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

Minutes from Friday 6 August

From: Sajka, Janina [C] <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:13:41 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <cca730f6f0a04afe93d5004541ce7769@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Friday 6 August are provided here.

*            Review of timeline and project plan for 4th Quarter WD publication;
*            New TAB organization in Methods to better integrate ACT rules support;
*            New TPAC Organization wiki introduced; Discussion of TPAC plans
*            Noted funding availability from W3C TPAC Diversity and Inclusion Fund
*            Review of revised User Generated Content proposed WD sections now in
              WBS for Tuesday review;
*            Note that JF will be making proposal at AGWG Tuesday which may impact
              4th Quarter WD.

Hypertext minutes available at:


                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                        Silver Task Force & Community Group

06 August 2021

   IRC log.


          Francis_Storr, jeanne, JenniferS, JF, Makoto, sajkaj, sarahhorton, SuzanneTaylor





    1. review timeline and outstanding items for the August heartbeat
    2. TPAC meetings
    3. TPAC Inclusion fund
    4. WCAG3 Update presentation?
    5. Updates to the User Generated Content proposal
    6. WCAG3 Update presentation?

Meeting minutes

  review timeline and outstanding items for the August heartbeat

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Project_Plan_for_Q3_Working_Draft

   jeanne: Notes there's an impact on all subgroups working on outcomes, so will discuss ...

   <jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ACT_Method_proposal/methods/decorative-images/index.html

   jeanne: Example ACT format at above link

   jeanne: Would like existing methods moved to the new format for the 4th Quarter draft slated for December

   jeanne: Notes some technical issues about where on w3.org things can be published, which impinges somewhat on what's where

   jeanne: Notes new Description TAB; a Background Tab; i.e. reorg of Tabs

   jeanne: We're using more ACT where we can

   jeanne: Notes a method specific glossary tab for terms used in that method which is nonnormative; but there's still the main glossary for the overall doc

   jeanne: helps when we need more specific definitions to explain methods; provides more flexibility

   <jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ACT_Method_proposal/methods/decorative-images/description.html

   jeanne: looking at whether we can use the accordian design

   jeanne: balancing needs of experts and newbies

   jeanne: So, new tools for groups working on guidelines ...

   <jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ACT_Method_proposal/methods/decorative-images/background.html

   <jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ACT_Method_proposal/methods/decorative-images/tests.html

   jeanne: ACT will be helping -- so we're not on our own to get this done right

   <jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ACT_Method_proposal/methods/decorative-images/glossary.html

   jeanne: we now have applicability and expectations rather than expected test results in order to support more unique testing situations

   <JenniferS> +1

   <SuzanneTaylor> janina: is it okay that we are using "glossary" to label two different things

   <JenniferS> +1 to Janina's point

   <SuzanneTaylor> jeanne: let us know if think of a good alternative

   jf: Also have glossary concern -- worried about nonnormative?

   jeanne: where we can, we will use normative glossary; the only nonnormative are specific terms specific to a particular method

   jf: But that's my concern, a mix of normative and nonnormative definitions itself could be concerning

   jf: especially if normative and nonnormative are intermixed in a particular location

   jeanne: will it matter?

   <JenniferS> +1 to JF. I had a helluva time with design leads, project managers, product owners, dev leads with this type of detail difference.

   jf: concerned that people will trip over that and take away the normative expectation

   jeanne: certainly something to think about

   <SuzanneTaylor> janina: perhaps "terms of interest in this method" might totally avoid that kind of clash

   <SuzanneTaylor> janina: but should not deep dive today

   jeanne: Notes we can discuss, and it's for December in any case

   jf: will log a github issue

   jeanne: rather likes "local terms"

   jeanne: though perhaps not good "plain lang"

   sarahhorton: question about this new struct; understood our CfC was on struct; but am seeing different content

   sarahhorton: are we changing content to meet the new structures as well?

   jeanne: Yes, broadly speaking

   sarahhorton: Had not thought that impact of CfC would be change of content

   sarahhorton: Had thought discussions were more superficial ...

   sarahhorton: Notes ACT will be helping get it right

   <JF> Glossary Terms in Methods (Normative versus Non-Normative) #545: https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/545

   sarahhorton: So what's the plan moving forward?

   jeanne: that each subgroup take time on revising into this format and republishing methods in a future draft; realize this is a big job and we will need ACT's technical help

   sarahhorton: also have concerns about a11y of content

   jeanne: Notes the very technical explanations are a small audience; but an important audience

   jeanne: Another way to consider is our testing could be our plain lang of what we're explicating more fully

   sarahhorton: Suggests we go after one by way of example and getting accustomed as a good first step

   jeanne: yes, very much agree

   <SuzanneTaylor> +1 to polishing one first, so that everyone is not polishing in different ways/directions

   jeanne: thought we had example for decorative in github, but not seeing right now; will check

   Makoto: Seeing new pieces in work I previously did but unsure where it came from; would like traceability

   jeanne: Came from ACT and ACT rules for decorative images

   Makoto: OK

   jeanne: Notes we're working to arrange a joint meeting with ACT and Makoto's group to get coordinated

   jeanne: Asks Francis ...

   jeanne: Who's todo list?

   Francis_Storr: unsure

   Francis_Storr: in email discussion somewhere

   jeanne: moving forward

   jeanNotes errors back on AGWG for 17th, so needs to be ready next Thursday for WBS

   sarahhorton: Ready now

   sarahhorton: Michael has merged the PR; just one outstanding heading issue

   sarahhorton: We'll not be doing more revision

   jeanne: Excellent!

   jeanne: next Explainer Note; have actions and will return to AGWG

   jeanne: Notes also User Generated revisions following this week's review

   jeanne: Also will have Text Alternatives with new methods

   jeanne: Asks when might be ready for AGWG?

   Makoto: will take a couple more weeks

   jeanne: Hmmm, may miss 3rd quarter WD, but let's still try to get it in ...

   jeanne: if goes to AGWG on 24th, would probably be last chance for 3rd quarter; might that work

   Makoto: will try

   Makoto: we're close to the final version

   jeanne: also thought that you were close

   jeanne: Let's set 18th as target

   jeanne: Notes also AGWG on 10th has proposal from JF that could be adopted for 4th Quarter draft -- new material presentation on the 10th

   jeanne: Also Maturity, Visual Contrast, XR, several others for 4th

  TPAC meetings

   jeanne: notes Silver page for TPAC; it's a wiki; please annotate

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/TPAC_2021_Meeting_Overview

   jeanne: Looks at current TPAC meeting thoughts ...

   jeanne: Notes Method Template Breakout aimed at groups outside AGWG that might want to write methods

   jeanne: Please annotate or send me email

  TPAC Inclusion fund

   jeanne: Notes there's funding available to increase inclusion and participation for people who might otherwise not be able to attend

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/06/diversity-and-inclusion-at-w3c-inclusion-fund-and-fellowships-for-tpac-2021/

   jeanne: Applications open to August 15th

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/InclusionFund2021/

  WCAG3 Update presentation?

  Updates to the User Generated Content proposal

   <JenniferS> Janina: we went through the survey responses, made attempt to clarify & simplify our language

   <JenniferS> Janina: there's an incorrect link in the first questions, #2. it will be fixed soon.

   <JenniferS> Janina: hopefully this is simpler language, responded to issues that were raised, and esp on how we described text alternatives expectations.

   <JenniferS> Janina: hope language is simpler, helps folks with providing better text alternatives.

   <JenniferS> Janina: there was an objection to things received by mail as user-generated content.

   <JenniferS> Janina: a US state govt that is required to post things received by other than online, and so we pointed to that use case to explain changes involved.

   <JenniferS> Janina: hopefully this clarifies who is creating user-generated content.

   <jeanne> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/User_Generated/guidelines/index.html#user-generated-content>

   <JenniferS> Janina: user-generated is not only about text alternatives, this is only one example of how it applies.

   <JenniferS> Janina: there will be other method implications for the guidelines. Text alternatives is an example of the kinds of things you can expect in other guidelines.

   <JenniferS> Janina: that's the overview. Should we go into more specific details? there's a list at the top of what we looked at and tried to change, that hopefully captures those changes.

   <jeanne> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/User_Generated/guidelines/index.html#dfn-user-generated-content

   <jeanne> Outcome

   <jeanne> Definition <- https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/User_Generated/guidelines/index.html#dfn-user-generated-content

   <JenniferS> agenda

  WCAG3 Update presentation?

   jeanne: First question, is this a good idea? There are quite a few people who have joined AGWG since our FPWD was published; these could use an intro to WCAG3

   jeanne: Many WBS answers appear to have a loack of comprehension of what's different about WCAG3

   jeanne: Suggest we can do it for our AGWG group first; then repeat as a Breakout during TPAC


   <sarahhorton> Good idea!

   jeanne: Probably need to do this regularly

   jeanne: Reminds about open WBS all to get 3rd Quarter WD ready to publish

   jeanne: Very important over the next 3 weeks to get a good WD through CfC

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
Received on Friday, 6 August 2021 15:14:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:53 UTC