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

Minutes from Silver TF of 4 February

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 19:19:29 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <915d8addea9540e49a4d47ae65161801@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the Silver Task Force & Community Group teleconference of Tuesday
4 February are provided here.

*            Review of WBS comments on draft FPWD
*            Discussion on desired take-aways for AGWG teleconference

Hypertext minutes available at:



                                                                                                                   - DRAFT -

                                                                                                      Silver Task Force & Community Group

04 Feb 2020


          jeanne, Lauriat, JF, maryjom, KimD, janina, bruce_bailey, Makoto, CharlesHall, MichaelC


          Shawn, jeanne



     * Topics
         1. AG WG survey responses
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribe: janina

AG WG survey responses

   sl: Notes links in agenda to full survey responses
   ... Have not yet read through the comments. Anyone?

   js: I did up through Sunday evening.

   sl: So 11 responses now, and survey open through Thursday
   ... So our plan had been to address on the go? Any suggestions yet?

   js: Haven't started yet

   <Lauriat> Sheet with comments: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Akd11SpyNqIHT6SirwZrGYkMzJbIXZNQ4BYQ8v6onmA/edit#gid=0

   js: Planning to work through the spread sheet so as to see all comments on a particular topic

   <Lauriat> Full results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/Silver-ED-21-01-2020/results

   sl: So should we start on Intro comments?
   ... Comment to make more clear Silver replaces several predescor specs, wcag, atag, uawg

   js: Think we can say incorporates, but may not be backward compatible --- hmmm, maybe NOT backward compatible

   sl: So two points
   ... Incorporates but may not be all encompassing
   ... Second, not backward

   js: Like making them bullet points

   jf: Will one of our work products be how to map to older specs?

   sl: Yes.

   jf: So, should we call that out?

   sl: Definitely.

   bb: You're making live edits?

   js: Not live, but will push

   bb: Ah, into github source?
   ... Excellent!

   jf: But no push until after call?

   js: It's a new branch

   sl: Also tracking comments so we can specificially respond.

   js: Notes idea of using id hrefs to capture responses to comments in the doc


   [discussion of where all the tracking is happening]

   sl: Most people don't need to know the history -- Suggest we move to an Appendix so available for those who do need it
   ... Suggests "a choose your own adventure" path option

   <JF> +1

   sl: Charles suggested perhaps a little less history, or history off to the side somewhere

   js: Important aspect to documenting the history is to note that our changes vis a vis the history are research based

   sl: Would still be served with history in Appendix

   jf: Notes that would keep history getting smaller and smaller over time
   ... And that's a good thing

   js: Agree, but where to put research documentation?

   sl: Suggests Intro

   js: So, I need to draft those paras for the Intro

   sl: And we can then cross href

   js: OK, that's for later because complex

   sl: Moving to guideline intro comments -- column K
   ... Comment suggesting we lay out timeline path of what we have yet to do
   ... Perhaps an Ed Note

   jf: Notes that about half the survey is about content and suggests that's confusing

   js: Only content change is new algo on contrast; all else is presentation of the content
   ... Perhaps that should be more clearly stated
   ... Will work on clearer Intro statements, e.g. to note that content is to get feedback on how presentation of content is structured, that it's not a change to what the content requires
   ... This also suggests the questions should be more architectural
   ... Thanks JF for these comments

   <CharlesHall> not on call yet

   sl: Another comment noting it's not clear what is what, framework? structure?
   ... In order to show structure, we do need to have content to show it with
   ... We can clearly say the content is here only to show the structure.
   ... We're not ready to respond on what the content suggests, only on how it's presented
   ... More about do you understand the content vs do you agree with what it says what it should?
   ... Another comment that says expect some people will comment on the content ...
   ... I do!

   jf: Are we editing the survey?

   js: No

   jf: So what are we doing?

   sl: Preparing to respond on some comments during AGWG call
   ... Notes that comments on content are still helpful, just not the purpose in the FPWD
   ... Moving on ...

   <Lauriat> Question 5: Are the Abstract, Introduction, and Guideline Introduction ready for wider review? By "ready for wider review" we are referring to the First Public Working Draft.

   sl: Someone not understanding 2.1.22-23

   js: can fix

   sl: Redo the heading to say "examples"?

   js: yes

   <CharlesHall> now on call

   <scribe> [continued look at several comments ...]

   sl: A comment seeking better naming

   js: What about resources on headings

   <Lauriat> Question 6: Does this guideline and its explanation (tab design) give a clear wireframe example of the structure of the Silver guideline?

   [comment review continues ...]

   <Lauriat> Question: Is the Headings guideline ready for wider review?

   sl: Hmmm, split response yes/no
   ... Responding do you understand vs do you agree

   <jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/#guidelines

   js: Wonders whether we should continually restate via Editors Notes
   ... that this is illustrative of structure, not content proposals
   ... Suggests people continue to forget

   janina: Rather like a running footer reminder

   sl: Perhaps supplamental understanding documentation

   js: Thinks it's important to keep restating this

   sl: Agrees that Intro isn't enough
   ... Worries that scaling up would be a problem

   js: Yes, just for FPWD

   sl: OK with that

   <jeanne> "I don't know what the normative requirements are from reading it. I don't know what content is proposed as normative and what isn't.

   <jeanne> "

   [discussion of how to make clear what's normative and what's not]

   <CharlesHall> what about section headings (pun intended) that say "this section is normative" and "this section is non-normative"?

   sl: Notes a helpful comment on content language use -- on plain lang

   <CharlesHall> the FPWD for 2.0 had similar statements on "non-normative examples" https://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-WCAG20-20010125/

   sl: suggests an item for usability testing here

   bb: Notes that regs sometimes say that kind of thing: e.g. "As an airport you must ensure that ..."

   sl: Notes plain lang comment that suggests first accurate and precise, then an alt version in plain lang

   js: Suggests now discussion on approach in AGWG call ...

   sl: On the hour ...
   ... Silver review Editor's Draft second item
   ... Suggests reiterating structure vs content clarity
   ... Next to get a sense of how close to agreement to publish

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

Present: jeanne Lauriat JF maryjom KimD janina bruce_bailey Makoto CharlesHall MichaelC
Found Scribe: janina


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2020 19:19:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:47 UTC