<jeanne> scribe: jeanne
<janina> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/
Janina: We have been working on
the document
... there are a fair number of changes since early
January
... not only substantive changes from comments from first AGWG
review
... there is another survey scheduled next week for AGWG review
on March 3
... The highlight of changes made, we pulled out a lot of
detail
... there was a long list of Challenge#1, which wasn't the main
point
... that moved into a appendix
... Challenge #4 was weak, but it needed cross reference with
WCAG2ICT which is in the appendix
<joe_cronin> +present
Janina: also making clear that
this is not an attack on WCAG, but it was for helping with a
future work
... we need to do thorough analysis to address future
needs
... Hopefully, Silver folks can weigh in on the survey
Jeanne: How are the permissions set?
Janina: It is standard AGWG permissions, I presume. They may only allow Silver Task Force and not Silver Community Group.
Jeanne: Community Group members can send me an email and I will include your comments in my answer.
<sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj
js: Many!
js: However, believe none since
Tuesday
... AGWG Chairs looking to survey for FPWD
... I and Shawn will meet with the Chairs on publishing issues
Tuesday
pk: Asking about suggested edits to scoring and conformance sections. How to take those up?
js: Sorry, seems lost in frantic rush to get things ready
sj: Oops. Lost audio. brb
js: Agrees a branch might be
helpful approach.
... Will have ready for Tuesday
<jeanne> In summary, the key changes are:
<jeanne> 1. Inserted a new initial paragraph under Scoring & Conformance which introduces the challenge (and references that Conformance Challenges Note which I hope can go out as FPWD before or at the same time as the Silver FPWD)
<jeanne> 2. Introduce “Website Conformance” as distinct from “Page Conformance”
<jeanne> 3. Make a number of edits in the first 3.0 section (ahead of 3.1 Goals)
<jeanne> 4. Fix a few typos
pk: Not tied to the term "website conformance" need a new term for site level
sj: Will come up to speed on multiple conformance definitions in other W3C specs over the weekend
<CharlesHall> perhaps we stick to “scope” or “conformance to scope of {n}”?
js: Again apologies for dropping the ball
pk: No problem.
js: Believe we caught some already ...
pk: Not really.
js: OK, will take up
bb: Don't recall anything being said about a survey, and had too little notice last time, so concerned this tim around.
js: Believe it only came up Wednesday at the Chairs coord
bb: If past is prologu8e, AGWG members will have had too little review time
js: Notes it's a one question survey
bb: Ah!
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that survey did not come up on call
<bruce_bailey> that all sounds good to me, thanks
js: Hopefully, we can get
positive response on Tuesday AGWG call.
... Invites help with blog
js: Oops. That's what we spoke about above ...
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/FPWD-AGWG-20200219/?login
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/FPWD-AGWG-20200219/
js: First part lists changes from
various emails
... Second part is the simple "ready to publish?"
question
... Notes no answer yet ... So, could tweak still!
<KimD> I just voted too...
[pause as people read]
[crickets]
<CharlesHall> is TL;DR universally understood?
js: Probably not ... call it timeline
sl: Agrees to removing tldr
<KimD> scribe: KimD
Jeanne: this survey is
public
... making one adjustment - taking out TL;DR
Peter: Since conformance questions aren't answered, we don't feel it's ready.
<CharlesHall> the survey is open even though the invite will be tuesday?
Jeanne: AGWG probably not voting until next week, so we can make some quick updates
<sajkaj> pk: Can be available over the weekend as needed
Peter: I'll help over weekend with discussions if needed
<CharlesHall> confirmation bias
Do we have a template or instructions for how to adjust the format?
I can do 'mine' - headings
<jeanne> Example: @@@
<jeanne> Abstract: Remove link and description of future dynamic version
<jeanne> Result of a dynamic page worries me if you're looking for multiple things as do the separate URLs, finding information might be hard. It will be a delicate balance to get this right - Martin Jameson
<jeanne> Right now there is too much about what is not there and not enough about what is. Just describe what the document is about and leave what is not developed not to a "TODO" apendix. - Wayne Dick
<jeanne> While the expectation for this document is clear, it spawns several additional questions, like: “what other documents will follow, and when?” and “if the TR format is difficult to use, will there be evidence that this proposed format has solved it?”
<jeanne> It may be worth mapping and/or describing the relationship between the described dynamic structure and the standard W3C Technical Report.
<jeanne> - Charles Hall
<jeanne> Silver response: We removed the link and the description. PR #95
<jeanne> a6e0af0 https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/95/commits/a6e0af03a1d33168684e5aea25f67c98345258fd
<AngelaAccessForAll> Apologies; I have to drop.
<jeanne> zakim take up next
<jeanne> Peter: Michael and I are bringing compatible speakerphone units
<CharlesHall> yes. please share webex invites
<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to ask about setting agenda for so many additional participants
Do we know where this is? Or do you have to check in first?
If you send out the email, that'll be great. Thanks, Peter
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/2020_March_F2F_Meeting_at_CSUN
<jeanne> And also put it in IRC
<Lauriat> https://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/sessions/index.php/public/presentations/view/4475
<bruce_bailey> Abstract: After years of research and prototyping, the first draft of next major version of W3C Accessibility Guidelines is ready for your feedback.
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LfzTd_8WgTi0IUOOjUCRfRQ7e7__FRcnZow4w7zLlkY/edit#
<jeanne> scribe: jeanne
Peter: It would be helpful to say that automated tests would pass bronze?
Shawn: I don't think we can say that, becaues there is no automated test that covers all of WCAG
Peter: The absense of negatives is powerful information
Shawn: The absense of negatives is incomplete
Peter: The presence of negatives could say: The presence of negatives could be an indication that it can't pass bronze
<CharlesHall> @time. have to drop.
Shawn: We need to keep in mind,
even if a test can be automated, it doesn't mean that it will
be automated.
... we could call out what can be caught by automation
Jeanne: We received a comment from ACT that we are drawing too much of a line between manual and automated testing already. ACT doesn't do that. I would be cautious about adding more of a line about automated and manual
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 CharlesHall kirkwood shari Lauriat LuisG bruce_bailey PeterKorn KimD AngelaAccessForAll Found Scribe: jeanne Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne Found Scribe: sajkaj Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj Found Scribe: KimD Inferring ScribeNick: KimD Found Scribe: jeanne Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne Scribes: jeanne, sajkaj, KimD ScribeNicks: jeanne, sajkaj, KimD 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: 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]