document.

    Someone who has an idea, objection, or concern can look at the
    discussion document. Idea is based on wikipedia

    Anyone who needs to can see the discussion.

    Jeanne: Today, I thought we'd try this by creating a separate
    document. Any concerns with this approach?

    <jeanne>
    [13]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qs4EkOLTs2VWZ6RHiLJ
    quIAEp4tlUqeZ0kp7ZE7j2Lk/edit#gid=0

      [13] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qs4EkOLTs2VWZ6RHiLJquIAEp4tlUqeZ0kp7ZE7j2Lk/edit#gid=0

    First is to list the wcag success criteria.

    So the Headings document has both 2.4.10 Section Headings and
    2.4.6 Headings and Labels along with a note to move 2.4.6 out.

    The next section is user need. There is a template for this.

    There is a lot of detail in the template. It can be used to
    fill in the guideline explanation.

    <jeanne>
    [14]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcCyt9PJKUIjj341qc_ERiQ
    rwoMUCWMP-exGXZgkzEk/edit#heading=h.5fvydehoofcq

      [14] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcCyt9PJKUIjj341qc_ERiQrwoMUCWMP-exGXZgkzEk/edit#heading=h.5fvydehoofcq

    The template takes you step-by-step through what is needed. It
    says "Self-advocate information is useful, but may be
    inadvertently mixed with personalization needs, so be cautious"

    Jeanne: We could make a new headings document but that is more
    work. I don't want to make new work. I want to review the
    process.

    So if we look at the templates document and I will reference
    the headings document when needed.

    scribe: first change other than detailed explanations is that
    the template recommends writing the extended description before
    writing the short description. This makes sense even though
    they are displayed in the other order.
    ... Identify the common need across these multiple user groups
    in one sentence. That is the first sentence of the “Extended
    description of user need”. List unique needs of specific user
    groups as bullet points. Identify and list conflicts that may
    exist within and between user groups as additional bullet
    points. Explain words or concepts. Are there terms in the
    sentence about common user need that need specific examples or
    description to explain co[CUT]

    Write the general solution to meet that need. That is a minimal
    concept that applies across different technologies. This is the
    third part of the “Extended Description of User Needs”. Keep to
    one sentence if possible.

    Jeanne: reading headings document.

    <jeanne> Semantic labels and headings describe structure of
    content and provide navigation for screen reader users.

    <jeanne> Section headings organize content for screen reader
    users and people with cognitive impairments.

    <jeanne> Heading order is important for people who are screen
    reader users who use headings to understand the organization of
    content and to navigate the page. If a heading is skipped, the
    screen reader user may believe they have missed content.

    <jeanne> Section headings are important to screen reader users
    and people with cognitive impairments because they can “chunk”
    the page into logical sections.

    <jeanne> Many assistive technologies provide an outline view of
    the heading structure so that the user can move directly to the
    section that probably contains the information they need.

    Rachael: I think the detail is great. From an editing point of
    view, we should write in how we want to handle tense, plurality
    and other editorial format. So They, s/he? passive or active
    tense? etc

    JF: Note that some needs are more important than others. Are we
    capturing weighting.
    ... impact on user.

    Jeanne: Haven't included that yet. Its important to include.
    ... user needs, methods, guideliens or all three?

    JF: also applies to testing.

    at highest level.

    <jeanne> JF: Headings are a part of semantic structure. The
    criticality is high. At some point, we have to do the weighting
    exercise.

    <jeanne> JF: We have to look at the Conformance model because
    the scoring is the most important part of how we measure
    bronze, silver or gold.

    <jeanne> Jeanne: Please keep in mind that the most important
    part is improving digital accessibility for people with
    disabilties and scoring is one of the ways we do that.

    <jeanne> ... we are doing content process first because writing
    content takes the longest part of producing the spec. Once
    content writing process is running smoothly, we will have more
    bandwidth to go into the details of the Conformance.

    <jeanne> ... I share your concern that the COnformance isn't
    complete yet, but I think we can get the writing going and then
    add the pieces around conformance as they are worked out.

    <jeanne> BB: That was what Shawn was saying last week -- we can
    write the Methods and then add the points.

    <jeanne> JS: Take a look at the Methods of Headings and see
    what we have for a process

    <jeanne> JF: I don't like the questions for writing the
    heading. Are we going to weight the Methods?

    <jeanne> JS: The Methods are where the points are going to
    live, but we don't know if they will be in the Method or in the
    Test.

    <jeanne> JF: Look at the new test for a Rubric for measuring
    the quality of headings (#4 under Step 2: Tests)

    <jeanne> ... the rating of Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent, that
    gets back to what I have been saying about weighting and
    assigning points. WIll that be for all content guidelines?

    <jeanne> JS: Probably not every guideline. It doesn't apply to
    guidelines that can be measured with an automated test. For
    example, it wouldn't apply to the existance of alt text, but it
    would apply to the quality of the alt text.

    <jeanne> JF: How do we measure the alt text when one page had 4
    images and another page has 40 images. It isn't fair to count
    them the same because the page with 40 images has a greater
    chance of failing because one is missing or wrong.

    <jeanne> JS: Two points: First, we can't measure by page
    because that doesn't scale beyond web. Second, the
    Substantially Meets problem applies here. What we have proposed
    is for each Method, to have a percentage that has to meet for
    the project/product to conform. For alt text, we might say that
    95% of informational images have to have alt text to conform.
    But images used in menus or navigational

    <jeanne> icons must have 100% to conform.

    <jeanne> JF: That gets back to weighting.

    <jeanne> JS: Agreed. We tried to do weighting last summer and
    ran into a lot of unexpected difficulty because the weight for
    one group might be different than another group. How to weight
    it when different user groups have different criticality of
    need. I like the idea of putting weight on the user need to
    give us some data to solve that problem.