<scribe> scribe: sajkaj
sl: Notes link was not attached until yesterday, so we will be extending to Friday -- Michael is doing it realtime
<Lauriat> Survey link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/2020-06_Conformance_Scope/
<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Sub_Groups
df: Maturity Model had first
meeting -- looked at why the group, sampling, large vs small,
dashboards, etc
... Looked at how scoring might fit in
... different types of models
... next steps is to define goals
... decided model will be weighty, regardless of whether
informative or narmative on the outcome
mc: XR report ...
... Met Monday and looked at user needs statement
<michaelcrabb> https://w3c.github.io/silver/subgroups/xr/captioning/xr-captioning-user-needs.html
mc: premised off of general
statement we tailored to captioning for now
... looking for feedback now
... please send an e to Mike or as github issue
... Also actively recruiting participants
<Fazio> Larry Goldberg from Verizon would be a good contact
<CharlesHall> and the XR Access Symposium is July 20 & 21
<Jan> Clear Language is still plugging away on reviewing COGA materials to flesh out functional needs. We are meeting every Thursday and making steady progress.
mc: We want other interested communities to know we're trying to involve as many people as possible
<michaelcrabb> http://xraccess.org/symposium/
mc: XR Access Symposium July 21-22
ch: Notes Functional Needs has
mtg scheduled Thursday
... Work on drafts is proceeding
... Also looking at intersectional needs between a11y and
race
js: Would love to see source research materials on that
ch: Will paste here ...
<kirkwood> good Charles, interested as well
<CharlesHall> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18eRZ6fy766oOyqKmRidvAx9daIfEG955XmJ9obqrV34/edit
sl: Survey speaks to first part -- conformance scope
<Lauriat> Sampling is a method of achieving conformance, but it is not included in conformance. This is consistent with the way WCAG2 addresses sampling. The current proposal for Representative Sampling is in the Editor’s Draft. Silver Sampling follows the WCAG2 model and recommends that the rules of WCAG-EM adapted to include non-web and tasks. The principles of WCAG-EM can be applied for now.
sl: notes language: sampling is a
method but is not conformance itself
... reads from the doc
<Lauriat> Representative sampling should be a tool available to testers depending on their context, needs, and business choices.
sl: Open to reactions ...
<CharlesHall> + provided a clear definition for paths
ca: No issues, just questions ...
<Lauriat> +1 to Charles
ca: Are we requiring it
anywhere?
... not as currently written
sl: conf claim would declare
scope and say "this is how we conform"
... does not currently require description of how one gets
there
... but describin the how could be included for transparency,
but could also take into the weeds
<Chuck> +1 Shawn
sl: basically, match wcag 2 plus
extended to apps
... up to the reader to decide whether it's a trustable
claim
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that sampling was an issue raised in the Silver research and the Conformance subgroup spent a lot of months on it.
js: Notes this was raised as an
issue and the conf group worked on a lot in recent months
... believe a significant group believes it should be
included
sl: Not proposing removing it
from the spec so much as not including it in the
guidelines
... For my group representative sampling is important -- our
only way to check
<Chuck> +1 Shawn
sl: Just looking to have it
available
... but adding it into the conformance model itself would be
more complex than needed
<Chuck> sajkaj: Current proposal won't bother Peter, no objections where useful.
<Chuck> sajkaj: I will check with Peter, and he'd be happy to join if he didn't have conflicts.
<CharlesHall> the degree of transparency in the conformance claim could also overlap with the maturity model (whether or not representative sampling is a named method)
<Chuck> +1 in agreement
<jeanne> Sampling is a method of achieving conformance, but it is not included in conformance. This is consistent with the way WCAG2 addresses sampling.
<JakeAbma> +1
<jeanne> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<michaelcrabb> +1
<Rachael> +1
<Fazio> 0
<CharlesHall> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Fazio> I agree with Charles Hall could be part of maturity model
sl: would specify in nonnormative
documentationkd: what does "not included" mean? does it impact
transparency?
... definitely one of the concerns
... conformance claim would not require how claim is arrived
at
<KimD> +1, as long as we address transparency about what is tested/scopecope/transparn
<Jan> +1 to maturity model
<Fazio> I think its a safe way
<Jan> Can we put Kim's comment on Friday's agenda?
<Crispy> +1
<Jan> I am very interested in that as well
+1
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say what I think I heard Kim say
<SBH> I agree it *could* be part of mm, but because of scaling I'm not sure that's the best place for it
<SBH> +1
bb: believe Kim was saying that the use of sampling needs to be documented in the conf report
sl: yes, but need to work out how
that's documented
... perhaps specific or general -- still worrying on this
... Notes his group does testing at multiple stages of product
process; so documenting it is not really feasible
<bruce_bailey> i think heard Kim say that conformance claims should disclose that sampling was use as part of determinging conformance
ca: agreeing with SL -- re is it
required to declare use of sampling or is that optional?
... I prefer optional
... so as to not over complicate claims
<Lauriat> Conformance Claims in WCAG 2.1, for comparison: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance-claims
<Crispy> +1 - provide option to use it
sl: proposing the conformance claims section itself is optional, and is made up of optional parts
js: Notes several W3C options for reaching group consensus
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy
js: Notes that decision policy doesn't mean we can't change our mind in the future
ca: AG Chairs would like to help
with process, so that the process can help document, and to
defend group consensus
... open to TF's adopting a different policy, ...
mc: except that WG needs to approve whatever is adopted by TF
sj: asks whether there is reason to be different from agwg process
js: seems like a lot, lots of
overhead
... but may be needed
<CharlesHall> this has a connection to design systems. design systems can only scale and survive if there is an underlying decision making system.
<Chuck> sajkaj: When we implemented in other tf for which I'm a member, I initially didn't appreciate, but I have since come to appreciate the documented decisions.
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/past/paste/ Present: Chuck Lauriat Fazio Crispy Francis_Storr sajkaj SBH maryjom michaelcrabb Jan JakeAbma Joshue108 Rachael CharlesHall kirkwood Detlev bruce_bailey jeanne Found Scribe: sajkaj Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj 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]