W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > August 2020

Minutes from Friday 28 August

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 19:25:41 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c4bd8daea1e543ac8d35ace3ad1b53fc@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>


Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Friday 28 August are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            Discussed Editor's Draft of WCAG 3 FPWD
*            Discussed current WBS for Tuesday AGWG discussion focussing on
              showstoppers.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/08/28-silver-minutes.html

===========================================================

   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                               Silver Task Force & Community Group

28 Aug 2020

Attendees

   Present
          jeanne, Francis_Storr, sajkaj, Lauriat, KimD, OmarBonilla, Jan, sarahhorton, shari, CharlesHall, Grady_Thompson, kirkwood, Caryn-Pagel, AngelaAccessForAll, bruce_bailey

   Regrets

   Chair
          Shawn, jeanne

   Scribe
          sajkaj

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Editors draft (ED) of the First Public Working Draft
         2. Survey on the ED
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions
     ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <Julia> Presnt+

   <scribe> scribe: sajkaj

Editors draft (ED) of the First Public Working Draft

   js: Drum roll ...

   <jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

   mc: we have newer version, ...

   js: let's do the separate uri for now ...

   <MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluation_update/guidelines/index.html

   mc: Rachael and Jeanne worked up the content, and I did the structural setup
   ... should describe the pieces we're working with
   ... Secs 5 and 6 are "conformance" -- including the very narrow, but also wide eval/testing
   ... it's possible some content is redundant -- better to be redundant than to leave something out
   ... should be readable by someone unfamiliar with WCAG 2

   js: Notes plain lang summaries are now available, though not yet in the drafts

   rm: above based on most recent scoring thinking
   ... guidelines section still much in process
   ... evaluation is how to test, aggregate, etc
   ... Feedback needed is "did we miss something?" Esp did we neglect to explain something

   js: should we talk through this? Or, are people just happy to read and respond on the WBS
   ... Responses on WBS due Tuesday

   <Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluation_update/guidelines/index.html#functional-outcomes

   rm: top level is functional categories, currently normative
   ... similar to 508/en
   ... functional needs are more detailed immediately below
   ... then the outcomes
   ... outcomes are quite central -- similar to SC in 2.x
   ... they're the testable criteria against which one tests
   ... guidelines group functional outcomes together in some meaningful way
   ... the howtos will be tied to the guidelines
   ... we've learned that howtos otherwise were repetitive
   ... methods are tech centered
   ... both tests and techniques
   ... notes we have yet to explain tagging

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about the plain language summaries and to ask about Techniques

   js: we need to figure out what to call the techniques that are siblings of tests
   ... notes it confused me
   ... notes it does still ref wcag 2 techniques
   ... new ones being written are not "techniques" though

   rm: what are we calling them?

   js: lists several
   ... code samples; scoring; ...
   ... can we put a new heading in? I'm conflicted because 2.x provides expectations; but we didn't follow that

   rm: believe this came from deep dive
   ... techniques seem to be partner of testing
   ... value to include it somehow -- suggest we say techniques includes samples, examples etc

   <CharlesHall> a method is like an atomic how. in that sense it is near synonymous with the idea of techniques in 2.x

   js: so then how to distinguish to wcag 2.x techniques that are also present?

   mc: believe "techniques" is appropriate -- but the distinguish does indeed collide
   ... if we can't rename now, let's do ed note

   <Fazio> are methods n techniques synonymous?

   <KimD> I think we need a different word - strategy, tactics?

   <Lauriat> More like a sample. Let's keep "technique" + note

   mc: part of the problem is multiple technologies addressed ...

   js: suggests ed note
   ... description, what applies to, code samples, etc -- all the subheadings of techniques

   <ChrisLoiselle> Instead of techniques, approaches or procedures to meet the objective you are designing for

   <jeanne> Methods Template https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KP6A9TmSkhgHvsTxu4FFGC9duzHKU-OBM_tcULC5Mew/

   mc: added sections for tagging and techniques now ...
   ... suggest we not try to hard on naming just now

   js: other comments?

   <ChrisLoiselle> agreed!

   js: asks for scoring walkthrough ...

   <KimD> Scoring: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluation_update/guidelines/index.html#scoring

   rm: sec. 5.3
   ... notes each outcome has methods and how they're met
   ... two kinds of tests
   ... traditional and wholistic
   ... talks about individual elements --- some kind of atomic element that's scopable
   ... at that atomic level it's binary
   ... notes there are alternatives -- i.e. a rating scale

   js: notes a misplaced header ...
   ... if we do this we have to review how scoring was done ... 5.3.1
   ... scoring classification

   francis: perhaps so

   mc: perhaps an ed note

   js: let's at least be figured out by fpwd wbs

   rm: looks for method explanation

   js: messier

   <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KP6A9TmSkhgHvsTxu4FFGC9duzHKU-OBM_tcULC5Mew/edit#heading=h.8sd1cinmwx7f Method template

   js: came out of the deep dive
   ... oops .. bad link

   <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KP6A9TmSkhgHvsTxu4FFGC9duzHKU-OBM_tcULC5Mew/edit#heading=h.dzffwks486xy

   js what's written is close, but not the same

   js: definition is more precise

   rm: hope so, just renaming adjectival to rating scale

   mc: trying not to change any decisions, but document them
   ... so if things look wrong, we need to clarify our thinking

   <Rachael> +1 to Michael's statement.

   <jeanne> +1 to Michael

   js: let's see what we did in clear words ...

   <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p-FayvZYonpDIlojblFSofi_KzjNdY5SrBOKauvV0u8/edit#heading=h.dzffwks486xy

   js: notes 3 level categorization
   ... defined what's in each
   ... then overall scoring under scoring sect

   rm: think example is currently correct ...
   ... example is for testing
   ... but they're reasonably similar

   mc: do we want a general section on scoring?

   [discussion of labeling and sectioning]

   mc: moved "example" but no longer marked so

   js: good

   rm: see the problem -- something we need to clarify
   ... a method might have multiple tests; eacxh comes back with some kind of score
   ... believe we decided the adjectival rating comes out of tester's judgement call

   js; my objection is the association to specific percentages

   rm: we have ed note for this conversation
   ... ah! ok -- a little rewriting ...
   ... cutoff points will vary based on funct outcome
   ... say that in a note

   [general happiness]

   js: now updating method template to incorporate these helpful definitions

   mc: committing ...

   <Rachael> +1 to general happiness

Survey on the ED

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd/

   rm: notes we have several weeks set aside for review
   ... if not accessible, please squeak up promptly
   ... trying to focus on continuing edit refinements before fpwd
   ... asking for comments with rating on severity
   ... not everything expected in fpwd is covered yet in wbs
   ... tuesday agwg will focus on showstoppers

   js: encourages people to speak up on what you really like ... whatever it is

   rm: encourage responses to help move forward -- even if it's all ok!

   <KimD> which version of the draft are we reviewing for the survey? Where the links go or what we edited today.

   js: do we want to get plain lang summaries in?

   mc: happy to add
   ... should not affect wbs
   ... proposes to work on glossary even as we wbs

   js: asks each subgroup to list todos for tuesday and timeline for that
   ... guidelines need to be on next wbs

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Present: jeanne Francis_Storr sajkaj Lauriat KimD OmarBonilla Jan sarahhorton shari CharlesHall Grady_Thompson kirkwood Caryn-Pagel AngelaAccessForAll bruce_bailey
Found Scribe: sajkaj



----------------------------------

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
Received on Friday, 28 August 2020 19:25:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:49 UTC