- 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. =========================================================== SUMMARY: * 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 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021 * 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: https://www.w3.org/2021/04/23-silver-minutes.html =========================================================== W3C - DRAFT - Silver Task Force & Community Group 23 April 2021 IRC log. Attendees Present Azlan, bruce_bailey, ChrisLoiselle, Chuck, Fazio, Francis_Storr, jeanne, jennifer_strickland, JF, johnkirkwood, KimD, Laura_Carlson, Lauriat, PeterKorn, sajkaj, Wilco Regrets ANgela, Jan, Jemma, Sarah, Todd Chair jeanne, Shawn Scribe sajkaj Contents 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 Captions 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! Errors 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 sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
Received on Friday, 23 April 2021 19:47:07 UTC