Silver Minutes 24 September

Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Friday 24 September are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            Announcement from Chairs that stress between Silver and AGWG
              interactions is noted and being worked on;
*            Majority of call looked at drafted placeholder guidelines and
              intersections with user needs/functions; Goal is to identify covered
or not and to get a sense of work scope.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/09/24-silver-minutes.html

===========================================================
   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Task Force & Community Group

24 September 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          jenniferS, Makoto, sajkaj, SuzanneTaylor

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          -

   Scribe
          sajkaj

Contents

    1. Quick update on Error Prevention next steps
    2. Placeholder guidelines and how we incorporate into the draft

Meeting minutes

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJynH1Ky_hI

   <Lauriat> Please sign up to scribe: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

   <Lauriat> Also we need a scribe for today!

  Quick update on Error Prevention next steps

   Chuck: Notes that chairs are aware there have been stresses between Silver and AGWG -- and chairs are working on how to bring us all forward togewther

   Chuck: So, requesting everyone hold for the moment

  Placeholder guidelines and how we incorporate into the draft

   <Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.20nok4tfj7v5

   Lauriat: Fleshed out enough to give an indication of what WCAG3 might look like

   Lauriat: In the expectation and in response to the request that this is helpful

   Lauriat: drafted based on the 2.x to silver map

   Lauriat: does not include 2.2

   Lauriat: these are "placeholder" guidelines

   Lauriat: some are pretty solid, and others not

   Lauriat: multimodality version of 2.4.5 ...

   Lauriat: clear lang gives us something to point to

   <Chuck> janina: Note on conformance, when we agreed that next draft would have user generated, we would flag "that" in there. Same expectation of what we presented on media a few days ago. No commence since. May
   emerge more.

   <Chuck> janina: media, captions, described media. Portions such as text alternatives, we'll treat differently than the web publisher. Does anything drafted encompass media or user generated?

   sajkaj: Asks about marking user generated (and media) ...

   Lauriat: Some would be media ...

   Lauriat: believe user gen should be kept separate for now

   Lauriat: when we put this in a draft, there will be the framing caveat -- i.e. a direction, not a finished product to implement

   Lauriat: the point for now is the shape of things, not implementation ready content

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to remove strikethroughs for screen-reaader users and to ask if members of Conformance Options could put in notes in this outline?

   jeanne: Thanks Shawn, because it's lots of work and very helpful

   jeanne: suggests removing the strikethroughs as it's a complication for screen reader users

   jeanne: Asks Conformance Options people to annotate where things might fit by way of notes

   Lauriat: OK to cleanup

   Lauriat: Not sure annotation from Conformance is yet helpful? If it would be helpful to get a sense ...

   Lauriat: suggests ed notes in the groupings

   Lauriat: the list at the bottom of the doc is purposefully not linking to anything -- the grouping list up top does link

   jeanne: agrees

   <Chuck> janina: Should I look at groupings and put in editors note?

   <Chuck> jeanne: I'll work with you Janina if you'd like.

   <Chuck> janina: I was looking at it this morning, and seeing the actions that need to be taken.

   <Chuck> jeanne: I can help with that too.

   <Chuck> back to you janina

   Lauriat: notes each grouping has a struct; many have no methods yet

   Lauriat: methods may be the place for the note--or top level bullet

   JakeAbma_: Confirming this is placeholder guidelines?

   JakeAbma_: some more related to specific user need; others more like struct/framework; others like outcomes ...

   JakeAbma_: seems they are proper goals but could be seen differently

   JakeAbma_: seems it fits one way; but may not be our eventual approach

   JakeAbma_: user needs had a similar challenge and came up with a different set of categorizations

   JakeAbma_: including apis -- nav, various tech sets

   JakeAbma_: tried to have a set that felt like they belonged together

   JakeAbma_: sdo asking as an open question; work from these? Or should we see what sets might come out if we think about it that way?

   Lauriat: re "is the list?" no,

   Lauriat: it's strictly what wcag3 might look like strictly migrating from 2

   Lauriat: this is to give an idea as we go through the process of migrating

   Lauriat: this list will be replaced eventually

  Lauriat: hopefully also helps with conformance work

   Lauriat: it's been some time since we had a wider conversation as Jake is suggesting from user needs

   Lauriat: we want to cary core principles into 3, but not as an architecture

   Lauriat: i.e. the perceivable, etc

   Lauriat: we should be able to find those 4

   Lauriat: I'm inclined to hold off getting into the specifics until user needs are more fleshed out and understood

   Lauriat: did think we could start working through taking the intersections from user needs to give us a sense of scoping

   Lauriat: so similar to user needs, but used differently

   <sajkaj> s/differently from 2/

   Wilco: asking why this list as starting point?

   Wilco: if we know it's not where we will end up

   Lauriat: mainly to use a pass of interpreting user needs and expanding some ov 2 coverage like sc around text line length

   Lauriat: expanded to customization

   Lauriat: overall management, overall customization

   Lauriat: to see how well we've covered certain intersections and where coverage is missing

   Lauriat: that was my thinking in any case. If it doesn't help, we'll try something else.

   Wilco: Not opposed, just wondering

   <Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1POhgI_xHZtSoNbHFp3r5HYIkl6ePaP8DC5d90SZ1tF4/edit#gid=752043294

   Lauriat: q for jake ...

   Lauriat: before intersections I see lots of direct 2 notes; but some that aren't

   Lauriat: is it just areframing of 2 SC's?

   JakeAbma_: hope i understand the question ...

   jake you're looking at intersection of functional and user needs? Yes?

   Lauriat: yes

   Lauriat: example C7

   Lauriat: oops, let's try e7

   Lauriat: notes allows for brightness adjustment

   JakeAbma_: allow for making brightness adjustments

   <Chuck> janina: Brightness adjustment, very last apa call on an api, gave horizontal review approval. API for auto-adjusting brightness based on lighting conditions. Should we have not signed off? Is there some level
   of gradience that would move away from the mean?

   <Chuck> janina: Is it a factor we should consider in the api?

   <Chuck> shawn: Great question, but not for today.

   <Chuck> shawn: some note somewhere, I asked specifically to see where the line item came from. If it came from one of the existing sc's or some other work.

   sajkaj: Notes apa signed off on a brightness api and asks whether it should be user adjustable?

   <Chuck> shawn: The answer was that it came from another row that has specific needs called out.

   Lauriat: need to capture that somewhere ... not today's discussion

   <Chuck> back to janina for scribing.

   Lauriat: is that correct?

   jake yes

   Lauriat: think we can use this mapping spread sheet to map out ...

   Lauriat: anything not text needs text alternative for example

   Lauriat: provides braille translation?

   janina suggests the AT is responsible for braille, no?

   Lauriat: provides support for non binocular needs

   Lauriat: don't believe we have coverage

   Lauriat: inclined we don't have this

   Lauriat: asks for sanity check at this point

   Wilco: having a hard time following; asks for screen share?

   SuzanneTaylor: wanted to suggest intersections not well understood by a11y industry -- we need some way to mark those

   +1 to Suzanne because APA will need that info

   SuzanneTaylor: there also may be no way to prove some assertions

   Lauriat: agree it would be helpful and believe we will uncover a lot of those

   +1 to shawn

   SuzanneTaylor: still two different categories; somethings user have told us; other things are ideas we've come up with but have no user validation for

   SuzanneTaylor: we need to avoid guidelines that we don't need--that weren't substantiated

   Lauriat: believe we can have two versions of this doc for those two purposes

   SuzanneTaylor: agrees

   JakeAbma_: worries about keeping two representations sync'd

   jake: concerned that we not lose track and get others checking; michael proposed a db

   Z access!

   Lauriat: glad this has been already thought about

   Lauriat: notes row 4 as more detailed overall needs

   Lauriat: again, trying to see what's covered and what isn't

   Lauriat: will eventually help with more than one guideline in the same intersection -- whether multiple could be amalgamated or not

   Lauriat: notes text rendering customization as related

   Wilco: surprising that text needs to be available; but there's aria-hidden

   Lauriat: yes, exactly

   Lauriat: brl translation is more implied

   Lauriat: inclined to replace with 'AT can access'

   <Chuck> janina: Interesting, not sure if it's the time to discuss. The braille one troubled me. ...created a problem for braille, was too focused on TTS user. I don't know how we keep those separate. That may be the
   issue.

   janina notes that aria created problem for brl by focussing too exclusively on tts users

   Lauriat: agrees there's much to look at here with use cases

   Lauriat: notes zooming in/out -- think it's covered even though there's much to it

   Lauriat: so, maybe -- we should check

   Lauriat: color not as only means--covered

   Lauriat: luminence contrast -- much done, but more to do

   Lauriat: things that need distinguishing

   Lauriat: the work of building the guidance will help us frame it appropriately

   Lauriat: so, a maybe

   +1

   Lauriat: many instances of "allow for customization"

   Lauriat: majority may be covered; but customization brings in more users

   <Chuck> janina: We want to think about api's from that perspective, I believe.

   janina notes we want to think about apis from that perspective

   Lauriat: asks if this has been helpful

   +1K

   <SuzanneTaylor> +1

   <JakeAbma_> +1


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).
   Maybe present: Chuck, jake, JakeAbma_, jeanne, Lauriat, Wilco


----------------------------------

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>