W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > April 2021

Minutes from 23 April

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:46:49 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9e5e4b5ed9974878afcf7dc2e4bf92d4@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Friday 23 April are provided here.

*            Timelines/content for May and August heartbeat updated WD
*            Reminders for virtual Face to Face next Thursday 29 April
*            Check Wiki for advance reading and agenda
*            Note of joint mtg with ACT on 14 & 21 May
*            Reports from content groups as available on the call.
*            Revisiting Conformance Options 1, 2, & 3

Hypertext minutes available at:


                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Task Force & Community Group

23 April 2021

   IRC log.


          Azlan, bruce_bailey, ChrisLoiselle, Chuck, Fazio, Francis_Storr, jeanne, jennifer_strickland, JF, johnkirkwood, KimD, Laura_Carlson, Lauriat, PeterKorn, sajkaj, Wilco

          ANgela, Jan, Jemma, Sarah, Todd

          jeanne, Shawn



    1. reminder: AGWG- Silver joint meeting 29 April
    2. Timeline and deadlines for May heartbeat Working Draft (WD)
    3. ACT -Silver Joint meeting - 14 & 21 May
    4. Subgroup checkin - what will be in the May WD? Reminder to update participant lists
    5. Captions
    6. Maturity Modeling
    7. Conformance Architecture Testing
    8. Structured Content
    9. Errors
   10. Clear Words
   11. review Options 1,2,3,5
   12. Option #1

Meeting minutes

  reminder: AGWG- Silver joint meeting 29 April

   jeanne: Reminder of joint meeting next Thursday 29 April

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021

   jeanne: Note the agenda with references to advance reading

  Timeline and deadlines for May heartbeat Working Draft (WD)

   jeanne: Reminder also for May ?WCAG3 heartbeat publication

   jeanne: Not many changes and not a wide review draft. Showing progress, mainly

   jeanne: Requesting everyone/group with content; PR by 30 April, else Google doc (or other) by 28 April

   jeanne: WBS throughout first weeks of May; looking to pub mid-late May

   jeanne: Whatever misses this draft should be targeted for August heartbeat

   PeterKorn: Is there yet an outline of what to expect new in August?

   jeanne: Shortly in today's call ...

  ACT -Silver Joint meeting - 14 & 21 May

   jeanne: Announcing joint meetings with ACT mid-late May; two 3 hour meetings

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/ACT_-_Silver_Joint_Meeting_May_2021

   jeanne: 14 and 21 May

   jeanne: No agenda yet; but wiki setup

  Subgroup checkin - what will be in the May WD? Reminder to update participant lists

   jeanne: Looking for updates -- and please be sure to update participant list on the subgroup wikis! Needed to create acknowledgements page in heartbeat

   jeanne: Ping me for help if needed

   <Fazio> I'll email you for maturity model

   <Fazio> Maturity Model is ready for May!

   <jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/milestone/3

   jeanne: In subgroup reports interested in what's in the May heartbeat and what planned for the August heartbeat

   jeanne: Notes there're milestone drafts for May, August, and December heartbeats--though too early to specify for December

   jeanne: Example Clear Words has issues for May and August

   PeterKorn: Noting expectation that Conformance Options will be raising topics that should get discussion in the TF, hpefully beginning the 29th and phps decide then on target heartbeats?

   PeterKorn: Will involve fair amount of discussion at least in Silver if not also in AGWG

   jeanne: Agree

   jeanne: Asks whether any specific for the group to know?

   PeterKorn: Notes March report with challenges and use cases that could be handled with writing guidelines; so eager to work with relevant teams

   PeterKorn: Second set are first report on use cases not yet encompassed in WCAG3; so a report on things to discuss

   jeanne: Asks whether people should read both March and April for joint calls on the 29th

   PeterKorn: Suggest focus on April as it's the initial "what's missing" conversation

   PeterKorn: Also requests people not dive into our Google doc


   SuzanneTaylor: Notes XR meeting off line; look for email from Mike Crab

   SuzanneTaylor: Have written an initial draft and a bit different in methods

   SuzanneTaylor: assumes people author with a11y in mind from the start

   SuzanneTaylor: e.g. buiding a game

   <SuzanneTaylor> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12o2S3XVltDgsMTjbHPPi0FMTJeoUAKqOrN8jpArkfFQ/edit#heading=h.5kgdq45f1fgi

   <Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to mention XR Subgroup's request for feedback on initial draft of a Method related to XR subtitles

   jeanne: Is this ready for feedback from wider W3C?

   SuzanneTaylor: Yes, please, noting Judy is planning to invite Captions CG

   jeanne: Will followup

  Maturity Modeling

   Fazio: Will have something ready for May

   Fazio: Including "proof points" designed to help indicate an organization is doing x, y, etc

   Fazio: Believe we have good structure with alternative methods

  Conformance Architecture Testing

   Francis_Storr: Not content for publication, but testing what we do publish

   <JF> Testing based on this: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qoXwyq3Q2uezlAHI0Jn9XL_DD9zDlnF0zegSPdm3hSg/edit#slide=id.p

   jeanne: Excellent to have more testers!

   jeanne: Would like to touch base on how to present on the 29th most usefully

  Structured Content

   jennifer_strickland: Are taking Errors group doc and structuring and match, trying to match priorities

   jennifer_strickland: Now have ability to add self to github issues

   jeanne: Nothing for May, right?

   jennifer_strickland: Yes, we're still trying to grok what we're doing

   jennifer_strickland: Wonders if a buddy for new groups would help the process run more smoothly

   jeanne: Would like to be more available to you--thanks for stepping into something pretty messy

   jeanne: Expect your issues will be August

   jeanne: Has the group looked at github assigned issues

   jennifer_strickland: Yes

   jennifer_strickland: Notes the auto inform from github when I assign myself to an issue--should help

   jeanne: And, if you like, invite me to a mtg

   jennifer_strickland: Should our regular mtg go on a calendar somewhere?

   <PeterKorn> ::-)

   jeanne: Notes the new jennifer_strickland Notes draft from Peter and comment from Janina on social vs medical

   jeanne: Perhaps by Wednesday?

   jennifer_strickland: Better for August

   jennifer_strickland: Notes I just started at Mitre

   [congratulations all around to JS!}

   <jennifer_strickland> Thanks to all!


   dh: Expect to be good for May;

   jeanne: In order to put it in as a method, need to have guideline and outcome

   dh: Yes, we do have

   jeanne: By Wednesday?

   dh: Yes

  Clear Words

   jeanne: Notes group has been working on all assigned github; have 4 PR ready

   jeanne: Another already scheduled for August because more complex

   <Fazio> I missed our last meeting

  review Options 1,2,3,5

   <Fazio> but Im in functional needs

   jeanne: Circling back to older options review to check we're consistent in how we're doing it now

   <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/

   jeanne: We never did pros and cons when we started reviewing these--as we did with the later ones

   jeanne: Notes these feed into Suzanne's doc and we will cover on the 29th

  Option #1

   jeanne: FPWD plus original notions for S/g

   jeanne: giving higher points for current AAA folded in

   jeanne: some may have critical errors; but mainly giving higher points

   jeanne: Recalls current bar is 3.5 in each overall category; but might it be too high?

   jeanne: Became apparent 3.5 will be too high if we incorporate more of AAA

   <Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to ask whether the higher points might allow you to skip a level A guideline

   jennifer_strickland: Worries someone might take advantage by spending time on one of these AAA and not enough on more basic requirements

   <Fazio> Dreaming here: would be great to have WCAG score plus a Maturity score

   <Fazio> could be like Bronze has to also level 1 maturity or the maturity level is completely separate and doesn't effect medalling

   jeanne: We may choose to change how we handle? At guideline level?

   jennifer_strickland: Not following

   jennifer_strickland: Sounds like a risk

   <jennifer_strickland> Those comments above are attributed to Suzanne

   <Fazio> I heard back from my ITU about whether metals make sense too

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask if 3.5 is too high, or whether 4 is too low...

   jf: Suggests 4 is too low, not 3.5 too high

   jeanne: say more

   jf: Don't understand why 4 is highest

   jf: how do we chose 4? Maybe we need more room between 0 and max

   <JF> lichert

   <Fazio> likert

   jeanne: Original reasoning was standardlickert scale

   <Fazio> yeah

   <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask what is the practical impact of higher points

   Chuck: Also believe 0-4 was aligned with an adjectival mapping

   Chuck: Also, don't know what "more points" would mean

   <PeterKorn> There is an infinite amount of space between 3.5 and 4. 3.51, 3.511, etc.

   <JF> +1 Peter, but we don't appear to be taking advantage of that

   <Chuck> janina: going back to AAA going into the medals, higher medals, I'm worried. In one instance I'm aware of, wearing my APA hat, at least one is a requirement more than a solution.

   <Chuck> janina: We have a gap analysis. None of the solutions will work across all environments. TTS.

   <JF> and, to me, more troubling is that 0 - 3.49999999999999999999999999999 = FAIL

   <Chuck> janina: Not always the case that AAA is worked in and not required.

   jeanne: Noting that next draft will define that we round to first decimal only

   <JF> revise: 0 - 3.499 = FAIL

   jeanne: Addressing Janina's concern

   jeanne: Silver is most amorphous, probably; bronze should be snapshot in time

   jeanne: Could include user and usability testing, user design considerations

   jeanne: Want to avoid unintended consequences where testing goes to the end of the process

   jeanne: Would be ways for organizations that wanted to do more to indicate over time how they're doing that

   jeanne: Notes Maturity Model currently slated for G

   <Fazio> to that end our MM focus is on driving ICT accessibility

   jeanne: Need to make sure that sites continue to remain accessible; that's Maturity Model

   jeanne: Note also that B required for S or G

   jeanne: It's progressive

   Fazio: Hoping to drive dashboards and snapshot views of how orgs are doing on building in a11y

   jeanne: Also small business?

   Fazio: Yes, absolutely; haven't worked out the socring yet, but absolutely

   <jeanne> skipping back to JF comment 3.44 would fail. Greater than 3.45 would round up to 3.5

   <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say there's some passion and enthusiasm for reviewing these

   Chuck: We do seem inspired to discuss these in greater detail, and that's good

   jeanne: Option 2 has some AAA in B

   jeanne: Option 3 a variation on 2

   jeanne: AT and/or UX testing

   jeanne: Notes Option 5 very different

   jeanne: Will take this up in another call, phps Tuesday and definitely Thursday

   jeanne: Point based at outcome, not adjectival

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
Received on Friday, 23 April 2021 19:47:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:52 UTC