– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

<Chuck> I'm in a location (my boat) that will soon become a "construction zone" and I will not be able to scribe and I will remain quiet unless when necessary.

Sign up to scribe!

Lauriat: Reminds there is a sign up at above URI. Very helpful to have this in advance.

Sub-group updates

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Sub_Groups

Lauriat: Asks for any updates, noting Conformance is its own agendum

jenniferS: Structured Content has encountered several challenges with tooling

jenniferS: Have come up with a process that includes both Google Docs and github

jenniferS: Still have the Monday slot booked for calls

jeanne: Notes provided content will be moving into draft spec soon

Lauriat: Any other subgroups?

ToddLibby: Errors has taken two weeks off with Sara on vacation

ToddLibby: Has reviewed Jake's spreadsheet

ToddLibby: Believe that's it for now

<Zakim> Makoto_, you wanted to share updates on Alt Text subgroup

Makoto_: Alt Text has two items

Makoto_: New member and new work

Makoto_: New member does alt out of California

<Makoto_> IPTC https://www.iptc.org/

Makoto_: She's also in IPTC

Makoto_: This is I18n Press -- the news media

Makoto_: She's helping with alt, and also metadata with stock photos

<Makoto_> Gaps Analysis on Techniques for SC 1.1.1 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GgkuNYjVvSo-tT3lGukmejxcEqSPCD2a3ps7v08p0M/edit#heading=h.e714gsdyde2

Makoto_: We're revisiting to see whether we need to rethink methods

Makoto_: will be creating github issues; already have some techniques--but people will refer to them until 3 is out

Makoto_: So we're driving to drive both 2.2 guidance as well as getting ready for 3

Lauriat: Anymore?

jeanne: Don't have latest, but Clear Words has been meeting with COGA reviewing all docs and responding to comments

<JF> https://doodle.com/poll/rw6ukmuwhnxnsinf

jf: Protocols will be starting soon

jf: Best time being asked

jf: Doodle poll or email

jf: Looks like Fridays, but still TBD; hoping for sometime next week

<Lauriat> Wiki page started for Protocols: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to ask question on behalf of accessibility for children's community group, even though it is not a subgroup

SuzanneTaylor: Not a formal subgroup, but a11y for children has started meeting

SuzanneTaylor: Hope to inform 3; but also other objectives

SuzanneTaylor: Where bst to ask for review?

jeanne: Suggests next Friday?

SuzanneTaylor: A Google Doc

<Chuck> janina: I like that you are doing this. We are also looking at clear words. Clear words for kids is different from older kids, different from physics (for example). You may want to turn this into... note track.

<SuzanneTaylor> https://www.w3.org/community/accessibility4children/

<Chuck> janina: Breakout session at TPAC?

<Chuck> Suzanne: Will look into it.

SuzanneTaylor: sajkaj suggests considering a TPAC Brezkout presentation

Sign up to scribe!

Conformance update

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

Janina: The group believes we are far enough along that we are ready for preliminary review and feedback on the direction we are taking
… the majority of the group wanted feedback
… more will come later when we have scoring strutcture
… when it is more mature, we will have channge Techniques to Methods
… Legacy content
… media created after there were techniques for accessibility
… do what you can at the time you digitized the content
… point to anyone who is blocking you from making the media accessible
… when the archive is updated, then bring the accessibility up to modern standards
… ePub and EU regulations are recommending a similar structure to what we are proposing
… there is more work to do and open questions that we want feedback
… and metadata to let users know the accessibility of the item
… we have to write standard metadata
… Publishing has been doing that
… Portions may include video
… we need more and better metadata
… we need to do it in cooperation with ePub
… APA have meetings scheduled with EPub at TPAC. Invitations will come shortly

JF: The metadata concernh is that there are multiple ways of using metadata, and we need to discuss how to use it.
… the ePub world uses metadata as part of a file and how to report it.

<jenniferS> That's interesting… progressive web apps also use a manifest.json file for certain meta data.

Janina: OPF manifest data was written in the 1990s and I participated in that develoopment. It has lasted well for 20 years but it needs updating.

<JF> FWIW, Schema.org and W3C are in discussions now about 'linkages'

Janina: The TPAC meeting is going to include some W3M to discuss registries and persistence

Janina: Interested in your feedback and email the list or email Janina privately

Suzanne: I find the point to "implement all the WCAG techniques" which is different from WCAG2

Janina: It is different , and this proposal is the strongest evidence that the WCAG2 Conformance model will not work for large archives in private, , NGO or public libraries want to allow archives to claim conformance
… and following the model we started with user generated, and use the same idea with media --- follow the guidelines as far as you can -- and be able to claim conformance
… I think we will end up calling out that we will require, for example, reasonable structure navigation, as described in the 2015 W3C Note of the Media Accessibility User Requirements

Suzanne: I find it interesting. Right now, if you have a new piece of media it needs to be accessible.
… when I read it, I see a long-term W3C responsibility for updating techniques
… this is putting all the responsibility on W3C and WCAG

Janina: W3C will be developing the methods, but the developer will be responsible for implementing it.
… Janina, it will be stricter than WCAG2

Suzanne: But it gives an excuse not to do accessibity if the technique doesn't exist
… we want to see people develop prototypes

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer Suzanne, that we are more focused on older media, or media that have no compreshensive techniques

<Chuck> jeanne: This proposal, there's a small section that is related to media that has no comprehensive techniques. 3D walkthroughs or some mapping apps.

<Chuck> jeanne: Most of the proposal is related to older and archived material. We are trying to address the issue of old media that is not currently accessible. How you handle what you can do.

<Chuck> jeanne: I agree that this is taking on a long term responsibility for staying on top of best practices for developing media. W3C does that now.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to add to that more generally, with active outreach to those in the platform, technology, etc. to solicit creation of those techniques when gaps exist

<Chuck> back to you jeanne

Shawn: When new techniques don't exist, it isn't the responsibility of W3C to devleop the techniques. Platforms build techniques into the platform./ WCAG3 cannot keep up with rapidly growning technologiez. We will need to involve the platforms into the standards

Janina: SOmetimes promising technologies do not want to be involved with W3C. In APA, we try to stay connected with emerging technologies to let them know what we need.

<Chuck> jf: An aside. We need to do is get a clearer definition of media. Map applications doesn't meet bar for me for being media.

<Chuck> jf: tends to have a timeline.

<Chuck> jeanne: misspoke, from a different discussion.

<Chuck> jf: for media group we need to create a clear definition.

<Chuck> janina: I took a look at potential definitions. Right now this is a tangled mess. <lists all kinds of disparate examples>. New paper, biology. etc.

<Chuck> Shawn: Going outside of scope.

<Chuck> Shawn: Any other questions on this?

<Chuck> Shawn: We have 10 minutes. Rather than following agenda... Let's jump to user needs/functional needs. Jeanne and I started thinking through. Want to talk to group on where things landed from those thoughts.

How we might incorporate the User Needs Vs. Functional Needs mapping structure

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1POhgI_xHZtSoNbHFp3r5HYIkl6ePaP8DC5d90SZ1tF4/edit#gid=1068331194

<Chuck> Shawn: Link to sheet put together, Jake plugged in guidance on intersections. I made a copy, I've made no changes yet. Want to talk through approach that Jake started.

<Chuck> Shawn: My understanding is the intersection of the user needs in column A and functional needs across the top... give a way of mapping out guidance across the intersections.

<Chuck> Shawn: However it doesn't give a finite step of user needs because it doesn't account for depth or complexity of intersections. It can have a single points of guidance that spans many intersections.

<Chuck> Shawn: D7 and D8 for examples.

<Chuck> Shawn: Both have a lot of the same guidance because there is same need for perception, just a different context of need. I think what this mapping provides us is a useful way of seeing where we have coverage.

<Chuck> Shawn: while we do migration. We can see what intersections we covered well, which not enough, and which have no coverage at all. My thinking is that this is not structure of WCAG 3, but is structure of coverage we can use to gauge success of WCAG 3.

<Chuck> lots of words that challenged scribe :-)

<Chuck> jake: You covered it almost perfectly.

<Chuck> jake: Before directly jumping to conclusion that it might not work for other things, like structure for silver... my intention for this doc if I talk to people to get people on exactly same track as your findings.

<Chuck> jake: That's how we approached it. There is one other thing here. There was a moment that I just did 3 steps back and tried to see "what was it we were doing, putting people first" focusing on real users and needs.

<Chuck> jake: That is where main user list needs came from. We didn't have outcomes, there was a struggle with everyone on what outcomes are, where they fit. By coincidence, we specifically worked on main user need list.

<Chuck> jake: Exactly as you say, this is built on 2 pillars. Don't forget everyone, make sure all gaps are covered, and build on 2 pillars of user needs and functional needs.

<Chuck> jake: This provides more insites than people grasp in 5 minutes. Takes more time to look at it. If we build everything on user needs and functional needs, there is that structure...

<Chuck> jake: It's easy to say we will introduce another layer.. all those questions (chicken and egg issue), from these 2 pillars from this document everything fits in place.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest we maintain the same next steps as we had originally planned, plugging things into this structure to build up more data to see how this works, I think I just understand it better now going in to that.

JakeAbma: Notes people becoming very enthusiastic upon review of the doc; asks others to review

Lauriat: Notes it may not work for WCAG3 structure; but is nevertheless very useful for WCAG3--incredibally so, especially the intersections

Lauriat: will give us more data

jf: Suggest producers needs should be a third column

sajkaj: Or "middle persons" in the publication process