Changes to Silver ED draft

Thank you to everyone who responded to the Silver survey.  We have gone 
through all the Survey Results and made changes in response to your very 
helpful comments.  A lot of people worked this week to process all the 
results.

We will be entering all the results and responses into Github starting 
this week so there will be a long-term record of them.

In the meantime, we have a summary of the results and the changes we 
have made.


  AGWG Survey Results Comment Overview

  *

    New Editor’s draft branch
    <https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-draft=comments-changes-js/guidelines/index.html>with
    changes from the survey results.

  *

    A DIFF document
    <https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2Fconformance-js-dec%2Fguidelines%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2FED-draft%3Dcomments-changes-js%2Fguidelines%2F>with
    the changes to Guidelines doc between the branch evaluated in the
    survey and the new branch. *Note*: the links in the DIFF document
    don’t work.


    Overview of Changes to the Editor’s Draft


      Abstract

  *

    Removed link and description of future dynamic version

  *

    Updated Abstract text to align with AGWG Charter Deliverable

  *

    Moved text that was about the draft to the Status section


      Status

  *

    Moved information specific to the draft from Abstract and Intro to
    Status.


      Introduction

  *

    Removed history

  *

    Added a Scope section adapted from the AGWG Charter Scope

  *

    Added a Relationship to Other W3C Guidelines and put some of the
    WCAG information there.  The requests to specifically map the WCAG
    structure to Silver was moved to the Guideline Intro where it seemed
    more relevant.


      Guideline Introduction

  *

    Defined generally what sections of the structure are normative and
    what are informative

  *

    Added mapping of WCAG to SIlver

  *

    Moved what to look for in each guideline to an editor’s note in the
    guideline itself.

  *

    Added a link to the Guideline and Method templates so it is easier
    to conceptualize the structure before reading the guideline examples.


      All Guidelines & Methods

  *

    Renamed “Explanation” to “How-to”

  *

    Changed the template wireframe to move the Guideline or Method title
    above the tabs instead of repeating it in the tabs.

  *

    Labeled and color-coded sections as normative and informative.

  *

    Added a new How-to tab of Methods and moved all the Methods links there

  *

    Added a breadcrumb link to the Methods template and Methods.

  *

    Removed “You must”


      Headings

  *

    All the design changes for All Guidelines

  *

    added explanatory text that it applies to one or more paragraphs

  *

    added more of an explanation of when semantic code is a designer
    responsibility.


      Visual Contrast

  *

    All the design changes for All Guidelines

  *

    Fixed the broken link to the tool

  *

    Changed Short Name to "Visual Contrast of Text"

  *

    Edits to Get Started tab

  *

    Edits to the Tests tab (Method)


      Clear Language

  *

    All the design changes for All Guidelines

  *

    Changed the Why section from general usability examples to
    disability-specific examples.

  *

    Added explanation of Clear Language and its relationship to simple
    language and plain language and the connection to research.

  *

    Added a TBD to Examples

  *

    Changed the Method to say that the rubric applies to Style Guides
    and Professional editor.

  *

    Created a scoring example.

Long term changes we agree to do, but not for the FPWD

  *

    TBD next WD: Make the rubric more concise linking to the Write tab

  *

    TBD next WD: Make sure the rubric and other tabs are consistent.

  *

    TBD next WD: More specific language in the rubric

  *

    TBD next WD: Writing step by step testing procedures


      Scoring and Conformance

  *

    Added an “Introduction” heading to more clearly organize the content

  *

    Information Architecture: Added more explanation to the Method in
    Information Architecture

  * Scope: Clarified that the conformance can only be claimed for what
    is in the scope.
  *

    Points: Added a link to EN 301 549 for explaining the minimums for
    type of disability

  *

    Information Architecture: Added a brief description of points to the
    Information Architecture

  *

    Points: Corrected the sentence describing the formula for
    calculating the points

  *

    Created a detailed example of how a website could be scored
    (separate Google document). We will work on tonight's call and send
    an update.

  *

    Sampling: Quoted excerpts from WCAG-EM to clarify the process for
    selecting a representative sample

  *

    Sampling: Added more focus to responsive variations to in WCAG-EM

  *

    Sampling: Fixed the sample size page to "no less than" in addition
    to 10%

  *

    Changed to Accessibility Supported: Authors are not responsible for
    bugs or lack of support for WCAG techniques in browsers or assistive
    technology.

  * Added to Accessibility Supported: Authors are responsible for
    testing that what they authored actually works for their users
  * TBD: We have edits to the Scoring and Conformance section from a
    plain language expert which will be completed today. These do not
    change the meaning.