<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

Updates from subgroups

Shawn: Updates from sub-groups

Jeanne: Lot's to talk about from clear language sub group. Did great work yesterday. Jan and Rachael will hopefully come to meeting and share details.
... I want to show you what we have in editor's draft. <looking>
... Newest work is on raw git.
... I'll show the explainer first.

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/prototypes/PlainLanguage2/ClearWords.html

Jeanne: What's done so far in the explainer is the... for folk who haven't been here in a while, we've shown you tests and methods that were done, user needs, test and methods, and we started working on part 4 which is the explainer.
... As they have been getting done we've moved them into github where you can see in plain language prototype format. Since the last step of the process of writing content is to write the guideline, that is not done, I've put in placeholder text.
... So people could see what will be there, but not done yet. We've got a summary of what's included in clear words, why, substantial who it helps that goes into various aspects of the details of the disability.
... I'll also say that even though the cognative accessibility task force haven't seen it in html, they have seen in google docs, made comments, and we've integrated their comments.
... I've examples, but they are not in github yet. We are still working on exceptions. We need to discuss that as a group. Shawn can decide if we will work on that today. I'm excited to show plan tab.
... I thought it would be simple, but as we dug into it, we had a lot of ideas and content and we also had some project management experience in the group and...
... our combined experience in project management was very helpful in guiding us. We discussed the budget implications, including time.
... Some of the considerations, we struggled a bit with the wording. We wanted to say that they need to coordinate ... some of the things that should be considered... <reads from doc>
... We recommend that companies that do a lot of writing have a style guide for their unique content.
... We don't want clear language to be sacrificed because it wasn't resourced. Bring in legal experts early. Plan time to write clear language summaries.

Charles: Q on differentiating audiences and scoping. If project managers are targeted, this implies that it's targeted for an org of certain sizes that have project managers. There are small business that don't have this role. Should we extend this to cover other roles.?

Shawn: This is targeted to the activity of planning, not the persona. We targeted the activity not the role on purpose.

Jeanne: We were thinking of it.

JF: One minor thing on the getting started tab, last bullet, "langage", spelling issue. Q I have is, this is prep, this is not measurable correct?

Jeanne: correct.

JF: I know coga talked about this, clear language correlation to readability. Are we factoring that in?

Jeanne: We want a larger context of readability because there are so many guidelines that impact readability. We thought to create a meta-tag, so that someone could select that tag and list all of the guidelines that impact readability.
... We don't want to tie it to a reading level.

JF: A reading level is measurable.

Jeanne: Not very. We want to do better. I'll send you link to testing and methods, or you can pull up from front page of wiki.

JF: Thank you

<KimD> silver wiki: https://bit.ly/2P13Bgp

Jeanne: Been a long criticism for a long time, that reading level is too perscriptive for orgs with specialized complex info, and it's not accurate enough to address the needs of individuals with cognative issues.
... Anything on the planning tab? I'd love some feedback on that. Not finished yet.
... It goes into more on how to work with each individual team. We debated, and didn't get to, 3, 4, and 5 should be moved into tips for collaboration, which would make planning responsibilities shorter. If Jan and Rachael agree, I may move.
... We'll link to the methods as soon as method gets into github.
... I've been working on how to move the methods into github and what they should look like. I hope to have that by Friday.
... That's my update.

Shawn: Any other groups present?

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

Chuck: Visual Contrast is scheduled to meet to work on the Methods for Visual Contrast

<Chuck> Shawn: Thx Chuck.

<Chuck> Jeanne: quick q, has Andy seen what's gone into github?

<Chuck> Chuck: don't know, but will find out.

<Chuck> Jeanne: I just want to know if he has comments or edits. What he thought of the approach. I'm also going to move math into github as a method for people to see. You can update it and change it as you work on it and as needed.

<Chuck> Chuck: Thx.

<Chuck> Shawn: Makoto, do you have an update?

<Chuck> Makoto: I need some time to prepare sharing updates in english.

<Chuck> Shawn: No worries, I know you just came from there.

<Chuck> Shawn: Any other groups present?

<Chuck> Jeanne: Bruce sent regrets today. Charles, any updates?

<Chuck> Charles: None.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Should we not call on you and say it's not part of first public working draft?

<Chuck> Charles: That was my hope to indicate last time. I won't have anything for fpwd.

<Chuck> Jeanne: OK, will stop calling on it. We'll look for it in the next draft in April.

Schedule for FPWD

<Chuck> Shawn: Before we go further... I want to review schedule with Michael and chairs. There's a lot. I'll copy into summary for the minutes.

<Chuck> Shawn: I'll copy and paste as we go so we don't need to scribe. Makoto is ready!

<Makoto> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xI6ooDVxvNelVNJDSvbTJCvrJh92Df9wLXGyWs5f2-w/edit?usp=sharing

<Chuck> Makoto: I put link in irc, which shows latest version of alt text doc. We just had a meeting right before this call.

<Chuck> Makoto: We will do the part 3, on page 8 of the doc.

<Chuck> Makoto: We will focus on existing wcag techniques. For sc WCAG 1.1.1 there are a lot of techniques. We will devide all these techniques across 3 people, Jennifer, Todd and Makoto, and we will each work through the assigned techniques by following 9 steps

<Chuck> Makoto: Which is shown on page 14.

<Chuck> Makoto: This is the components part of the new method. We will use this to review the existing techniques. To be honest, we are not sure if this is an appropriate direction we should go, so please let me know if our next step is appropriate or not.

<Chuck> Makoto: Questions are very welcome.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Have you included the chart that Todd made? The doc is long. I'm looking for it, where he had all the suggested updates for the techniques.

<Chuck> Makoto: <reviewing>

<Chuck> Makoto: Can you see the docs? I just put the url into irc <above>

<Chuck> Jeanne: Yes. He had a table of each of the techniques that needed updates or changes. We saw it about 2 months ago, and I sent it to WCAG.

<Chuck> Jeanne: I'll take it up ofline with you.

<Chuck> Jeanne: I'll followup with an email and make sure it doesn't get lost.

<Chuck> Makoto: OK

<Chuck> Shawn: Thx Makoto.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Thx very much! Any idea on when you'll get to part 4 which helps with what goes into the explainer?

<Chuck> Makoto: Not sure, we will do part 3.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Great, thank you.

<Chuck> Makoto: Lot's of existing techniques. It will take some time.

<Chuck> Jeanne: My opinion, I think it's a good thing. We need not worry about new material, this is a good example of how existing techniques and material are moving. I'm not worried about part 4. We will need to do it, but it's not needed for first public working draft.

<JF> +1 to Shawn

<Chuck> Shawn: I'd like to see if we can do for methods for alt text would be to see if we can consolidate methods, it may not be feasible to present exhaustive lists. If we can categorize them into overall patterns, that would be helpful as an exercise...

<KimD> +1 to not changing alt text too much

<Chuck> Shawn: To see if we can move up in granularity. I know it's challenging. May not be able to do for first public working draft, but would like us to eventually get there.

<KimD> +1 to SL too

<Chuck> Shawn: I'm happy to try and help with.

<Chuck> Jeanne: A great idea. As soon as I have a template ready for methods, I'll share. Makoto, you have people in your group that can move content directly into html. It can move into github quickly.

<Chuck> Jeanne: If you Shawn could stay on top of this on grouping this, you should. We can show the evolution of techniques in the first working draft.

<Chuck> Shawn: I think there are ways of presenting alternative text that don't exist in existing standard.

<Chuck> Shawn: On to schedule.

<Chuck> Shawn: I'll paste in timeline so we need not scribe.

<Lauriat> 21 Jan: Show current stage to group, followed by survey

<Chuck> Shawn: ...with some specific prompting for feedback. To see how well prepared we are, and if we have anything we need to address.

<Lauriat> 4 Feb: Show fairly final version

<Lauriat> 5 - 10 Feb: Stage publication branch with FPWD status

<Chuck> Shawn: ...that will be presented to the overall wg. Then...

<Lauriat> 11 Feb: CfC to publish opens

<Lauriat> 14 - 24 Feb: Michael out on vacation (no publication can happen)

<Chuck> Shawn: ... something not for us but what we need to schedule around... Michael is out on vac.

<Lauriat> 25 Feb: FPWD Transition request

<Chuck> Shawn: ...when Michael returns... transition

<Lauriat> 27 Feb: FPWD Publication

<Lauriat> 9 - 10? Mar: Face-to-face pre-CSUN

<Chuck> Shawn: We stated to go to fpwd in feb, but first week didn't make sense. We want to present as early as possible and make sure things are more solid. any q or comments on schedule?

Info on the F2F https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/2020_March_F2F_Meeting_at_CSUN

<Chuck> Jeanne: Info on face to face, please register. Even if you haven't finalized yet, put that in comments.

<Lauriat> Registration: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/2020-03_F2F/

<Chuck> Shawn: That link also has a link to the registration form, which is <above>

<Zakim> Makoto, you wanted to share updates of ALT text team. I think I'm ready now.

Quality rubric for Headings

<Chuck> Shawn: You lead this one Jeanne.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TgFWsggRNiUYU_N9GPCvU1KUhexiRWjYTelTKZPMAOE/edit

<Chuck> Jeanne: That is from wiki, headings work, draft <link pasted above>

<Chuck> Jeanne: On page 3, #6. new tests for silver. Rubrik for determining quality of heading. We just started last Friday. We wanted to give everybody some practice with writing rubrik's. This will be our most common new test. Research showed that people wanted...

<Chuck> Jeanne: More examples of the quality of various aspects of the existing guidelines. Because so many people disagree about whether or not something is accessible. We want to use the rubrik to show examples of where people did a great job, or is ok, or what is...

<Chuck> Jeanne: ...not acceptable. We first added "follows a logical org without skipping levels".

<Chuck> Jeanne: In order for it to meet guideline, "has logical layout, if layout is skipped still makes sense and user understands structure". We want to show a way of partially meeting this even though it may need improvement.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Janina, I'd love your idea's on this. You have a lot of experience.

<Chuck> Jeanne: We are looking at headings and what makes a good quality heading. The factor on Friday that it follows a logical org w/o skipping levels.

<Chuck> Jeanne: <reads from test> My q for you is what would be an example of partially meeting it. It needs improvement but it's ok.

<Chuck> Janina: Strict level adherence is not really achievable, and not the most important, particularly where content comes from different sources. What does matter is that the headings are not too long.

<Chuck> Janina: I hate a whole paragraph as a header. Just doesn't make sense. They need to literally label things. Below that it needs to clearly summarize what you find underneath that heading. If I stop navigating by headings, what will I find?

<Chuck> Janina: I should not be suprised. I think those are the keys.

<Chuck> Janina: Nesting should indicate how things group. That's another key. Strict level or not, or jump from h2 to h4, but h4 is clearly related to the h2. What we are avoiding is some amateur authors picking different kinds of fonts.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Or they have css class.

<Chuck> Janina: Yes, there are better ways.

<Chuck> Jeanne: I've been adding levels to the table of the things that you have suggested as factors. I like that better than the nesting should indicate how things group. I like that better than an exception for outside content.

<Chuck> JF: Interesting to pick on headings. One of the things that I talk about in training, is that there are 2 pieces of info. It's a role of heading, aria level of 1-6. Even though the numeric identifier <hierarchy> might be broken, there may still be utility in indicating it's a heading.

<Chuck> JF: Helps to chunk up content and used for interpage navigation. If the approach is the quality of heading, multiple factors. We want succinct. The fact that headings are used to section content has utility.

<Chuck> JF: I'm wondering if we should split into 2 things. The sectioning, vs the quality of the heading.

<Chuck> Jeanne: The first part of what you discussed is a different method. I'm looking for a volunteer for that method. If you could help with that, that would be great.

<Lauriat> +1, I like splitting this into multiple rubrics.

<Chuck> Jeanne: I took notes that headings aren't too long. <reads from doc>

<Chuck> Jeanne: What is "partially"? Janina, what would be an example of "not idea but ok".

<Chuck> Jeanne: We don't want this to be binary. We need some examples of "partial credit".

<Chuck> Shawn: If you have a bunch of headings, most of succinct, but a couple are too wordy, that's somewhere inbetween.

<Chuck> Shawn: Or a bunch of headings, and some are slightly too wordy.

<Chuck> Janina: One can live with that.

<Chuck> Jeanne: For failure I have paragraph and sentences.

<Chuck> Shawn: Happens in legal contracts, where heading is 10 words where convoluted language is necessary.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Is Kim on the call?

<Chuck> Kim: I am hear. Can you repeate q?

<JF> legal and EDU as well

<Chuck> Jeanne: Shawn was saying that the legal world has convoluted headings by necessity.

<Chuck> Kim: I can think of something. Where we display cases, case titles can be incredibly long.

<Chuck> Janina: If you put that in H1 you have a problem.

<JF> legal, scientific, technology... linked (in part) to reading and reading level

<Chuck> Kim: They can be... if a class action and they list the participants, can be pages long.

<Chuck> Janina: Maybe another markup strategy would make sense.

<Chuck> Janina: Purpose of accessibility point of view would be to move from one portion to another expeditiously, and go back and forth, for your needs of getting at data.

<Chuck> JF: Or screen reader users.

<Chuck> Janina: Or magnification.

<Chuck> JF: Getting a topo understanding.

<kirkwood> +1 to JG

<kirkwood> JG/JF

<Chuck> Janina: How to be a good reader of books is to not start reading the whole book, but look at how it's organized.

<kirkwood> very important for cognitive

<Chuck> JF: I'm suggesting specifically in headings that we do need to split it up into 2 parts expressed in aria. The role is important (that it's a heading), and the hierarchy.

<Chuck> Janina: I tend to agree with that.

<Chuck> kirkwood: I want to reiterate that point. From a coga perspective, memory issues, chunking info, and that's what headings do. Understanding how things are chunked and mapped helps individuals out.

<Chuck> Jeanne: I put that under... we can change the wording <reads from doc>

<Chuck> Jeanne: What would you say for "needs improvement but it's ok"?

<Chuck> Jeanne: Any examples of "it's not great but we can live with it?"

<Chuck> kirkwood: Not off the top of my head.

<Chuck> Jeanne: For each factor, we want to think about what's the goal, who has done great job, good job, or not good.

<Chuck> Janina: When it's not marked up with heading markup... I can live with that, but it slows things down. Probably doesn't help coga case at all.

<Chuck> Jeanne: No it doesn't. I'm not sure that's a quality issue. That's black and white. You have either coded it symantically or not.

<Chuck> JF: How is that not a quality issue?

<Chuck> Janina: You are relying on the look and feel. They show up on screen.

<Chuck> Shawn: JF brought up before that there are 2 attributes to communicate a heading. You can include the role but not have a level. Still has symantic of heading.

<Chuck> JF: what about when you have h2 but is marked up as a 4?

<Chuck> JF: I've seen javascript injection tools which will inject aria into the code. Or the reverse that is marked up has h4, but isn't really a h4, should be h2 or h3.

<Chuck> JF: What do we do in a situation where marked up in html as h4 but tagged in aria as h2?

<Chuck> Shawn: As long as that is a valid accessibility tree, that would be correct.

<Chuck> JF: The accessibility tree is an important aspect. Seems that's what we are talking about.

<Chuck> JF: The quality is how it is presented in the accessibility tree. Then there's the editorial aspect. Succinct.

<Chuck> JF: I don't have answers. These are the q that is going through my mind.

<Chuck> Shawn: And this is helpful. These are the different considerations.

<Chuck> Jeanne: And for those who write rubric's, you are getting a feel for how to do it.

<Chuck> JF: one more q about your rubric. In the top header, you have factor, you have 3 levels. Substantially, partially, limited.

<Chuck> Jeanne: That's what we are trying to do for each one is define that.

<JF> Where is the 4th column of "Fails"?

<Chuck> Mary Jo: Comment on the one you have hilighted. Where content is chunked into sections. I think that sentence doesn't belong on that row. Using formatting isn't about chunking the content. It's about making sure that the formatting is visually appropraite for ...

<Chuck> Mary Jo: The different levels.

<Lauriat> +1

<Chuck> Mary Jo: Not all pages will need headings. Don't want to make a strict req.

<Chuck> Mary Jo: Depends on content of page. No examples off hand.

<CharlesHall> technically, the <hr> element provides semantics of chunking sections

<Chuck> Mary Jo: Like login page. No need for heading.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Keep in mind we aren't saying it's required, or that you fail if you don't have it. If we took all of these factors... the way we would score this, 1 for substantial, .5 for partially, 0 for limited. Add up all, divide by factors, and that's the points you get.

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)

Present: jeanne janina Chuck maryjom KimD CharlesHall JF Lauriat Rachael Makoto kirkwood
Regrets: Bruce
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Scribes: Chuck, jeanne
ScribeNicks: Chuck, jeanne

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

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


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.)