Summary and Minutes from 27 September

Meeting Summary

*            W3C member organizations are reminded that the next AGWG Charter is
              open for voting by your AC representatives through 8 October. This
Charter includes moving Silver forward.

*            Expecting we will try to meet the requirement to publish a First
              Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the document that will eventually be
the next AGWG recommendation, what we currently call Silver, by end of
November, we discussed what SC would be mature enough to include in the FPWD.
We are particularly mindful to include some from COGA and LV that are
unsuitable for WCAG 2.2.

*            Lastly, there was discussion of the Silver conformance model and how
              it might relate to existing WCAG 2.x. The general view seems to be
that we don't want to draw any direct equivalence. Rather, we want to affirm
existing training, tooling, knowledge, and institutional processes that
support WCAG 2.x with WCAG 2.x remaining undeprecated for sometime into the
future even as Silver conformance is made available and attractive for
organizations to migrate into.

Minutes from the Silver CG teleconference of 27 September are provided below as
text. They're available as hypertext at:


                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                              Silver Community Group Teleconference

27 Sep 2019


          Chuck, bruce_bailey, CharlesHall, jeanne, Jennison, KimD, pkorn, LuisG, johnkirkwood, janina_

          Shawn, Cybele




     * Topics
         1. Reminder about W3C member voting for AGWG charter, including Silver
         2. Select migrated SC and new SC for Silver FPWD
         3. Issues and Exceptions - continue discussion of minimum or required guidance
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions

Reminder about W3C member voting for AGWG charter, including Silver

   <Chuck> Peter we hear you.

   <pkorn> Thanks Chuck

   <jeanne> AGWG charter is open until 8 October 2019

   <Chuck> Hoping to avoid scribing, not feeling the best.

   <jeanne> Kim: Can people other than the AC rep see the form?

   <jeanne> Michael: THere are 3 questions, one of them will have a place for comments

   <scribe> scribe: janina

Select migrated SC and new SC for Silver FPWD

   js: Picking up from Tuesday's conversation ...
   ... FPWD of Silver expected late November
   ... We need to decide what we can put in by then
   ... Suggestion was one SC, Color Contrast
   ... Plus one of the new proposals from COGA or LV
   ... Have action to find the proposals--now sent and on Wiki


   pk: Offering to work on challenges language to get it includable

   js: Hope to have some proposed lang by next Tuesday's call
   ... Have gui9deline, description, methods, test ... Presented to aGWG and other TFs for feedback
   ... to give us new content to see how it might fit
   ... Clear wording from COGA
   ... Enable api
   ... Point of regard and text spacing from LV
   ... Let people where they are in a multi screen task re one of the CoGA pieces
   ... e.g. step 3 of 7
   ... Started draft on "clear words"
   ... Becky Gibson had begun work on enabling APIs

   <Zakim> janina_, you wanted to discuss spacing possibility for tech solution

   <LuisG> janina: some of what we're writing guidance for...we're trying to push some of that forward

   <LuisG> .. there is a CSS taskforce and we're discussing whether we have what we need for a user to define what would work for them

   <LuisG> .. the new one is whether we can manage a different spacing after punctuation; defining what you want after that could be problematic because of things like "i.e."

   <LuisG> .. it seems it should be possible to make it easier to create a configuration that would control that. might not be necessary for Silver to do it if the uses can manage it themselves

   <LuisG> .. some of what we're working on, might want to come up with technical solutions rather than best practices guidance

   <LuisG> js: that's exciting news; but I think this is still important because we're not just talking about web/html technology.

   <LuisG> .. in VR, people would want to be able to control spacing, etc.

   <LuisG> .. we would still want to include it, but not make it something the author would have to do; maybe something a user agent could do

   <CharlesHall> +1 to Jeanne - still have guidance regardless of the ease of availability of technology solutions

   <LuisG> janina: and using stylesheets never really ended up being something successful for users; the thinking is maybe we can do better at that

   <LuisG> .. the VR and emerging tech is a whole other issue

   <LuisG> js: I've always been a believer in it being a user agent rather than authoring function

   <LuisG> .. it's a good point to maybe not have it as an early success criterion and instead wait

   <LuisG> janina: it brings up questions about what kind of guidance this is? authoring, user agent, or can we create some kind of technological solution; a kind of AT

   <LuisG> .. since we brought up VR...we had some discussions and got walkthroughs on how some of that stuff is working; we got an understanding of what part of the stack stuff happens on...

   <LuisG> .. I'm wondering how we write guidance for that sort of work; and that's ongoing right now

   <LuisG> js: I didn't find all of that in the minutes

   <LuisG> janina: it's from Friday morning; I'll send them out

   <Zakim> CharlesHall, you wanted to confirm if these are indeed active as none of the 5 appear in the 2.2 spreadsheet:

   charles: Wants to point out we may still need guidance for a particular concern even if we have an emerging tech solution
   ... notes none of the lv in current 2.2 sc? Should we look at these? Or others?

   js: We specifically asked for examples that couldn't go into 2.2

   charles: Understood

   chuck: Like janina's suggestions, but all of those might be too much for our fpwd

   janina: agree

   jenison: asks whether janina proposes beyond current SC?

   js: Yes, beyond

   cheuck: expansion on 2.1?

   js: yes

   charles: Is the suggestion for all 5 to be covered in the FPWD?

   js: No, likely too many to do well enough for FPWD
   ... We are open to volunteers to work on these, though
   ... Jan is eager to get LV related SC wording suitable
   ... Anyone from LV willing to help with one of those?

Issues and Exceptions - continue discussion of minimum or required guidance

   <CharlesHall> Charles will start working on Point of Regard

   js: Looking at incorporating challenges concepts for FPWD conformance section

   pk: Think it would be great either in, or longside
   ... Amazon will work with whoever is interested to make draft suitable

   <jeanne> Prototype of ED

   pk: Were it should go should be decided by folks more experienced in AGWG processes

   jeanne: Noting a pretty detailed conformance section where these may fit

   js; Notes items raised that should be in the issues doc

   pk: Biggest mismatch I see is notion that bronze equates to WCAG 2.1
   ... There being non automatable parts of WCAG 2.x we need to bridge that to the ag model

   janina: Expresses concern that defining an equivalence creates more problems than it solves

   jeanne: Much discussion on this, but never thought of it as one to one mapping
   ... Rather as a way to help people who have made investments into meeting existence guidance some notion of where they stand in the new model

   pk: Suggests lang that any site meeting 2.2 is still valid, without actually tieing to a new level

   <KimD> +1 Bronze should not equal 2.x (AA)

   pk: Maybe also need to more qualitatively define what we mean by bronze, silver, gold. What's the user experience diff/


   <Chuck> 8th level wizards casts spell of agreement with Peter.

   pk: We want to convey the opportunity to keep getting better and better

   <CharlesHall> so do Marvel comics

   <jeanne> +1 to Peter - have a qualitative analysis discussion of what makes bronze, silver and gold levels and beyond.

   Luis: There will need to be numbering for correspondance to give people continuity

   pk: Think it's more of the user experience than simply not pass/fail test

   js: It's time we revisit this conversation. We had it long ago, but not recently

   pk: Clearly we need to avoid invalidating 2.x for all who invested in meeting that; but how many actually meet 2.x AA? Beyond the home page? Average was around 47%
   ... Training, tooling and knowledge is what we must not invalidate; more than specific equivalence statements
   ... 4th would be processes -- if an org has a working process around AA, we don't want to invalidate that

   <CharlesHall> process or tools may also include the ACT rules work

   js: Asks for examples

   <bruce_bailey> it may be the case that awards less than bronze may be worth including

   pk: Thinking of what we do at Amazon, what we did at Oracle, at Sun, they're all based around meeting current WCAG
   ... These become internal processes with defined steps
   ... We don't want to tell people you need to change all your ways of working

   <bruce_bailey> at AccessU, Eric mentioned that quote wood metals unquote are actual prizes

   pk: Silver should preserve institutional knowledge and tooling

   <Zakim> janina_, you wanted to remind of Explainer

   <jeanne> +1 to an Explainer

   TAG Explainer of Explainers:

   mc: Supports not invalidating
   ... But needs to make Silver different from WCAG 2
   ... Meanwhile, WCAG 2.x should remain valid for some extended period of time
   ... Don't want to force change; we need a balance

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

Present: Chuck bruce_bailey CharlesHall jeanne Jennison KimD pkorn LuisG johnkirkwood janina_
Regrets: Shawn Cybele
Found Scribe: janina
Found Date: 27 Sep 2019


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant<>

Received on Friday, 27 September 2019 20:28:28 UTC