- From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 19:11:33 +0000
- To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2b7417230c924224bb325e80eadc8b29@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>
Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Friday 11 September are provided here.
===========================================================
SUMMARY:
* Note of new WBS scheduled for AGWG telecon Tuesday 15 September at 1500 UTC
* Discussion of new templates
* Discussion of guidelines and methods relations. Clarifications for WBS
and latest Silver Editor's Draft
* Discussion of Amazon proposed additions
===========================================================
Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/09/11-silver-minutes.html
===========================================================
W3C
- DRAFT -
Silver 11 September 2020
11 Sep 2020
Attendees
Present
jeanne, Todd, Rachael, Chuck, Grady_Thompson, MichaelC, Francis_Storr, sajkaj, CharlesHall, shari, Yakim, Wilco_, KimD, PeterKorn, sarahhorton, caryn-pagel, kirkwood
Regrets
David, F, shawn, L, Makoto, U, Angela, H
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
sajkaj
Contents
* Topics
1. New AGWG survey on WCAG3 updates
2. New ED version with HowTo and Method templates
* Summary of Action Items
* Summary of Resolutions
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
<Rachael> yw. Chuck is here helping as well
<scribe> scribe: sajkaj
New AGWG survey on WCAG3 updates
ca: Above is survey for AG discussion Tuesday
... Questions about reorg, then also section by section
<Rachael> link to survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd-2/
New ED version with HowTo and Method templates
mc: My changes are editorial ...
js: Show off the templates!
rm: Number of edits made from AG review mtg two weeks ago
mc: Discusses template ...
... howtos oriented at nondevelopers
... methods -- we now have for headings
. examples more developer oriented
. links to tests; info on scoring and rating; links to resources
. styling comes from WAI website
<sarahhorton> Looks great!
. howtos and methods are top level folders in silver repo
. name file for guideline
. important not to change struct of headings, ids, etc., but simply add content
. makes it easy to deploy in multiple ways going forward
js: very excited to see them actuated!
. we need outcome names today
<MichaelC> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_Vu0ix-d-Qrv1wDZYQhfUX6jICE_bRalypp1rtcie8w/edit#gid=1900920998
<Rachael> git template of how-to: https://github.com/w3c/silver/tree/master/how-tos/template
<Rachael> Git template of methods: https://github.com/w3c/silver/tree/master/methods/template
<PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines
wilco: asks for links ...
mc: available from the guidelines
. has short and long names
js: asks subgroups to get names in place -- outcome names
... much has moved in past two weeks ...
... takes up amazon submission
rm: thought some points were already addressed
... now editor's notes in both locations
... asking for feedback via wbs
<Rachael> Just pointing out that both the Survey and meeting are joint
<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#requirements
<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#defining-conformance-scope
rm: believes they're where amazon asked for them to be
ca: reads notes ...
<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#evaluation-scope
rm: one more
<jeanne> The model presented provides a structure for claiming conformance that is better suited to accommodate dynamic or more regularly updated content. We are exploring an alternative approach using holistic
tests, sampling and/or other alternatives for reaching conformance in situations where testing all content is not possible. We also plan on including a definition and concept for substantially
<jeanne> conforming.
<kirkwood> "regardless of disability they live with" rather see: "regarless of ability or disability" (remove they live with)
pk: suggests coming back in a few moments ...
rm: suggests submitting edits over the weekend
js: suggests some items noted under "not yet" are actually in guidelines, which we haven't looked at much yet
<Rachael> for example we provide a way of handling friction through a critical failure
. friction via critical path failures
js: meanwhile back totemplate of the method
. asks for discussion on handling dependencies of methods; related methods
. eg. three methods for structured content; should they require each other?
. phps all 3, but because of outcomes reqs
<Chuck> ach Mich
mc: since functional outcomes are already required; no need to say
... rather this method doesn't work unless this other also followed
wilco: suggests multiple ways -- some with page struct
. are they conditional?
. is it 1? or all?
js: we'll learn as we build up more content
. for now it's 1
sarah: understood one outcome and multiple methods for achieving it; but may need to act on multiple methods depending on content
[discussion whether spreadh sheet is correct?]
rm: intent for a clear .and. relation for outcomes; and .or. at method level
pk: done first read and compare--thanks for working it in so quickly ...
mc: suggests let's finish this topic first
pk: yes, indeed
<Rachael> And between Outcomes, Or between methods, An outcome should address the same result and affect the same subset of functional categories
mc: multiple tests per method; so greater granularity; so mostly .or.
... room exists for exceptions, but should be an exception
<Rachael> agreed!
js: is there consensus that if one method requires another under the same outcome, that's what goes in the dependencies?
<Chuck> +1 agreed
mc: my hope!
js: any disagreement?
. asks sarah if this sounds workable?
sarah: asks for clarification
js: map outcomes
sarah: yes
js: back to amazon suggestions ...
pk: asks about "simplified summary" -- entire block? where does "simplified" end
js: response for request to have plain lang summaries
mc: summaries should be separated block -- to be read or skipped; and is summary for entire section -- until next heading of the same heading
pk: is summary of sec 1 the two sentences right underneath "simplified" or continue to ...
mc: the box -- should be visible
pk: do not see summary actually summarizes;
<Rachael> +1 That makes sense.
<Chuck> janina: I caught that there was some intent to set anything off is because I looked at the source and saw the asides. I didn't see a break of any kind.
<Chuck> janina: No breaks there.
sj: notes not demarcated for screen reader
pk: notes that remaining intro sections should probably be summarized; but also to pull out an explicit "goal" section
... "move closer to the lived experience" -- that we get better and better and we strive to get better and better
mc: partly writing style; and seemed more relevant to req doc than the guidelines
pk: no complaint over tone alighnment!
... asks doesn't it make sense to call out the goals of the doc; more than an ed note
mc: would like to think it over
<Chuck> janina: There are goal statements scattered throughout. It would be an interesting exercise to pull them together and make a paragraph or 2 or 3 from them.
<Chuck> Janina: I think it's very useful to make the changes and explain why, here's the goals.
pk: suggests important to elevate the purpose
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to address goal concerns
js: not necessarily my opinion; but historically we've had lots of goals--possibly 4 goals docs most of which are multiple-page
... concerned it might push the timeframe back
... because this group as well as agwg agreed
... making it better for pwd we probably all agree; beyond is hard
mc: agree that ed notes should generally be instructions to reader about things we're still working on
<Wilco_> +1
mc: so tend to agree should phps not be ed note
... but also want to respect chair views ...
pk: other comments before hour ...
... in eval scope note
... final sentence great!
... trouble with first sentence; it's reverse from what we were saying
... any look one does is out of date when you finish doing it in a highly dynamic situation
ca: asks whether we can take up via wbs and again tuesday
pk: notes time limit on tuesday call
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest email wordsmithing
<Rachael> +1 to wordsmithing email. Hopefully by meeting we can have an alternate ready for review
mc: suggests trying email thread to resolve?
pk: will start with survey and we can try email
<Chuck> +1 to dreaded email wordsmithing
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Present: jeanne Todd Rachael Chuck Grady_Thompson MichaelC Francis_Storr sajkaj CharlesHall shari Yakim Wilco_ KimD PeterKorn sarahhorton caryn-pagel kirkwood
Regrets: David F shawn L Makoto U Angela H
Found Scribe: sajkaj
----------------------------------
Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
Received on Friday, 11 September 2020 19:12:03 UTC