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

Silver Minutes for 4 December

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 20:07:57 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <513cdc112b204c7583b93a662a09de5d@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Friday 4 December are provided here.

*            Reports and discussion of subgroup scoping statements
*            Work on closing open issues with our Requirements document
Hypertext minutes available at:


                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                               Silver Task Force & Community Group

04 Dec 2020


          jeanne, sajkaj, present, Lauriat, PeterKorn, Jan, Chuck, sarahhorton, SuzanneTaylor


          Shawn, jeanne



     * Topics
         1. scope statements for subgroups
         2. Continue discussion of Silver Requirements issues in Github
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions

   <ToddLibby> +present

   <scribe> scribe: sajkaj

   js: Recalls that subgroups are asked to write a scoping statement to bring to this group
   ... Will send as separate email; as was announced only at the end of last Tuesday's call

   <sarahhorton> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Error_Handling#Project_Definition

   sh: Errors has a "living" definition of its work

   js: what are "error related guidelines?"

   sh: Look for 4 areas under scope

   js: seems very broad
   ... Asks SH whether group can handle all that?

   sh: we're figuring out what we can achieve keeping this as a framework
   ... So far we've focussed on those 4 areas; we're putting things on the table with the expectation that some will come off in the future; a brtanstorming process

   <PeterKorn> Purpose: To explore solutions to conformance challenges in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content; and bring
   proposals to the Silver Task Force and Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

   pk: Conformance statement draft


   ch: Clarifying question -- Unsure why errors is too broad?

   js: seems to cover a large swath of principle 2 which is a lot of work --

   ch: So, suggesting can narrow to get something out and then widen again

   st: looking at full picture should help discover what's most helpful to the user

   ca: my view was that this would be closer to Conformance's draft and then expanding perhaps
   ... that's a personal view
   ... Seems we need the "elevator" pitch

   <CharlesHall> proposed short version: "based on defensive design philosophy, building an interface that helps people avoid errors, creating systems that prevent and fix errors, and in the worst case, helping people
   recover when they experience an error"

   ch: See my suggestion above ...

   ca: A bit unsure "defensive philosophy"
   ... like the brevity

   js: Notes that we haven't really even decided what we want in these scoping statements

   sh: We set this up when we started working; we use it as a touchstone to help us focus

   js: Asks SH if anything desired from the group?

   sh: open to suggestions

   js: Same question to PK for Conformance ...

   pk: Main concern is that our short summary describes what we're doing--want to avoid confusion
   ... Feedback welcome, of course

   <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Visual_Contrast_of_Text_Subgroup#All_visible_text_is_in_scope

   cl: brief overview of contrast and readability, then nontext contrast

   ca: It's good detail; but could we get a higher level summary statement?

   cl: can work on that

   <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about things beyond text

   sl: especially given all the use cases, seems shouldn't be just text contrast?

   cl: agreed

scope statements for subgroups

Continue discussion of Silver Requirements issues in Github

   js: This is continuation of work started Tuesday going through issues filed on requirements
   ... We logged a resolution Tuesday at meeting's end in haste, and missed there were issues noted
   ... For issue 188
   ... Believe we have broad agreement;
   ... Devil is indeed in the details, though

   <jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/25

   js: Next ...
   ... Issue 25
   ... Seems this could be simple ...
   ... guidelines -- singular or plural? MC has written this up

   pk: Asks when Req doc is to be published?

   js: More or less parallel to FPWD
   ... That requires a AGWG CfC and that requires closing filed issues

   pk: is it too late to file issues?

   js: No

   pk: Not saying I have issues I want to file, just trying to understand ...

   sj: Suggests this would be the first published draft of Reqs ... Not previously published as W3C Note track doc

   js: Yes, would not finalize until CR/PR
   ... Finds "Silver Style Guide"

   <jeanne> Back to #25

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Silver_Style_Guide

   <PeterKorn> [I had it around here somewhere, but... can someone put a link to the Silver Requirements doc itself?]

   <jeanne> WCAG Plural vs Singular

   <jeanne> The W3C Content Accessibility Guidelines 3.0 are...

   <jeanne> WCAG 3.0 is...

   js: It's "guidelines are" but "WCAG is"
   ... suggests accepting this and closing issue

   ca: Notes we need consensus here to close the issue

   <Chuck> +1


   <sarahhorton> +1

   <Jan> +1

   <Lauriat> +1

   <ToddLibby> +1

   <CharlesHall> +1

   <shari> +1

   RESOLUTION: To use the singular and plural definitions of WCAG 3.0 from the Style Guide




   RESOLUTION: To use the singular and plural definitions of WCAG 3.0

   <ChrisLoiselle> That is how I understood from Scribe land

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

   js: Next issue ...
   ... Believe #22 is done, but can someone help verify?
   ... It's from 2018
   ... It's a long read, but believe we've responded to everything there; besides, our work has moved well beyond

   ca: Comments on 22 Jul 2018 from DM might still be relevant ...
   ... as I look, those comments are scope creep so we should close
   ... If anyone concerned, we can always accept a new issue

   js: Believe DM's original idea was to see tests that could actually work. We now have those in our FPWD
   ... Anyone disagree with closing?
   ... If OK with closing, please indicate:


   <PeterKorn> Apologies, I need to leave a bit early.

   <Jan> +1 to closing the issue

   <ToddLibby> +1

   <sarahhorton> +1

   <jeanne> +1

   <Lauriat> +1

   <Jan> +1

   RESOLUTION: Close issue 22 as addressed and overcome by events.

   js: That leaves two to go ...

   <jeanne> Issue #186 https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/186

   <jeanne> revised sentence: Intro: People with PERMANENT, TEMPORARY and RECURRING disabilities can face problems using online content and applications.

   js: Any disagreement?

   <jeanne> Original: People with disabilities can face problems using online content and applications. Disabilities can be permanent, temporary, or recurring limitations.

   <jeanne> +1

   js: Please indicate if revision OK:


   <Chuck> +1

   <jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#intro

   <shari> +1

   <CharlesHall> can you add intersectional to the comma delimited list?

   js: Dropped 'intersectional' due to strong opposition from AGWG

   sh: Unclear about 'barriers'
   ... suggests 'barriers' rather than 'problems'

   <jeanne> People with PERMANENT, TEMPORARY and RECURRING disabilities can face barriers using online content and applications.

   st: could full stop after 'recurring'
   ... Oops, misunderstanding.

   ch: I'm OK changing 'problems' to 'barriers' but may be insufficiently broad; we're trying to prevent friction in general
   ... eg. death by a thousand cuts -- the spoons thingie
   ... it's the accumulation that creats the barrier

   sh: CH is correct, and we could just go back to problems

   <Jan> I prefer the term "barrier"

   <sarahhorton> "experience difficulties and barriers"

   jm: prefer 'barrier' -- it can be singular or cummulative
   ... To me doesn't have the same negative connotation as 'problem'

   js: So we're out of time, let's try to finish Tuesday.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. To use the singular and plural definitions of WCAG 3.0 from the Style Guide
    2. To use the singular and plural definitions of WCAG 3.0
    3. Close issue 22 as addressed and overcome by events.

   [End of minutes]

Present: jeanne sajkaj present Lauriat PeterKorn Jan Chuck sarahhorton SuzanneTaylor
Regrets: BruceBailey
Found Scribe: sajkaj


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
Received on Friday, 4 December 2020 20:08:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:50 UTC