Silver Community Group Teleconference -- 05 Mar 2019

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

CSUN agenda

Shawn: CSUN agenda, this coming Monday and Tuesday. Had initial agenda sketched out.
... Met with AGWG chairs for joing sessions. have more solid agenda. Still tentative. here's link:

<Lauriat> Updated proposed agenda: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/2019_CSUN_F2F_Meeting#Agenda_Topics.2C_timing_tentative

Shawn: One of the things we want to do is specifically have the conversation with overall working group around a silver requirements document as early as possible in the week.
... Essentially we want... the requirements will set the map of where it is we are going and what we are trying to do, we want agreement on that (for quite a while).
... We have opportunity to lead structured session to go through point by point of requirements and get agreement. What everyone agrees on in spirit but needs work, and...
... What we can't get agreement on (things we should mark as removing). My <Shawn> plan is to have a structured and to the point conversation.
... Having ironed out what requirements should include. We won't get consensus because we won't have everyone, but we'll have good cross session. We'll send out later today to ask...
... For feedback (via survey). Each Q will be a point of requirement. If you agree, answer positive, if not, provide why.
... Any q?

Bruce: bigger thing. For those of us who are new to silver, I'm assuming preference is for Chuck and JF and me to be at silver session as opposed to the other session.

Shawn: That would be great, but I understand there are conflicting sessions. Up to the attendees to decide which session is best to attend.
... New AGWG charter discussion requires everyone. Asside from that we have some working sessions. As we get closer to next week, agendas will solidify.
... Selfishly... join us! But I'm realistic.

Bruce: JF will split his time more than me. I plan on being at Silver.

Shawn: Our plan for the requirements discussion once we finish joint session. Take all feedback and conclusions for each point and while one recruit members of AGWG...
... Flag individuals to help us define the requirement of the point.
... Once we have everything solidified as everything that should be included IS included, and everything we can't get concensus on we remove, and send results to overall WG.
... Realistically, there's a very real possibility that we get a bunch of removals as a result of this session. I think that's ok, that helps drive discussion around what silver should do.

Someone: Can you be more explicit?

<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/

<Lauriat> "Different guidance has potential for different measurement beyond a simple true false success criterion so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included."

Shawn: For instance we have a requirement... (example link) first one in fact, multiple ways to measure. Current draft of that requirement. <reads req>
... I know a few members of the wg have wanted to better understand how that works before they support this. Next week if we go through the requirements.
... We may flag this as we should remove this requirement if we don't get consensus. That would later on spark the conversation on how we would include Coga for instance...
... One of the main features of this requirement. This helps us have the larger discussion of what we are trying to do with silver.
... So far discussion around requirements has been around "all or nothing", my fault on how we framed it. Conversations have been mixed between very high and very low level.
... I want to go through each design principals and each requirements and get consensus.

Someone: So if they say remove it, is it a fixed removal, or is that one instead that we can rejustify?

Shawn: More the latter. We would flag for removal. If we can't get consensus for half requirements, half would be flagged, then review the remaining and see if sensible to build on.

Someone: One more question about this "multiple ways". Would a concrete example be required. Specifically related at the granular level (coga type criteria). Do they need something like that?
... Or can it remain high level?

Shawn: I want to keep it high level. One of the difficulties is that no matter how we build an example, it never seems flushed out enough.
... I want us to have a conversation on what goes into silver, we've fallen into a trap for the last six months.

<Charles> note to Chuck. that ‘someone’ was Cybell (Cyborg)

Shawn: Any other comments, thoughts, q?
... I'd love to have opinions from individuals with more experience than I with the WG.

Bruce: You've done a good job characterizing the problems, I think your approach is good.

JF: There is some discussion in the larger wg in bringing more resources to the silver wg. I don't know where that will land. I know people feel AGWG should be spending more on silver.
... There may be more activity here.

Shawn: had discussion with chairs, monthly quick sync up. Over the last three months hasn't been as coordinated. yesterday we had special meeting (2x length and fun). This was a topic.
... We knew was coming. Got a lot of steam behind it.

JF: It's kicked off, talking about recharter process. Needs to be finished by mid-summer.

Shawn: I think before then.

<Charles> reminder, many of us are not W3C members or AGWG members / invited experts, but only Community Group members. I would be interested in attending those meetings, but I am not in the group.

JF: Draft before then. Wrapped up by mid summer. goes through W3C and reps. Larger working group has been talking about new charter.
... We will have to make determination about state of silver in 18 months/2 years.

Shawn: for the agenda I proposed to chairs, the new charter discussion with overall WG will happen Tuesday morning (joint session).
... I want requirements discussion before then. I know different sets of thoughts and no agreement.
... Number of people on silver is moot until rest is defined.
... The other thing I want to do in requirements discussion is get everyone on the same page.

JF: I agree. I reactivated my participation is to understand from all perspectives.

Shawn: Moving on. Afternoon we have two sessions with silver folks. First cognative pallate clenser. Brain storming for a permanent name for silver.
... Want to come up with possibilities for names, then as part of charter discussion... lighter topic... (bronze silver gold), overloading name would be best avoided.

JF: Do that as an activity of task force or larger group?

Shawn: Task force. So that we can come up with possibilities. We don't want to go to larger group with "lets now name it"?

JF: There may be a never-ending like process.

Shawn: A couple of years ago. When we work through different possibilities of how to design and build silver, Jean and I lead a session with overall WG, we mentioned 2 or 3 possibilities...
... On how we build silver. We combined 2 of them into this process. Very productive way of handling the conversation. Avoided an open discussion and framed things to avoid churn.
... We are trying to do that at each point. Discussion is unavoidable, but trying to streamline some of the conversation.
... Some name suggestions won't be real, but some will be, and we'll provide possibilities. CPC.
... Then a working session and training session for content creation.

<Charles> are there times posted for these meetings yet?

Shawn: Since we need to coordinate with "them", then this may need to move around.
... Tuesday morning. Mentioned AGWG charter discussion. Jotted down as Tues morning. Requires coordination with overall wg. Time dependent on how chairs are planning to run...
... discussion. We want to be there for that. Take part in it.
... We have a placeholder in to review latest editor's silver draft.
... I don't think it would be as productive as other sessions, but helpful to show people where we are going.
... May help to show prototype work coga has been producing.
... Then tues afternoon Silver specific sessions. 2 sessions. Left vague and high level, strategy session. After some training with ... working group, we have a better idea of work we need to do.
... We can think of how we best fold in other members of working group on how we work on content. Then define content creation story. 2nd session..
... PM documentation and.... JF, to your point, how we handle 10 more people. Work remaining on structure, building out from there, getting into content creation, what the work is,
... SME expertise, etc.
... That's a lot for two days. Expecting that we won't get to everything. Hoping we can, structured time. I'm hoping too that from joint sessions (around reqs) that we get more casual
... working sessions, and get more feedback. Over lunch or at the bar we talk about it.
... I think that will be helpful having everyone in one space.

<Charles> is there any way to capture resolutions that come from at the bar conversations?

Shawn: Any comments, q, concerns with overall agenda? There's a lot.
... <reads Charles q>. I hope so. I jot down notes in my phone. Leave it to all participants to document the ideas.

JF: Any formal decisions need to happen in a formal meeting.
... If we come up with a good idea, make sure it is added to the agenda. Shared responsibility.

Shawn: If nothing more, moving to next topic.

CSUN presentation

Shawn: Other thing that's happenning is CSUN. We have preso to give on end of day on Wed. Want to discuss on what we should include and focus on.
... Quite a while since last preso, lots of content to go through. My thinking is to give a similar-ish "here's what silver is, where we came from, here's where we are in that map"...
... Then go through some prototypes. Not planning to talk about balance of prior work. If asked about it, will deflect question. More focused on practical stuff of what we plan to include...
... and what it looks like.
... Other thoughts or ideas?

<Lauriat> (last year's presentation) Re-Imagining Accessibility Guidelines https://goo.gl/1dyJck

Shawn: Last year we walked through background, around WCAG work, where silver came from, then went into some of the goals. Since we have a reasonable draft of requirements, we can...
... reshape slides to discuss opportunities with silver, can be specific about what we want to hold silver to. If we get into conversations that go off rails, and if everything gets deleted...
... We won't present just one single requirement, we'll give an overall of all the reqs.
... We have timeline itself. Need to update as prototyping has extended. Structure is dependent on requirements, want to get a little more real.
... We have the research done.
... Recruiting is still fairly important. Community group has been awesome.
... I would like to hilight participation from overall WG. Been super helpful.

Cybel: Any way to highlight contributions from community group?
... Curious what I'm missing.

Shawn: bulk of prototyping has come from community group. Members of overall wg, biggest pieces we've had have been discussions around requirements, also a lot of...
... experimentation of the prototypes (coga task force). members of the wg on that. We have several members on call today helping us work through bigger topics and complicated issues.

Cybel: Other thing that may be useful to tie goals to what's been achieved so far. It's quite cool (slide 4) a lot has been put into practice already.

Shawn: Absolutely.
... Made copy of slides, will add comments and capture our thoughts. Wait.... nobody can see it.
... I'll make a note.

Charles: Also worth summarizing on a slide or two the gist of large spans of conversations for example. We've talked about conformance for a year. We've come along way as a result.

Shawn: Definitely.

Bruce: For bringing AGWGers along, there aren't that many slides. Maybe you can... like slide 4, all of those are done. Show slides with them checked off. Show timeline, gant chart of progress.
... Show work done.

Michele: Maybe not ready to show this, I'd want to see a before and after of a guideline example. Would bring it home.

<RedRoxProjects> +1

Michele: Risk, but would get feedback.

Shawn: Putting together a top level view. Something that gives kind of a top level of what the guidelines could look like compared to existing guidelines.
... Both at top level and when you go deeper.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if this for AGWG or public CSUN session

Shawn: I also want to include some of the writing that other task forces have done, on guideance for sc that didn't make it in to prior guildelines.

<Lauriat> CSUN Presentation link "Future of Accessibility Guidelines for Web and ICT" https://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/2019/sessions/index.php/public/presentations/view/1278

<Rachael> s/michelle:/rachael:/

<Lauriat> Abstract: "The next major version of W3C Accessibility Guidelines is progressing. See improved usability, examples of WCAG guidance written in simple language, and more flexible conformance."

<Chuck_> Scribe: Chuck

<Chuck_> Cybel: The preso we are talking about, is that going to highlight things like information architecture, plain language, etc?

<Chuck_> Shawn: Yep.

<Chuck_> Shawn: Let me link to session itself. We had to put the time in many months ago. We didn't know where we'd get to.

<bruce_bailey> Scribe: Chuck_

Shawn: Abstract itself. Intentionally left vague. Next major version...

Cybel: There was another slide deck that showed the 3... bronze silver gold, I can't remember where it is. The that you used last meeting. Is that one useful?

Shawn: This deck made a while ago. I think you are talking about potentially this other slide deck...

<Lauriat> This slide deck? http://goo.gl/XqwaM4

Shawn: That links to preso at TPAC.
... This had info architecture, tagging engine. As well as desc of how content would move to silver.

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1V_nYD27N6kx8gRha0rrdQK8aKyvg7kKXu6rs44We7IU/edit#slide=id.g44e0248110_0_0

Shawn: Was this the slide...?

Cybel: Not at this level, but yes, I saw in earlier draft.

Shawn: We can take some of the slides that talk about prototypes, especially plain language, info architecture. We have examples that have gone further. We'll shuffle previous format and this content.
... As well as content we worked through with other task forces. We'll pair down to half an hour.
... Maybe 40 minutes.

<bruce_bailey> Slide 22 has the bronze/silver/gold

Cybel: One thing that came up... has moved since... maybe not ready this week... is concept of having the guidance at 3 levels. Instead of this... task based, overall based.
... There are levels that way too. Is that ready for illustration? Where are we at?

Shawn: We need to flush out more, we could potentially bring it up as a point of conformance.
... Making note of those three levels for my todo bits for preso.

Cybel: Maybe even a reference to that. I have q on how that fits in info architecture. Not getting "just a matter of tagging".

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about Leed comparison

Bruce: Remembering a conversation about using the green building certification as a model, Jeanne talking about how we want to look into that. Concerns with "bicycle parking decks" to get more points, but in Alaska..
... going to follow up with folks here (buildings people), but not done that yet.
... Any more info about that conversation?

<Cyborg> The simplest possible "overall guidance" that we came up with was an accessibility statement.

Shawn: One of the things we were working through....

Bruce: You don't have to know now, but might be a good topic.

Shawn: We want to provide a way for people to build up more points, go beyond minimum. having a min set of requirements so that you don't pile up on things for low vision functional needs ...
... And completely neglect people that are centered around cognative. To your point, not setting up a system that can pile up on one thing.
... That gets challenging quickly.
... We can provide framework for people who go above and beyond, but have a clear minimum.

thanks Bruce!

Shawn: For CSUN preso, any other points that we should think to include?
... I've a bunch of self notes. We can turn this into a real preso. I think ... any other topics?
... From here I have a pile of things to do. Going to be sending survey for requirements to the chairs so that they can send out asap.
... going to work with Jeanne to work on preso, working with chairs on agenda, will email silver list a things solidify. We will give you idea of what's happening when and where, so you can
... Plan your attendance.

Cybel: Remote participation?

Shawn: We'll have webex setup. We'll figure it out. We know we've a number of people dialing in. AV setup has not been setup. We got last minute help from Jan (not on call).
... We'll have remote participation possible, will go out with agenda.

Cybel: If you are looking for a quick reference to overall guidance, the accessibility statement is a great resource. Easy to explain.

Shawn: Thanks everyone.

<Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Silver Community Group Teleconference

05 Mar 2019

Attendees

Contents

CSUN agenda

CSUN presentation

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output