<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html

<Cyborg> i can't get into meeting room

<jeanne> Last week's proposal: The guidelines should be understandable by non-technical audience. All text and presentation should be usable and understandable through the use of simple language.

<scribe> scribe: Rachael

Jeanne: What are the thoughts on this after reviewing it this weekend? I have concerns about how restrictive this is.

<RedRoxProjects> I think it's fine to drop all

<Cyborg> what is code to get in?

If we drop the word "All" I think it would be sufficient. If you all like it as is though, +1 and we'll move on

<Cyborg> the one on the notice isn't working for me

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html

JF: My only concern here is while the guidelines need to be that way, the larger document will need to use code. That won't be usable and understandable to everybody.

jeanne: That is my thought. All really restricts it.

We need to give us some wiggle room.

?: The use of simple language only applies to part of it. Simple language cant' solve everything alone. Presentation is part of it.

<Cyborg> i can only see here, can't hear on the call, can't get in, sorry

JF: Simple language has been a key component throughout but to say "all text" is restrictive. "Guideline text" certainly. But testing methodology will be difficult. Some require DOM examinations.

<RedRoxProjects> Do you need the call code for online or for dial in?

If you don't know how to do DOM inspection, we can't teach that.

The simple language is important for non experts but the technical language is needed in some places

Jeanne: If we drop the all, this becomes more a guideline and less restrictive.

<kirkwood> The text and presentation should be made understandable through the use of simple language.

JF: Correct. I am +1 for removing "all" and capitalizing the T

Jeanne: Does anyone disagree with removing "All"?

<RedRoxProjects> +1

<JF> +1

<Cyborg> i'd like to comment but can't hear

<Cyborg> i tried dialing in 4 times...

<Cyborg> will try a 5th

<kirkwood> +1 to text-is simple language and clear presentation ?\

<RedRoxProjects> "accessible design"

Charles: Expressed concern about the presentation.

<JF> How about "Text and presentation should be usable and understandable through the use of simple language, layout and design"?.

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to that JF

JF: Proposal about suggested edit.

<kirkwood> , respectively. ;)

<kirkwood> +1

+1 to JF's proposal.

Charles: We can drop layout.

We are technically just saying that the document itself is required to be usable and understandable. The second half of the sentence is proscriptive and getting into How.

<JF> Text and presentation should be usable and understandable through the use of simple language, structure and design

We could just say design without specifying layout.

Suggested modification above.

<jeanne> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

JF: I don't want to use the phrase information architecture because that isn't simple.

<kirkwood> +1

Charles: I agree. that is perfect.

+1

<Cyborg> if we are talking structure and design, is it worth adding the word navigable?

Jeanne: Is there anyone who disagrees?

JF: No to adding navigable since it is an action.

If the structure and design is done well, navigation would be an outcome.

<Cyborg> thanks Jeanne. will just stay here then for hour. resolve after...

Jeanne: We have done some work on readability. We have a new proposal. Current proposal: Text and presentation should be usable and understandable through the use of simple language, layout and design.

Bruce: Are we using active voice, must, shall, etc?

JF: In WCAG 2.x they use must, use, may. Does RFC 21 19 specify the language? Should we reference the normative definitions of those terms?

Jeanne: I lean towards not, because we are not doing technical documents right now. We will trip over ourselves.

JF: When we get to the technical documents, we will need to do so there. This is the requirements document.

Jeanne: Right.

Bruce, is that acceptable to you?

Bruce: It is acceptable to me either way. I think we can write it without using must, shall, etc. I think we can avoid the terms.

JF: If you exclude it, you assume a must

<jeanne> The guidelines are understandable by non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of simple language, structure and design.

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to those suggestions re tense

Jeanne: We can avoid the terms. Example above.

<bruce_bailey> present infinitive tense -- i like that

JF: We need to go back to other standards and adjust them. I +1 to that. Good catch.

<jeanne> 3.4 Guidelines are worded so they can apply to multiple technologies.

Jeanne: Is everyone good with the revised 3.5?

<bruce_bailey> +1

<JF> +1 for 3.5

<JF> +1 for 3.4

<jeanne> 3.5 The guidelines are understandable by non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of simple language, structure and design.

+1

<AngelaAccessForAll> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Cyborg> +1

<kirkwood> +1

RESOLUTION: Wording for 3.5 "The guidelines are understandable by non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of simple language, structure and design."

<jeanne> 3.4 Guidelines are worded so they can apply to multiple technologies. The technical detail is easily available, but isn't required to understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording give the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

<jeanne> 3.5 Readability/Usability

jeanne: Slight edit "3.4 Guidelines are worded so they can apply to multiple technologies. The technical detail is easily available, but isn't required to understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet."

JF: If we say multiple technologies we try to be as broad as possible while recognizing that all is not possible.

Charles: I encourage us to be broader than "multiple" I suggest "across technologies"

Jeanne: I like "across technologies" That is what was done in WCAG ICT

<JF> Definition: having or involving several parts, elements, or members. "multiple occupancy"

3.4 Guidelines are worded so they can apply across technologies. The technical detail is easily available, but isn't required to understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet

<bruce_bailey> +1

JF: My only concern with that is there is no hint that there are limitations. All isn't there but it implies all.

The reality is that it is some but not all

Jeanne: "Applicable technologies?"

JF: How do we know what is applicable?

Charles: "As many as possible?"

JF: multiple?

<Cyborg> can guidelines iterate too or only methods, as tech changes?

Charles: I don't like multiple.

<JF> Guidelines must be worded so they can apply to varied technologies.

Jeanne: Any guidelines that applies to something visual wouldn't apply to something without a visual interface. I don't think we want to constrain ourselves.

<Cyborg> across varied technologies?

JF: varied or various technologies?

<Cyborg> JF - does that provide a loophole?

<Cyborg> various?

<Cyborg> is various a loophole?

JF: REad Cyborg's question. Answer: Sort of. The larger answer is yes but the process is complicated. Silver is an iteration of WCAG

Jeanne: They iterate but its difficult. We want to set up methods so iterating is easy.

<bruce_bailey> Silver Guidelines are not technology-specific

<Cyborg> Rachael - yes I understand that part. i'm wondering if a reference to iteration is worthwhile, given emerging tech

Charles: The other option is to say that guidelines are worded to not be technology specific.

<jeanne> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology specific. The technical detail is easily available, but isn't required to understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording give the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

<bruce_bailey> +1

<jeanne> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific. The technical detail is easily available, but isn't required to understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

<CharlesHall> the last several items scribed as ‘charles’ are not.

<jeanne> +1

Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology specific. The technical detail is easily available, but isn't required to understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

<bruce_bailey> +1

Rachael: I don't understand "is easily available"

<RedRoxProjects> Could it be said that it is referenced?

Jeanne: That means that they are linked but not required

Bruce: Perhaps we can reword a bit

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to discoverable

"Technical details is easily discoverable"

<jeanne> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific. The technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn't required to understand the guideline. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet.

<jeanne> +1

Rachael Suggestion: Technical details are discoverable but not required to understand the guideline.

<RedRoxProjects> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<JF> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Cyborg> ability vs opportunity

Bruce: We have three sentences. I think the third sentence should follow the first.

<Cyborg> take out the from guideline - Technical details are discoverable (methods) but not required to understand guidelines?

<bruce_bailey> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet. The Guidelines are formated so that the technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn't required to understand the Guideline.

Jeanne: Bruce, can you add your thoughts on IRC? Everyone else, can you scroll back to the opportunities section. Is there anything there should be a requirement? Is there something we missed?

Michael Cooper suggested we take what we have in the opportunities and make them requirements.

<Cyborg> i find the new bruce bailey version confusing...

<bruce_bailey> suggestion: Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't exist yet. The Guidelines are formated so that the technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn't required to understand Guidelines.

JF: Under maintenance, there is a bullet on governance. I am still concerned about measurement and replication of methods. This document will assume legal status. We are not currently writing requirements to support the governance goal

Jeanne: Should we?

I don't think the current governance is about legal issues. I think its about the governance of the working group to encourage involvement.

JF: That may be the existing requirements but we should ensure testable and repeatable methods.

They need to be defensible in a court of law.

<Cyborg> suggestion: Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technical details are discoverable method but not required to understand guidelines. Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if technical advice doesn't yet exist.

Jeanne: I am good with adding a requirement about that though I don't think we should use the terms defensible in a court of law.

<bruce_bailey> one more try since i hate neutral quotes...

JF: I agree with not including it in the document but we should be mindful of the point.

<Cyborg> discoverable methods...

Jeanne: How do you want to phrase that? We need to address that. People say its not going to be usable in the legal environment.

<bruce_bailey> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn’t exist yet. The Guidelines are formated so that the technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn’t required to understand Guidelines.

Rachael suggestion: "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment"

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to discuss when ready for my edit

JF: "Guidelines should be adaptable to a regulatory environment."

Jeanne: Bruce has a proposal so we are stepping back. Read's most recent post from Bruce.

<Cyborg> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technical details are discoverable methods but not required to understand guidelines. Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if technical advice doesn't yet exist.

<Cyborg> ^counter-proposal to Bruce Bailey

<bruce_bailey> Guidelines are worded so they can apply across varied technologies, and avoid being technology specific. Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply principles to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn’t exist yet. Guidelines are formated so that the technical detail is easily discoverable, but isn’t required to understand the guidelines.

Jeanne: Cyborg is a plain language expert.

JF: I'd add the word "these"

when I'm faced with a tricky technical issue, I go back to the WCAG principles.

Bruce: I think Cyborg is correct with guidelines instead of principles.

Jeanne: I like guidelines as well. JF can you put in a version of yours?

<JF> Proposal: Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply the guideline's principles to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn’t exist yet.

Rachael: Should we remove the word methods from the second sentence?

Charles: I think its better to remove methods and principles and focus on just guidelines.

<JF> Technology neutral wording gives the ability to apply the guideline's intent to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn’t exist yet.

JF: Forward looking without promising anything.

That is our intention. Flexible enough to address emerging technology

<Cyborg> reason for including methods was to clarify the difference in the prototypes we were working on...this matches what we were doing.

<Cyborg> i like the word intent - JF

Jeanne: You are right Cyborg but for more political reasons we probably don't want to do that yet

<CharlesHall> +1 to JF statement

Lets do the requirements first and then once we have buy in from the WCAG group, then we say how to do that. Then we handle that at the next meeting.

<JF> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technical details are discoverable methods but not required to understand guidelines. Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity to apply the guideline's intent to current and emerging technology, even if technical advice doesn't yet exist.

<Cyborg> The intent of technology-neutral wording gives the ability to apply the guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist.

<Cyborg> just wondering if more emphasis on intent is good - it explains reason for third sentence

<jeanne> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technical details are discoverable but not required to understand guidelines. Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity to apply the guideline's intent to current and emerging technology, even if technical advice doesn't yet exist.

All: Gave a few more comments. Jeanne has pasted the most recent version. Everyone look and revise.

<Cyborg> sorry - the intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist.

<Cyborg> thoughts about moving up intent?

<jeanne> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technical details are discoverable but not required to understand guidelines. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist.

See revised wording above.

Jeanne: Bruce had switched sentences and we lost that.

<Cyborg> i found the switching confusing and i think maybe the addition of intent gets at what Bruce was thinking - but ask Bruce

Bruce: We lost that the technical details are discoverable.

<jeanne> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the document structure but not required to understand guidelines.

Bruce wants to move the second sentence to the end and say what it is.

<Cyborg> i still prefer the original 1-2-3 order

Jeanne is reading her suggestion above and Bruce is working on a revision.

<bruce_bailey> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. Technology-neutral wording provides the opportunity to apply the guideline's intent to current and emerging technology, even if technical advice doesn't yet exist. The technical details are discoverable in the document structure but not required to understand guidelines.

bruce: The first two sentences are about the guidelines and hte last about the structure.

Jeanne: We need to wrap this.

<jeanne> Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the document structure but are not required to understand guidelines.

JF: I'm with Bruce with regards to the structure but still am unsure about the specific wording.

<JF> +1 to Jeanne's latest draft

<RedRoxProjects> +1 to Jeanne's suggestion

Jeanne: We will continue this Friday and add a new requirement about using this in a regulatory environment

<jeanne> To be continued. Also to add a new requirement about can be used in a regularatory environment.

Guidelines should be adaptable to a regulatory environment

<bruce_bailey> +1 to 3.6 on requirement for suitability in regulatory environment

Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment

<Cyborg> where is 3.6?

RESOLUTION: Keep 3.4 open with most recent wording: "Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the document structure but are not required to understand guidelines."
... Create a new 3.6 with possible wording "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment" or "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment"

trackbot end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/nottechnology/not technology/
Default Present: johnkirkwood, Charles, LuisG, JF, KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, Shawn, Lauriat, AngelaAccessForAll, Makoto, JanMcSorley, Jennison, bruce_bailey, shari, RedRoxProjects, Rachael, CharlesHall
Present: johnkirkwood Charles LuisG JF KimD jeanne kirkwood Cyborg mikeCrabb Shawn Lauriat AngelaAccessForAll Makoto JanMcSorley Jennison bruce_bailey shari RedRoxProjects Rachael CharlesHall
Regrets: Shawn
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Rachae
Found Scribe: Rachael

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Found Date: 19 Feb 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)