Minutes of the Silver Subgroup meeting of 19 August 2016

Meeting minutes in HTML
https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-silver-minutes.html


Meeting minutes text

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                           Silver SubGroup

19 Aug 2016

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-silver-irc

Attendees

    Present: AWK, jeanne, sarah, shawn
    Regrets
    Chair
           none

    Scribe
           Lauriat

Contents

      * [3]Topics
      * [4]Summary of Action Items
      * [5]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> Scribe: Lauriat

    Andrew: I've a question about the survey question. Do we expect
    people to really rank these goals? It feels like a very
    difficult task.
    ... They all seem like characteristics of the project, so maybe
    if we have a less granular scale (very important, kind of
    important, less important).

    Sarah: Maybe if we try it ourselves and see?
    ... Having tried this process before, it has worked well when
    specifically given a time limit and forced to make a decision.

    Andrew: With these aspects of the process, we do have some
    things mandated from the W3C process, but we can at least see
    where things end up.

    <SarahHorton>
    [6]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C4Wqf-g-0X_HqbJ-4euF
    S_U0xEISnURnilV6TJk7FQs/edit#gid=1819867746

       [6] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C4Wqf-g-0X_HqbJ-4euFS_U0xEISnURnilV6TJk7FQs/edit#gid=1819867746

    Sarah: That has a quick trial for us to try stack-ranking.
    ... So this helps to show the general stack-ranking from all of
    our input so that we can get a general sense of how we should
    prioritize things.

    Shawn: This shows me we shouldn't use explicit stack-ranking
    for the survey question.

    Andrew: Really, most of these should be in the very important
    category.

    Jeanne: When writing up the question, I realized all of these
    seem important, but we really just need this to make the
    working group aware of this and get them thinking about it.

    (All): Agreed.

    Sarah: So let's just make a decision and move on, then.

    (All): Agreed.

    Sarah: Strongly agree, agree, neither disagree nor agree,
    disagree, and strongly disagree (from design process)?

    Jeanne: We should make this less complex.

    Andrew: How about low, medium, high, to avoid any negative
    connotation.

    All: Sounds good!

    Sarah: Moving on, then. I took the different design methods and
    put them into that sheet so that we could look at them all at
    once and in the context of each phase.
    ... I added a column of impact (filled in with an estimate),
    effort and feasibility (which I didn't fill in), Goals
    addressed, and supporting resources.
    ... The idea: we want to come up with the three process
    options. This way we can pick each method to apply for the
    given process as we piece them together.
    ... To talk a bit more about the impact column, an admittedly
    squishy, gut-feeling measurement: interviews and contextual
    inquiry will have a high impact, while self reporting and
    survey will have more of a medium impact.
    ... In the context of designing things, it really comes down to
    making decisions and the tools that help you to do so.
    ... Process 1 might be what leads to the most usable and
    effective Silver. Process 2 might be what prove most helpful to
    moving things along and building consensus.
    ... We don't really have much by way of methods for the
    ideation and experimentation phases at this point.

    Jeanne: Could we do three columns for impact so that we could
    rate each method in the context of each process' prioritized
    goal?

    (All): Yes.

    Jeanne: I have a thought for potential process 3: minimum
    resources (time, cost, etc.).
    ... Thinking about doing a W3C workshop that happened
    co-located and coinciding with CSUN, advertised in advance, so
    we could get a lot of input from people on what the process for
    Silver should be.

    Shawn: Misunderstood - not the process, but Silver itself.

    Andrew: CSUN seems too packed already.

    Shawn: But it has a lot of folks who care a lot about WCAG. We
    could just note that we'd like to think about what we'd like to
    do there and such.

    Sarah: Getting a little ahead of ourselves, we should probably
    come up with a few other process.

    Shawn: Right. For another, how about easiest to change and
    update in the future?

    Andrew: But why wouldn't we just go for the "Leads to the most
    usable and effective Silver over time" if we have that option?

    Shawn: It may prove prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

    Sarah: Do we need to include the "Costs the least" process
    option?

    Jeanne: & Shawn: Yes.

    Sarah: I just don't want to come up with options that
    preemptively constrain what we propose as a process.

    Jeanne: In reality, we do have these constraints, and if we
    present three options that all ignore the constraints, we'll
    likely just get all of them rejected outright as infeasible.

    Shawn: We'll also likely morph some of these as we have
    discussions.

    Jeanne: I like having a process focus on speed to completion,
    actually.

    Sarah: Does this overlap with least expensive?

    Jeanne: No, as it may still cost a lot more, it just focused as
    time to completion.
    ... That option may prompt more creativity, I like having the
    speed option for this.

    Sarah: We have five options here, should we add some more?

    Shawn: That seems to cover things well enough.
    ... Maybe if we look at the methods as applied to each of
    these, maybe filling in some more methods as we go?

    Sarah: Do we have a process we should start with for our goal
    of this meeting to come up with a start of a process?

    Shawn: How about the first, since we've the most methods
    already defined for a design-heavy process?

    Jeanne: Can we merge two and five? Most effective at making
    progress and building consensus sounds like getting to rec the
    fastest.

    <SarahHorton>
    [7]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irMybNoo-yUaUlEoo4beqIkT
    X7MUmyBX4b2eqZNjfR8/edit

       [7] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1irMybNoo-yUaUlEoo4beqIkTX7MUmyBX4b2eqZNjfR8/edit

    Sarah: [going through the methods and adding impact rankings in
    the worksheets]

    Shawn: This seems a bit too granular to go through different
    kinds of collecting data from folks, while other methods seem
    so much of a higher level focus. Can we consolidate some of
    these?

    Jeanne: I'd rather go the other way and expand out the others
    to the same granularity, for instance with WCAG analysis.

    Shawn: Okay, that makes sense.

    Sarah: [defining contextual inquiry, self reporting, and
    surveys - definitions in the document linked]
    ... Shawn, how do you feel about where we've ended up, as
    keeper of the timeline?

    Shawn: A little behind in terms of the stated goal for this
    meeting, but with good progress in terms of the overall
    timeline, since we already have ideas listed for processes and
    we needed to flesh out the methods a bit.

    Sarah: Okay, I'll add more methods, also looking at the
    ideation and experimentation phases.

    Jeanne: I can help with that.

    Shawn: I will as well.

    Sarah: So Josh will create and send out the survey. Jeanne, can
    you send out a communication around that?

    Jeanne: Sure, I can do that. It'll definitely help, rather than
    relying entirely on the survey question.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]