<AWK> +AWK

<Rachael> present_

<Sukriti> scribe:Sukriti

<Chuck_> zakim take up item 1

Silver First Public Working Draft Review: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd-2/

Question 1 - Revised MVP

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/silver-fpwd-2/results#xq10

<PeterKorn_> +present

Justine: Concern that we would make it more difficult for people not involved with this group to understand the working draft
... If we could increase the number of examples of how to content would be less concerned

Andrew: Core issue is that the first draft needs to be understandable, progressing towards state of completion. Wary of modifying the MVP.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that there will be more HowTo sections coming.

Jeanne: More how to content coming, ready for next week. Certainly by next survey

Chuck: Is that an argument for we may not need to reduce the MVP?

Jeanne: Still propose reducing to 5 but need more how to's.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask how many how to's are needed? Each guideline woudl still have scoring, methods, and tests

Rachael: How many how to's do we need from the group?

Jeanne: We can push the subgroups to focus on how to's.They have been on methods. The clear language one is going to need work
... Captioning not done, but starting work on it

Rachael: Would 3 suffice?

Glenda: To see only 5 guidelines and am hearing a request to have virtual reality (6th one)?

Jeanne: That's the captions one. The 6th is clear language, redid work to align with coga publication.

Glenda: If I weren't someone who knew about Silver, I would find it incomplete
... not ready for first working draft.

Glanda: does not have new things

Jeanne: There is one new

Rachael: You want the clear language to be more compelte?

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that I would support modifying the MVP to 5 guidelines complete including methods for all 5 as long as there is how-to for 1-2

Glenda: How many guidelines are we expecting, ballpark?

Andrew: ok with 5 guidelines of MVP. Less concerned with how to but should have for 1-2

Pascal: What is the definition of MVP?

<alastairc> Minimum viable product, and this is the doc about that for silver: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQHgVFaJYS1WWs9BKucZxWboMNVuclvdNqnQuzPbWwY/edit#heading=h.js6lw2htvj4l

<Nicaise> I appreciate it

Chuck: Any thoughts on what we saw as final number of guidelines?

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/

Jeanne: Likely less than 50.
... Lots being combined

<kirkwood> presnet+

<Lauriat> This doc looks like it has 45 (pre-new-stuff)

Alaistar: Understanding is that we're going to have 5 that will have all the scoring aspects

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer question

Rachael: 200 or so outcomes
... 5 high level guidelines but significantly more outcomes

<Chuck_> poll: reduce from 6 to 5 guidelines, 3 of which will have how-to's.

<sajkaj> +1

<Wilco> 0

<KimD_> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<JustineP> +1 with the additional "how to's"

<alastairc> +1

<Grady_Thompson> +1

<kirkwood> 0

<Raf> 0

<Fazio> +0

<jeanne> +1

<Chuck_> jake +1

<AWK> +.5

<mbgower> 0

<Lauriat> +1

<CharlesHall> 0

<jon_avila> +0

<StefanS> 0

<laura> 0

<Ryladog> 0

<Francis_Storr> +1

Jake: complete part needs to be removed

<pwentz_> 0

Wilco: What would it be if not complete?

<Glenda> 0 but uncomfortable until I see the next editor’s draft. In other words, I can move to -1 if this FPWD isn’t ready for humans not involved in the process to review/have a chance of understanding what this is.

<MelanieP> -1 Still unclear what % of the total projected content will be presented in the FPWD in order for people to evaluate it.

Rachael: There is how tos and there's methods.

<jeanne> There will be Methods for every guidelines. Many have multiple Methods

<ok> 0

Rachael: We'll have all tabs complete for each method

Glenda: The outcomes should not be in the working draft

Rachael: There will be at least one method per outcome

<alastairc> Sounds like there are going to be more methods that we originally scoped in the MVP, partly due to the structure change.

<jeanne> There will be at least one Method for every Guideline. Not for each Outcome.

Detlev: Could meet several methods to meet an outcome even if not specified
... Outcomes are cornerstone for conformance
... Is that correct?

Jeanne: That is correct. Recap, each guideline has outcomes. Outcomes have methods. You can test with method and pass/ fail depending on how each guideline is written. Flexibiliy in the outcome. Methods are like WCAG techniques.

<Glenda> Will the words “{Outcome Name}” be replaced with meaningful text everywhere before the FPWD is ready for the public?

Jeanne: If you use a method not written, can still use to test functional outcomes to assess score
... We will not have methods for every outcome

Detlev: Could you leave out an outcome?

Jeanne: No, it is an AND relationship
... methods have an OR relationship
... We have a dependency section to account for methods within methods

Melanie: Unclear about what the total amount of content and what % of it presented in the draft. If we're not at least presenting 10%, not enough to understand

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say the agreement was to present variety of guidelines

<jeanne> We are roughly at 10% of the total content.

Alaistar: It will help to get structure in place
... Ensure there is a variety of guidelines i.e. one for new tech, one for similar to WCAG etc.

<jeanne> If we are moving about 45 guidelines from WCAG 2.2 and several new guidelines for 3.0 so 5 guidelines is about 10&

Chuck: 6 would not be 10%

Jeanne: We would have 10%

Chuck: 5 is 10%

<Glenda> If more Outcomes do NOT have a scoring method…that is not ready for FPWD. Or…leave off Outcomes that do not have a method…and just say something like “more to come….”

Glenda: leave out the outcomes that do not have a method/

Rachael: pieces of it being worked on in tandem. Intended to bring everyone up to speed as it evolved
... Screenshare of table with all the pieces and how they tie together. Guideline - Outcome - Method - Scoring

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that I agree to this for the FPWD for the purpose of getting review to the big picture but believe that moving forward all information needs to be present

Andrew: When we release the first draft, 5 is fine. If some don't have how to's, it's okay but need to get a core set of methods. Finish those how tos before next draft and have all the content

<jeanne> +1 AWK

<Rachael> +1 AWK

Jeanne: Discussed scoring at method level. It was getting difficult to score at method level, moved scoring to outcome level
... Going to make those changes shortly

<Detlev> +1 to score at outcome level

Wilco: Will we have scoring for all the methods?

Jeanne: Will have scoring for all outcomes that have a method

<Glenda> +1

<AWK> +1 to having scoring info

Rachael: We should have scoring for all outcomes. This is a starting point, not the final

<JustineP> +1 to include scoring

Glenda: Need to see that scoring method.

<Rachael> correct

Glenda: That will be in a future survey?

Chuck: Correct, this is MVP

Glenda: Can live with that

Melanie: No objection

RESOLUTION: Reduce MVP to 5 guidelines, 3 of which will have how-to's, future guidelines will be complete in future drafts

RESOLUTION: Reduce MVP to 5 guidelines, 3 of which will have how-to's, future guidelines will be complete in future drafts

Question 4 - Introduction

<Chuck_> https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/168/files

<Chuck_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/pk_comments/guidelines/index.html

<Rachael> public-silver-editors@w3.org

Rachael: We will continue to make editorial changes from survey

<MichaelC> Changes made over the weekend, not yet in editors´ draft: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/2020-09_from-survey/guidelines/index.html

Rachael: Please email editors list and provide suggested changes

<Glenda> Apologies, but I have to leave for a client commitment.

<laura> Need to drop off the call now. Apologies.

Chuck: Legislation can have other clauses. This document does not make predictions on what that could be

<jon_avila> WCAG is a voluntary standard

Justine: concern about choice we're giving to organizations on what version of WCAG they follow?

Jeanne: Historically W3C guidelines tend to build on previous work and don't deprecate previous guidelines

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to add potential clarification on "organization"

Jeanne: Recognize that WCAG 2.0 will remain viable for a long period of time

Shawn: Organizations is a broad term that's beyond companies

Justine: that is helpful

Wilco: That explanation is useful, can we include that?

Janina: We "is" or we "are"

Andrew: We should check back with the abstract about replace or supersede WCAG 2.x

<CharlesHall> sorry. i have to drop.

Gundula: minor changes but have to be before publishing
... Cover the entire spectrum

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

<Sukriti> thank you Mike!

Gundula: Should be decided before publishing. Colour contrast for text and other visual disabilities should be covered in the list.

Wilco: I'm not sure my point on UUAG and ATAG was addressed.
... They are mentioned in the introduction, but not elsewhere in the draft

Jeanne: The reason it is in the intro is that it is in the scope of the charter. We are wording on methods for user agents and authoring tools.
... We should have one for user agents that will go out.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if we can add an editor's note about how we will integrate them?

Rachael: Can we put an editor's note that we will be adding ATAG and UAAG in the method's area?

Wilco: Those are quite different concepts. Would like one of each.

<sajkaj> +1 to Rachael. I believe we have people monitoring who would speak up re ATAG type guidance.

Jeanne: We want to have a method for the player for how captions should be displayed.

<Brooks> +1 to including ATAG and UAAG in method's area.

Jeanne: Should have one that is user agent oriented, but not for each guideline.

Wilco: One for each seems fine.

Jeanne: I'll see about the ATAG one.

RESOLUTION: Discussion incorporated into new draft and brought back for review.

Question 5 - Structure of these guidelines

Chuck: We have a variety of results: 6 publishes as is, 9 saying needs tweaks, 2 saying needs significant changes. Detlev was one of those latter.

Detlev: I don't feel that comfortable about the overall structure. This can be partly addressed by making it simpler in how it is described.
... We need a clearer understanding of what an outcome is and whether they overlap.

<Rachael> Bypass blocks would be the outcome. Each technique would be the method

Detlev: It would be useful to have more outcomes drafted to see how they interact.

<Zakim> GN, you wanted to ask whether we adddr4ess typos here (and thus shortly go back to the introduction) or whether these are evaluated offline.

<JakeAbma> +1 to Detlev, my experience also when testing the new structures

Jeanne: I have not thought deeply about Bypass Blocks. From the way you're describing it, the outcome would be more like the SC. The method would be headings, skip links, etc.

Gundula: Asks about addressing typos.

Chuck: We will discuss substantial questions first.

Jeanne: We will address all typos.

Chuck: Did Jeanne's response address your concerns?

Detlev: I'd like to see more outcomes [audio lost]

Chuck: I'm going to move on then.
... Is there anything significant beyond the typos, Gundula?

Gundula: It feels strange to vote without seeing the changes.

Chuck: Are there any concerns with taking the structure as is?

Wilco: I'm hesitant about what's in here now between informative and normative.
... Outcomes are going to be testable statements, which is great. But what is here for Outcomes now are not testable.

Detlev: I think Chris L. has made a number of points about how it is unclear.
... If it can't be done for the MVP, it should be done soon.

<Chuck_> q/

Jeanne: Do you want more sample outcomes in the structure section?

Detlev: If we had some listed, it would be good to see. Rachael has some listed previously.
... I echo Wilco's concern. Are these amenable to testing?

Chuck: So you are fine with the structure? You just want more examples?

Detlev: I think the structure can be improved, and I've made comments.

Rachael: We will provide a list of outcomes, probably in an appendix or separate document.

Jeanne: It is not our intention to write testable statements.
... The heart of our research was an overwhelming number of people asking for greater usability of the WCAG guidance.
... A big part of that was how to understanding Success Criteria.
... We found that it was very difficult to write a testable statement across many technologies that could also be in plain language.
... We welcome ACT writing testable statements that support the outcomes, but we do not anticipate doing that.

Wilco: I don't think it matters a lot what level they are at. I think it is very important that the document is testable at some level that is stable.
... If it is informative, the document can change at any point at the decision of a small group. It reduces checks for quality.
... If test statemements are not normative in 3.0, there is nothing to state a claim on.
... That makes it a difficult standard to adopt for a lot of organizations.

Chuck: I didn't consider testable statements to be part of the structure of the guidelines. I hear your concerns about the testable statements. Are you okay with the structure, and we can have more discussions about testable statements.

Wilco: No, I don't think I would be okay with that.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that outcomes can be measured

Jeanne: I would like to add that the outcomes can be measured.
... Perhaps where we are disagreeing is in what is a testable statement.
... The outcomes themselves can be tested and measured, and can be used in a regulatory environment, I believe. We need to get feedback from regulatory groups.
... We are quick to say 'we need this for regulators' without asking them.

<KimD_> +1 to Jeanne - we need that feedback from regulators rather than guessing what they want to see

Jake: I think this is the most important parts. When I hear people talking about scoring, and the testable statements are not part of the normative document.

<Lauriat> +1 to Kim's +1

Jake: I think this is an important part. i don't feel like we have consensus.

<Ryladog> We must identify the the testable components of this structure

Detlev: I don't see a fundamental problem with the outcome being the conformance nugget without itself being testable.
... We are moving from a pass/fail (for instance in Bypass Blocks) where you meet one thing and pass to several methods that can contribute to the rating of an outcome.
... It may be difficult to determine the threshold of passing. But a variety of ways of achieving something can be a good thing.

Wilco: This isn't just for regulators. This is about anyone who has obligations or legal requirements.

<Detlev> mikethat is Wilco!

<jon_avila> This is what we have now in WCAG 2 - conformance has changed over time.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that in the Silver research, when we interviewed regulators, they wanted usable, plain language instructions that include tests. W

Wilco: At best you could achieve something on a date stamp.

<KimD_> +1 to Jon - standards change. PLUS technology and digital assets change over time

Jeanne: To add to Wilco's comment, i agree testable and measurable are synonymous.
... i think we can handle stable content.
... It is our intention that we have stable versioning that will meet the needs of regulators and associated stakeholders who care about legal requirements.
... We talked to a number of regulators and lawyers during groundwork. We want them to see this.
... We're not moving away from a stable version. We hope to update more frequently.

Ryladog: Whatever we do, we need to identify the testable/measurable parts of the structure. They are going to ask 'how do I know?'

<Rachael> +1 to adding some text to make the testable portions clear

Ryladog: We just need to let people know that they are there.

<Ryladog> Therefore, we must identify the testable/measurable components of this structure - the Outcomes

Wilco: I don't think we need to do it the way we've done it for WCAG 2
... I think we need to think about this. We should have some kind of proposal. If that means stepping outside W3C and using some other process that guarantees stability, that seems reasonable. We could also look at a living standard model. There just needs to be some process in place if we go outside that model.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to challenge a blanket assumption of regulators desiring stability over up-to-date guidance. We should bring this to stakeholders (including, but to Wilco's

Lauriat: We are not throwing out there and saying 'we didn't think about it'. We are saying 'We think this will work. We want to hear from regulators.'
... i think the state of California just points to whatever version is current. 'The most recent version.' There's some language in there about a grace period. ioning
... We want to actively reach out to stakeholders, and make sure it can work for them.

<KimD_> +1 to Lauriat

Chuck: I've heard there are some updates we can put in the draft and bring back for further review.
... Any opposed?

<Wilco> +1

RESOLUTION: Discussion incorporated into new draft and brought back for review.

Question 6 - Normative requirements

Chuck: There is one individual who thinks there should be significant updates before publishing.

Gundula: It's just a typo, no need to discuss.

Jake: I think I wrote something.

Jeanne: I was in queue because I wanted to make sure we addressed Wilco's comment about normative, but he's left.
... Jake wants more examples of normative text? We can do that.

Michael Cooper: I need to understand this more. You want more normative sections labelled as normative?

Jake: No, in the section, it primarily talks about informative elements. I would like to have them listed here.

Michael Cooper: I don't want to confuse things in an effort to clarify things. Much of this is script-generated.

Chuck: We want to address Jake's concerns. Michael, you had stated making changes might be difficult, given much is script generated.

Jeanne: We can figure this out.

RESOLUTION: Discussion incorporated into new draft and brought back for review.

Question 7 - Guidelines (Not linked content)

Chuck: There were 5 with significant concerns.

Jeanne: I think we've addressed some of Glenda's concerns.

Rachael: I think we can focus on any critical areas here, but recognize we did not populate as much as we intended.

Jake: I'm referring again about the way this is composed. We do not have enough meat out there to make these judgement calls.
... It's my personal opinion that we don't have 10% of our current guidelines. The ideas may be fine, but we may need to restructure some parts.
... They may not fit in a bigger picture.

Gundula: Thinks text alternatives should be available to all users, not just those with assistive technologies.
... Some of her caption comments could go into an editorial note.
... Structured content covers a lot more than just headings and section it should be worded for a broader scope.

Brooks: I was going to echo what I think I heard Gundula saying.
... We shouldn't just think from one facet, but from a content author, user agent...

Jeanne: I would like to ask Justine to speak to her comment in section 8 in Evaluation.

Chuck: Justine just said 'need to drop a few minutes early'

Jeanne: I'll reach out to Justine.

Chuck: Have we heard enough of what some concerns are to respond to them?

Jeanne: I'm not sure how to address Gundula's comments, but I will think about them.

Rachael: I'm not sure that we will be able to produce the number of methods that people want, but in the time we have I believe we will be able to produce enough.

RESOLUTION: Discussion incorporated into new draft and brought back for review.

Question 8 - Evaluation

Alastair: We seem to have lost most of the people who had comments that were more than proofing/editoral.
... maybe we can open the floor?

Gundula: Some questions in the survey can be addressed on the next session?

Rachael: We'll send out a note when it is updated. I think we'll ask for people to send emails.
... People are welcome to make their own branches. Send your git ID to Michael Cooper to be added.

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/Gelnda/Glenda/
Succeeded: s/group-ag-chairs/public-silver-editors/
Succeeded: s/Sukriti: Should/Gundula: Should/
Succeeded: s/adddr4ess/address/
Succeeded: s/Detlev: This isn't just/Wilco: This isn't just/
Succeeded: s/AWK: I need/Michael Cooper: I need/
Succeeded: s/we intend./we intended./
Default Present: Chuck_, AWK, alastairc, sajkaj, jeanne, Rachael, Grady_Thompson, Lauriat, StefanS, JustineP, Fazio, Sukriti, Glenda, Nicaise, CharlesHall, Francis_Storr, present, pwentz_, Jennie, MelanieP, Laura, JakeAbma, bruce_bailey, GN, mbgower, jon_avila, Katie_Haritos-Shea, .5, Brooks, Detlev, ok, Raf
Present: Chuck_ AWK alastairc sajkaj jeanne Rachael Grady_Thompson Lauriat StefanS JustineP Fazio Sukriti Glenda Nicaise CharlesHall Francis_Storr present pwentz_ Jennie MelanieP Laura JakeAbma bruce_bailey GN mbgower jon_avila Katie_Haritos-Shea .5 Brooks Detlev ok Raf Mahita GN015
Found Scribe: Sukriti
Inferring ScribeNick: Sukriti
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Scribes: Sukriti, mbgower
ScribeNicks: Sukriti, mbgower

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.)