<scribe> scribe: janina
<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/
js: Made editor draft updates;
helpful comments from Charles
... Updates include Abstract and Intro
<Peter_Korn> We have a significant echo on the line. Am I the only one hearing it?
<CharlesHall> i have no echo
js: Concerned we may be too small a group to work on this though
sl: Suggests a summary review
js: Proposing scoring as a
percentage will be in FPWD
... That will at least establish we're getting away from 0 or
100%
... Using many methods to do the same thing could have gained
the system
sl: Believe moving to the guidelines is good
<Peter_Korn> OK, all better now.
js: A minimum percentage number
yet to be determined will be required in multiple disability
categories
... no weightin currently in the doc
... we will normqalize all guidelines so that no disability has
higher score potential because it has more guidelines than some
other group
... all an attempt to level the playing field
... score each guideline that applies and divide by number of
guidelines applied
... need to test this on existing sites
ch: Confirming we expect a minimum percent, though we've not yet defined how much that minimum is. Is that the same as "substantially conforms?"
js: Yes
... I think this part of the power of this approach
<Zakim> CharlesHall, you wanted to confirm the idea of substantially conforms maps to that minimum percent
pk: Concerned about how to disambiguate page vs website
js: Clarifies she meant the site, not a page
pk: No, I mean in the doc draft;
that it's unclear
... Points to Sec. 3
... Suggests "Website Conformance" with a definition ... ; One
might have pages that don't fully conform, etc., etc
js: Sounds good
<Peter_Korn> acj
<Peter_Korn> ack
js: We've also been working on
sampling
... We think this helps address large, complex dynamic sites
being able to claim conformance without the need to test every
page
... Took a lot from wcag-em; which is widely accepted for its
techniques identifying the sample set
... We can't just say "using em" because em is website
specific
... Notes that each org will choose its own samples, some of
which need to be random--but not all
... selected testable items can be componants
... this gives orgs flexibility in what to test and how
pk: concerned that certain paths through a site may need to be weighted--but I'm still working on how to express this usefully
js: reviews some of the
particulars
... So, we're trying to scale what people need to do
janina: Spent time grep'ing through W3C specs looking for how conformance is addressed; Web Authentication talks about 3 conformance classes
js: We have different levels of
selected vs random; depends on site size
... levels all depends on site size
7ack j
ac c
<KimD> Do we mean to have two headings that say "Sites or products over 1000 pages or screens"
ch: thinking of terminology --
understand Peter will work on disambiguating page from site --
but don't see component
... Think we need to be careful as there are specific defined
meanings -- e.g. HTML components
<Peter_Korn> +1 to Charles
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to talk about terms
ch: maybe use component rather than element
<Lauriat> +1, though component also means something
ch: we should require some percentage of custom components
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask whether some should be mandatory
kd: site or products -- looking
at consistency in what is written
... duplicated bullet points
pk: Wants to ask about survey
js: leading the witness!
pk: given we're making changes; how does that affect the survey
js: Probably I should start a new branch
pk: Perhaps Amazon can reply suggesting the changes we've discussed here so that other respondents will be made aware
sl: I didn't realize we set a
Monday deadline which includes too small a window
... Wilco also asked whether this would be the only review
before fpwd;
[discussion on how long survey should be open]
js: OK, extended the survey; Please advise Wilco and also that there will be an additional survey
ch: Notes there also people in the group conducting survey for ARIA
js: Asks whether anything else important in email that people have seen?
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/Silver-ED-21-01-2020/results
js: Believe we have interesting
responses and suggestions
... e.g. silver replaces all of wcag/atag
pk: as though the task weren't large enough!
js: Asks people to start looking
at activity in their subgroups vis a vis the responses
... responses can take time; and we need help
... good that we have lots of comments, though!
sl: Notes the importance of tracking changes and the responses
js: good idea to track responses; also so we can discuss in agwg
ch: should we answer the survey?
js: Please do!
... It was sent to the Silver list
... Would really like it if people here responded; because of
the familiarity and deeper understanding of the big picture
ch: We have until Thursday?
js: Yes
mc: But will discuss in AGWG call Tuesday, so comments before that call would be extra helpful
js: Should sl and I be there?
mc: I was assuming you would be!
js: Will calendar
... Asks Michael whether agwg expects we will have answers
mc: Should be able to respond to
issues people raise; not necessarily formal answers
... It's an input into a subsequent fpwd call
[sl & js discuss coordination ahead of Tuesday calls]
js: anything else on survey?
[crickets]
rm: Can I say we're done?
js: Yes, we finished, but we now have comments!
janina: e-champaigne all around
js: Anyone from visual contrast?
[crickets]
js: Andy has a new name proposed
for the algo
... Looks in the editor's draft ... ...
<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/explainers/visualContrast.html
<jeanne> APCA
<jeanne> Advanced Perceptual Contrast Algorithm
js: advanced perceptual aljs:
Bruce has noted what seem to be typos; yet to talk with
Andy
... Any other group update?
<jeanne> New Topic: New wireframe design for Guidelines
[crickets]
<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/explainers/ClearWords.html
js: Notes good suggestions Tuesday for the wireframe for guidelines; have tried to update on clear language
ch: Notes that link in test tab
is 404
... Method is correct name--which doesn't yet exist
[examination of page--looking for structure consistency]
js: Asks whether we have text EO wrote for their roles ...
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/
js: Asks people to look for text
we can use for "role"
... Argh, they changed it!
... perhaps a link?
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/roles/writers/
ch: good copy to use mapped to our tabs
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 CharlesHall Lauriat janina Peter_Korn Joe_Cronin maryjom KimD kirkwood Rachael Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]