17:36:18 RRSAgent has joined #silver 17:36:18 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/27-silver-irc 17:36:20 RRSAgent, make logs world 17:36:22 present: 17:36:23 Meeting: Silver Community Group Teleconference 17:36:23 Date: 27 September 2019 17:36:29 zakim, clear agenda 17:36:29 agenda cleared 17:36:35 chair: jeanne 17:36:39 regrets+ Shawn 17:37:00 agenda+ Reminder about W3C member voting for AGWG charter, including Silver 17:37:01 agenda+ Select migrated SC and new SC for Silver FPWD 17:37:01 agenda+ Issues and Exceptions - continue discussion of minimum or required guidance 17:40:30 LuisG has joined #silver 17:44:13 regrets+ Cybele 17:45:04 janina_ has joined #silver 17:48:06 zakim, take up item 1 17:48:06 agendum 1. "Reminder about W3C member voting for AGWG charter, including Silver" taken up [from jeanne] 17:58:00 Chuck has joined #silver 17:58:53 present+ 17:59:26 CharlesHall has joined #silver 18:00:02 bruce_bailey has joined #silver 18:00:16 present+ 18:00:21 present+ 18:01:06 present+ jeanne, Jennison 18:01:46 johnkirkwood has joined #silver 18:05:41 KimD has joined #silver 18:05:51 Present+ 18:06:12 pkorn has joined #silver 18:06:32 present+ 18:06:41 present+ 18:07:12 present+ 18:07:23 Peter we hear you. 18:08:21 Thanks Chuck 18:09:04 present+ 18:09:49 AGWG charter is open until 8 October 2019 18:09:57 Hoping to avoid scribing, not feeling the best. 18:10:15 Kim: Can people other than the AC rep see the form? 18:10:46 Michael: THere are 3 questions, one of them will have a place for comments 18:11:10 scribe: janina 18:11:47 zakim,take up next 18:11:47 agendum 2. "Select migrated SC and new SC for Silver FPWD" taken up [from jeanne] 18:12:07 js: Picking up from Tuesday's conversation ... 18:12:15 js: FPWD of Silver expected late November 18:12:33 js: We need to decide what we can put in by then 18:12:56 js: Suggestion was one SC, Color Contrast 18:13:09 js: Plus one of the new proposals from COGA or LV 18:13:18 queue+ 18:13:43 js: Have action to find the proposals--now sent and on Wiki 18:13:45 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#New_Content_Proposals_from_Task_Forces_and_Prototypes 18:14:41 pk: Offering to work on challenges language to get it includable 18:15:47 js: Hope to have some proposed lang by next Tuesday's call 18:16:13 js: Have gui9deline, description, methods, test ... Presented to aGWG and other TFs for feedback 18:16:21 js: to give us new content to see how it might fit 18:16:32 js: Clear wording from COGA 18:16:36 js: Enable api 18:16:48 js: Point of regard and text spacing from LV 18:17:13 q+ to discuss spacing possibility for tech solution 18:18:16 js: Let people where they are in a multi screen task re one of the CoGA pieces 18:18:26 js: e.g. step 3 of 7 18:18:48 js: Started draft on "clear words" 18:19:11 js: Becky Gibson had begun work on enabling APIs 18:19:44 q+ to confirm if these are indeed active as none of the 5 appear in the 2.2 spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit?usp=sharing 18:20:23 queue- 18:20:37 ack jan 18:20:37 janina_, you wanted to discuss spacing possibility for tech solution 18:21:16 janina: some of what we're writing guidance for...we're trying to push some of that forward 18:21:55 .. there is a CSS taskforce and we're discussing whether we have what we need for a user to define what would work for them 18:22:33 .. the new one is whether we can manage a different spacing after punctuation; defining what you want after that could be problematic because of things like "i.e." 18:23:01 .. it seems it should be possible to make it easier to create a configuration that would control that. might not be necessary for Silver to do it if the uses can manage it themselves 18:23:38 .. some of what we're working on, might want to come up with technical solutions rather than best practices guidance 18:24:03 js: that's exciting news; but I think this is still important because we're not just talking about web/html technology. 18:24:08 q+ 18:24:17 .. in VR, people would want to be able to control spacing, etc. 18:24:36 .. we would still want to include it, but not make it something the author would have to do; maybe something a user agent could do 18:24:50 +1 to Jeanne – still have guidance regardless of the ease of availability of technology solutions 18:25:10 janina: and using stylesheets never really ended up being something successful for users; the thinking is maybe we can do better at that 18:25:19 .. the VR and emerging tech is a whole other issue 18:25:39 js: I've always been a believer in it being a user agent rather than authoring function 18:25:58 .. it's a good point to maybe not have it as an early success criterion and instead wait 18:26:23 janina: it brings up questions about what kind of guidance this is? authoring, user agent, or can we create some kind of technological solution; a kind of AT 18:26:35 q? 18:27:32 .. since we brought up VR...we had some discussions and got walkthroughs on how some of that stuff is working; we got an understanding of what part of the stack stuff happens on... 18:27:48 .. I'm wondering how we write guidance for that sort of work; and that's ongoing right now 18:28:13 js: I didn't find all of that in the minutes 18:28:22 janina: it's from Friday morning; I'll send them out 18:28:33 q+ Jennison 18:28:40 ack char 18:28:40 CharlesHall, you wanted to confirm if these are indeed active as none of the 5 appear in the 2.2 spreadsheet: 18:28:42 ... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit?usp=sharing 18:29:16 charles: Wants to point out we may still need guidance for a particular concern even if we have an emerging tech solution 18:30:02 charles: notes none of the lv in current 2.2 sc? Should we look at these? Or others? 18:30:16 js: We specifically asked for examples that couldn't go into 2.2 18:30:31 charles: Understood 18:30:40 ack Chuck 18:31:07 chuck: Like janina's suggestions, but all of those might be too much for our fpwd 18:31:24 janina: agree 18:31:30 ack Jenni 18:32:47 jenison: asks whether janina proposes beyond current SC? 18:32:55 js: Yes, beyond 18:33:15 cheuck: expansion on 2.1? 18:33:17 js: yes 18:33:33 q+ 18:33:42 ack charl 18:34:16 charles: Is the suggestion for all 5 to be covered in the FPWD? 18:34:27 js: No, likely too many to do well enough for FPWD 18:34:43 js: We are open to volunteers to work on these, though 18:35:04 js: Jan is eager to get COGA related SC wording suitable 18:35:17 js: Anyone from LV willing to help with one of those? 18:35:41 s/get COGA/get LV 18:36:27 zakim, take up next 18:36:27 agendum 3. "Issues and Exceptions - continue discussion of minimum or required guidance" taken up [from jeanne] 18:36:38 Charles will start working on Point of Regard 18:37:50 js: Looking at incorporating challenges concepts for FPWD conformance section 18:38:03 pk: Think it would be great either in, or longside 18:38:14 q+ to remind of Explainer 18:38:40 pk: Amazon will work with whoever is interested to make draft suitable 18:39:04 Prototype of ED -> https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/EdDraftPrototype/ 18:39:25 pk: Were it should go should be decided by folks more experienced in AGWG processes 18:40:00 jeanne: Noting a pretty detailed conformance section where these may fit 18:40:43 js; Notes items raised that should be in the issues doc 18:41:02 q+ 18:41:37 pk: Biggest mismatch I see is notion that bronze equates to WCAG 2.1 18:42:16 pk: There being non automatable parts of WCAG 2.x we need to bridge that to the ag model 18:45:06 janina: Expresses concern that defining an equivalence creates more problems than it solves 18:45:24 jeanne: Much discussion on this, but never thought of it as one to one mapping 18:45:51 jeanne: Rather as a way to help people who have made investments into meeting existence guidance some notion of where they stand in the new model 18:46:46 pk: Suggests lang that any site meeting 2.2 is still valid, without actually tieing to a new level 18:46:56 +1 Bronze should not equal 2.x (AA) 18:47:17 pk: Maybe also need to more qualitatively define what we mean by bronze, silver, gold. What's the user experience diff/ 18:47:27 s/\/?/ 18:47:54 8th level wizards casts spell of agreement with Peter. 18:48:00 pk: We want to convey the opportunity to keep getting better and better 18:48:03 so do Marvel comics 18:49:11 +1 to Peter - have a qualitative analysis discussion of what makes bronze, silver and gold levels and beyond. 18:49:22 Luis: There will need to be numbering for correspondance to give people continuity 18:50:04 pk: Think it's more of the user experience than simply not pass/fail test 18:50:24 js: It's time we revisit this conversation. We had it long ago, but not recently 18:52:05 pk: Clearly we need to avoid invalidating 2.x for all who invested in meeting that; but how many actually meet 2.x AA? Beyond the home page? Average was around 47% 18:52:39 pk: Training, tooling and knowledge is what we must not invalidate; more than specific equivalence statements 18:54:23 pk: 4th would be processes -- if an org has a working process around AA, we don't want to invalidate that 18:54:48 process or tools may also include the ACT rules work 18:54:54 js: Asks for examples 18:55:04 it may be the case that awards less than bronze may be worth including 18:55:24 pk: Thinking of what we do at Amazon, what we did at Oracle, at Sun, they're all based around meeting current WCAG 18:55:37 q+ 18:55:44 pk: These become internal processes with defined steps 18:56:08 pk: We don't want to tell people you need to change all your ways of working 18:56:09 at AccessU, Eric mentioned that quote wood metals unquote are actual prizes 18:56:23 pk: Silver should preserve institutional knowledge and tooling 18:56:44 ack janina 18:56:44 janina_, you wanted to remind of Explainer 18:58:08 +1 to an Explainer 19:00:08 ack Chuck 19:00:47 TAG Explainer of Explainers: https://w3ctag.github.io/explainers 19:01:02 ack Micha 19:01:31 mc: Supports not invalidating 19:01:44 mc: But needs to make Silver different from WCAG 2 19:01:58 mc: Meanwhile, WCAG 2.x should remain valid for some extended period of time 19:02:23 mc: Don't want to force change; we need a balance 19:03:34 KimD has left #silver 19:04:11 zakim, bye 19:04:11 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Chuck, bruce_bailey, CharlesHall, jeanne, Jennison, KimD, pkorn, LuisG, johnkirkwood, janina_ 19:04:11 Zakim has left #silver 19:04:18 rrsagent, make minutes 19:04:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/27-silver-minutes.html janina_ 21:44:18 johnkirkwood has joined #silver 21:44:44 johnkirkwood has joined #silver 22:59:12 johnkirkwood has joined #silver