<ChrisLoiselle> I've just called in to the call, in case it doesn't come up appropriately.

<ChrisLoiselle> Sorry, but I can't scribe today. I'll be able to next week.

<alastairc> scribe:Glenda

<ChrisLoiselle> that's me , Chris Loiselle

Silver pre-CFC review https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Silver-pre-cfc/?login

<kirkwood> it may be me but i find Alaistar’s voice low volume?

alastairc: simple survey asking for approval to move to CFC

<Rachael> rb: CR for WCAG 3.0 is not currently until April 2022 so time to talk about it.

Gundula - answering why I said no, all the comments should be discussed and resolved. We could fix before we publish. I could live with it.

<AWK> +AWK

alastairc: our intent is to work thru these comments before CFC

Peter: “I think we are getting close to being ready for CFC for FPWD. I would like to see the following two things get us there:

1. Replicate the fantastic Editor's Note in 4.5 Visual Contrast for the other Guidelines we publishing FPWD. That note explains to the reader how this new Guidelines pulls together what the reader is presumably familiar with from WCAG 2.x, along with what else is changed and the logic behind it. I believe that having this kind of note for 4.1-4.4 will have a large positive impact on reviewers of FPWD.

2. Creating a small handful (e.g. 3)l of example single web pages that demonstrate how scoring works for 4.1-4.5.”

Rachael: we will send out an updated version for you to review

MichaelC: can we put the editor’s note at the bottom

Peter: sounds attractiveto me

<alastairc> Editors note here: https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#visual-contrast-of-text

<ChrisLoiselle> The editor's note was https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#visual-contrast-of-text

Alastair and Wilco: complements and appreciation for all the hard work.

Wilco asked for “conforming alternative version”

Rachael: can someone suggest where you would like to see “conforming alternative version”?

Wilco: I’ll submit a pull request for that

Detlev: are we still sure we want conforming alternative versions?

Alastair: I can’t think of anything that does away with the need for conforming alternative version.

David M: I agree that conforming alternative version is still needed

<jon_avila> I agree that we need to consider conforming alternative options

Glenda says +1 to confomring alternative version being needed (also mentioned in my comments)

Wilco has a concern about dropping accessibility support: “Some thought needs to go into what the alternative is to "accessibility support". If there is a standards, build to spec for the bronze level. Fair enough, but what do we do where there are no standards, standards have undefined behavior, or standards are ambiguous? There is far more of that than we generally like to admit. Recommend including a note that we're looking for feedback on the

topic.”

Jeanne: I’m not sure where it went. We had it in earlier drafts this spring. So think that should go as “to be done” for next draft. It is a complex issue. We need to make sure it is addressed. I think we need to get feedback on the new model before we put a11y support in here.

Wilco: I totally get it is complicated. I’m just asking for a note to put a11y support in there (as a note that we will add this).

Jeanne: I know where it goes. I’ll put it back in.

Wilco’s comment 3 “Needs some example of how holistic tests will fit into silver/gold levels. This has been promised as a central pillar of WCAG 3. Recommend we provide at least 1 example of a holistic test, connected to the silver rating. Also, is it "level" or "rating"? The doc is inconsistent about this.”

Rachael: all concepts around silver/gold are complicated…we haven’t focused on this yet. We can’t provide an example yet.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer Wilco

Wilco: that seems like a substanial part of WCAG 3.0. If we don’t have something like this, I don’t think we are providing a good representation.

Jeanne: I agree Wilco. But we don’t want to do it badly. We have a group working on it. Should have something in 2nd draft.
... the feedback from what we do have ready.

Wilco: Can we commit to having it in the 2nd draft?

Jeanne: Yes!

Wilco next comment: “ Need some example of how UAAG & ATAG will fit into WCAG 3. Integrating these is key change in WCAG 3. An example is needed to give the impression what that might look like.”

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/methods/text-alternative-editable/

Jeanne: We wrote a method for ATAG. It is under text alternatives.

<Rachael> The example is: Author control of text alternatives

Wilco: I was expecting 2 outcomes..one for ATAG and one for UAAG.

Jeanne/Alastair: no, the outcome applies to WCAG, ATAG and UAAG…and the details are at the method level.

Wilco: I think I misunderstood.

Wilco’s next comment: “Calling a site conformant with 5% of alt missing doesn't feel right. Suggest using "substantially conformant" for those, and reserving "conformant" for the content that fully complies to the standard, otherwise what is to prevent someone from stopping after they've reached their target.”

Rachael: We will be able to change this as we look at it more detail. I expect to have conversations about this over the next two years. And there is a substantially conformant sub-group.

<alastairc> Janina, I muted you, sorry, a bit of screenreader coming through

Wilco: The percentage isn’t the issue. A requirement should be clean. Speed limit is what it is. You don’t get fined 1 mile over the limit. But the speed limit has to be clear. Saying you are conformant when you are over the speed limit when you are 1 mile over it…is not logicial. The speed limit is X.

Jeanne: What we are trying to address how to encourage orgs to improve accessibility when perfection is so difficult. We want to give them the ability to conform and give them reasons to improve. I don’t know what the exact percentage should be…but we need to make it possible.

<Wilco_> 1+

Jeanne: for some SC, like flashing..you need to be 100% compliant.

Rachael: it is a hard pass/fail at the method level. This is a scoring level above the mehod. We are looking a severity/impact of the issue. This is a balance of perfection vs critical path is accessible.

Wilco: I’m on board with building in allowances. But I don’t think we should call it conformant. Something isn’t conformant. It is okay to give the “Bronze level”. But if 5% of your images don’t have alt…then you aren’t conformant.

Rachael: we are defining conformance as 95% as conformance.

<AWK> +1 to Rachael. If we say you need to do a, b, and c for Bronze, or 100% of a, 50% of b, and 10% of c, we are defining the requirements for Bronze and if we meet those requirements we would conform.

Justine: I agree with Wilco. I’m concerned that we will be encouraging orgs to shoot for an even lower standard…95% instead of 100%.

<AWK> Doesn't mean "we're perfect"

<Chuck_> +1 to Rachael.

Alastair: Example of non-critical missing alt (a small image that does not block user from getting a task done)

Wilco: Would you be okay with an org saying “I need you to make sure that 95% of images have an accessible name.”

Jeanne: Wouldn’t that be great. Orgs are saying it is too hard. And many are only getting 30%. We are trying to encourage orgs..and make it possible.

Alastair: This is allowing for a margin of error.

Wilco: That is my point. You are mixing up conformance with a margin of error. Don’t call it conformant. Call it substantially conformant.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if I can take over scribing because we need caption level.

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

Sarah: I want to agree with what Wilco is staying. Conformance is not a movable thing. Its an issue with the language. I think the approach has value. That is what we are trying to do with the levels.

<Wilco_> +1

<JustineP> +1 to Sarah's comments

Sarah: You earn points and get certified. You get the highest level of certification. but you aren't saying something that is untrue. If you aren't meeting it, you aren't meeting it. You are applying conformance to an element in an audit. Something that doesn't conform to the guideline or outcome but then say that it conforms as a product.

Mike: I am wondering if the challenge we are running into is that until now, there has never been something about reporting in WCAG. Its always been separated from process and techniques.

<sajkaj> +1 for the need to have a discussion about reporting

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that it has always been squishy

Mike: That may be the crux of the comments going on. Could we add an editor's note asking about the nature and language on reporting and ask for feedback about that. Would that meet Wilco and Sarah's concerns?

<sajkaj> I don't recall we've ever explored our expectations about reporting?

Alastair: How people reported on WCAG 2.x has alwasys been a bit squishy. You draw a line on a guideline basis. We talk about going above and beyond. We talk about things that don't technically fail but would benefit from being improved. Would we rather have 100% of the alt text or have people focus on usability testing?

<MelanieP> +1 to revisiting terminology. "Bronze level" should be a percentage of Conformance not equal to Conformance.

Alastair: where do we put it? It sounds like most people agree with the approach. It's whether we call the approach conformant if we meet the bronze level. I worry there may be a habit built up on how its always worked. If we have bronze conformant or bronze non-conformant that might be more confusion.

Glenda: I think that what you just said is that there is a difference between bronze conformant at 100% and bronze non-conformant at 95%

<laura> Maybe Bronze = Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?

Glenda: Can we agree that we need substantially conformant when its not at 100%?

<AWK> Reference for WCAG 2.x: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance

<Jennie> * Like a text alternative for what each level represents.

Jeanne: We do have a group that is working on this but I would really like to get public feedback on this. We've spent a lot of months working out this system to address the many needs. I'd like to get public commments before we start tinkering with it.

<Ryladog> +1 to Jeanne

Jeanne: It feels a lot like, no. I'd like to see us go forward and propose something that is innovative and see what the public response is. If we then have to go back and bring it back in line to what we're used to, I'd like to do that because we have public backing on it rather than just internal.

Alastair: For people thinking about it this way. In the dictionary, conformance just means meeting the specification. So it depends on what the specification says, at least to me.

Sarah: I'm glad you used that word. When we talk about WCAG, we are talking about a specification. ...

We risk confusion when we say these are the requirements. When we say you can meet those specifications in an 80% way or 90% way and that is meeting the standards, that is confusing.

scribe: also, in all the audits I've ever done, I've never audited something that is conformant. If we can move away from that word for FPWD, then we can address the concerns that are raised here.
... and a solid set of requirements that people can pick up and use to help them build an accessible set of resources.

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to suggest bronze/silver/gold isn't an analog of A/AA/AAA

Janina: Can you hear me?

Alastair: Yes

Janina: I think we have to say something about conformance because its in the charter so taking it out isn't an option. Our specification determines what conformance is. In 1.0 and 2.x, we had you do this and you're A. You do this and you're AA.
... here we have a different tier: Bronze, silver and gold, and what each is. We are also looking at alternatives. Substantial conformance is one of these. We are starting a subgroup for this.

<jeanne> link to Substantially Conformant Subgroup <- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance

Janina: drop me an email if you want to be involved. If it works it will come here. We aren't limited to one way. I want to avoid bronze one way and bronze another way. That will be confusing. It is up to the spec to define what conformance is but we have to do something becuse the charter says so.

Alastair: It sounds like we would be looking at adding a caveat to describing the levels. Is this something we need for FPWD because it seems like its adding complication before we get public feedback.

Wilco: I'm giving you that feedback but I'm ok with leaving it for now but adding a note that we will explore this.
... I dont' want to stand in the way of FPWD.

Alastair: And we all do. We need to sift through what we want comment on or what we need to address. The editor's note at the top of conformance is around we have defined these levels
... and the scoring has been set at a certain level. So we've got things conformance level. Does this conformance structre make sense. Is that what we're looking for?
... Wilco would like us to go through the content. This is our hopefully final round of feedback before FPWD but there will be many more reviews. ...Justine: Happy to public but more comments at next stage. That's fine.

Alastair: Rachael didn't quite get your comments.

<Chuck_> rachael: These are new outcomes, we will update after the meeting.

Rachael: Visual contrast updates. Please look at the pull request in comments or this evening on Master.

alastairc: Melanie is happy to move forward but has concerns about real life applications. Based on content in section 4. Concerned abotu the burden on assessments. Is Melanie on the call?

Melanie: I am.

Alastair: I think a number of people are thinking about this but its hard to address fully right now. We do intend to work through it.

Melanie: I'm wondering what the next steps are going to be as far as writing and reviewing the testing and scoring. I'm looking from this from the point of view of hte business of doing assessments. I think it has problems and would liek to be part of the solution. There will be dozens if not more of these.

Alastair: at very top level. There are subgroups within silver. At some point in the future that may get more integrated as the AGWG moves more towards silver. Jeanne am I correct?

Jeanne: Yes. It will continue to integrate more into AGWG. As we are waiting for the FPWD to be published and the comments period to close, we have a couple months that we can use to integrate AGWG and form subgroups. We are working on trying to streamline content generation. That is what we are working on now.
... we will need to address commments. Hopefully a lot of them. But we hope to then go full bore into content generation.

Alastair: This is an important step. We need to get hte structure into place so we can generate contetn.

Jeanne: Without it changing every week,.

MelanieP: woudl you consider creating a subgroup for doing reviews constantly.

Alastair: That is an interesting idea. Can we take it you would volunteer?

MelanieP: I might

<Wilco_> +1, count me in too

alastairc: We will discuss htat one. good idea.
... Wilco also interested.
... Next we have Jake's comments.

<AWK> Need to drop for a panel presentation.

Jake: My main concern. We do not have hte proof yet. I think we all agree that there are concerns abotu the scoring. We need a good proof of concept. I am concerned about two things for scoring.
... the way you test may raise your scoring to silver or gold.

<Chuck_> scribe: Chuck

<Chuck_> jake: ...reviewing comments... silver or gold at the same time without changing anything. We still need to work on scoring. If you have multiple websites and the system proves the granularity of...

<Chuck_> jake: it can be improved and those improvements would be silver or gold and the way you may test or how you use the testing in the whole scoring system.

<Chuck_> jake: Bottom line is... Andrew out of memory said we need to have 3 things tested, I think we have to have more than that tested.

<Chuck_> jake: Granularity of pass fail, technical accessible but you can do so much better, I don't see it yet. But yet again what we have we can continue with that.

<Chuck_> jake: jeanne said in Jan or Feb we will continue working it. Seems to be a good approach. I hope if we see something not working we can completely change the approach or half the approach. We just don't have the proof it works.

<Chuck_> alastair: we need the structure in place to test.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: We've been working on this, here's a link:

<jeanne> LInk <- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dingDd116FVx0QuxCemgHbReJfNxMZRSF1q3dJ9Uj5U/

<Chuck_> Jeanne: Francis Storr and I have been working.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: this is metrics for testing, the scoring. We plan to be working this getting ready for publication, we want to build it out more.

<KimD> Metrics and Plan for Evaluating Conformance Scoring doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dingDd116FVx0QuxCemgHbReJfNxMZRSF1q3dJ9Uj5U/

<Chuck_> Jeanne: to invite more of community to test with websites and to test the reliability, sensitivity, etc. It's based on research and symposium in 2011.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: from R&D working group. We have taken their work and adapted into a rough plan on how to test the validity and metrics they identified as important.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask if it's actually quite flexible at the method level?

<Chuck_> Jeanne: We have a plan, some needs to be done by broader community, we want to be more polished in time for fpwd. It will come back to this group as we get it done.

<Chuck_> alastair: That partially answers Jakes. Another part of it, at spec level, it's pretty flexible. for each outcome you are looking for a score and hard work is at that method level.

<Chuck_> alastair: That's what comes through with Jakes comments about it, scoring is similar to what we have. At spec level not that different.

<Chuck_> alastair: assume that will be true for silver and gold levels as well.

<Chuck_> alastair: Each thing you are doing contributes to that score. Make sense Jake?

<Chuck_> Jake: I started out 3 months ago with that document. Based on reliability... etc. Been trying to use it to test. We will get there, but we don't have it right now.

<Chuck_> Jake: That whole document is purely about adding a lot of user testing and making sure test results are the same, benchmarking... we didn't work it out until now.

<Chuck_> Jake: When you do, you just find out that theoretically it's easy to put on paper, but when you do the actual testing, that might be a moment where we scratch our heads and say "how do we fix this?"

<Chuck_> Jake: I'm curious about us diving into that process and having the proof of what we are aiming at. We don't have that at the moment. If that's part of second draft, awesome. We don't have it at this moment.

<Chuck_> Jake: I would not sign on scoring system right now if it will work and if it delivers on promises. Happy to continue, and not stop it right now.

<Wilco_> +1 well spoken Jake

<Chuck_> alastair: that's a caveated approval. Sarah had quite a few comments.

<Chuck_> alastair: They are marked mainly as editorial. Anything not a simple text change?

<Chuck_> Sarah: I started out with editorial, and I do want to know if it's better to address those in a pull request.

<Chuck_> rachael: Pros and cons, I'm fine with this list as well.

<Chuck_> Sarah: OK if I do a pull request?

<Chuck_> rachael: Either way.

<Chuck_> Sarah: For most part it was editorial, when I hit section 2 that's when I changed my vote to correct the issues.

<Chuck_> Sarah: I only got through section 2, the structure of the guidelines. At the point at which we moved away from defining guidelines and outcomes

<Chuck_> Sarah: The hierarchy of information got confusing. Some of the sections seemed lighter and less informative than others. My sense by then around section 2.3 and 2.4 is that section could use more attention.

<Chuck_> Sarah: Big things are relationships between methods, how to's, scoring and testing. Those things got jumbled. Rejiggering those would be helpful.

<Chuck_> Sarah: And perhaps section on scoring. ... The detail on scoring is light. maybe take all scoring and testing out of section and put it in "additional documentation..." where we can have a more freeform discussion on where we are with scoring.

<Chuck_> Sarah: I didn't see that anywhere in the doc. I only made it through descriptive part of document. I didn't get into the guidelines themselves.

<Chuck_> alastair: Best for one of the editors to go through that. It went through many changes last few weeks.

<Chuck_> alastair: We don't need to spend call time... ok Rachael?

<Chuck_> rachael: Yes.

<Chuck_> alastair: Andrew's comments. <reads>

<Chuck_> alastair: ...three examples with scoring are needed.

<Chuck_> alastair: where did we get to on examples?

<Chuck_> rachael: One very detailed step by step example would be sufficient. That's what we are working to send out with this thursday's survey. If we need 3 then we need to shift direction.

<Chuck_> alastair: Nobody's seen the one yet. Maybe when they see the "one" that answers the question.

<Chuck_> alastair: I suspect 3 comes from a finger in the air. May be good to re-assess when we have one.

<Chuck_> Rachael: I'll add as question for Survey next week.

<Chuck_> alastair: we had Glenda, made point about alternate conforming alternative. "I don't think we can fast path this to fpwd". This won't be a "fast path".

<Chuck_> alastair: Glenda says we need more of AG's focus. That will come unless some vote for 2.3. We will shift focus to Silver.

<Chuck_> alastair: She's worried that it's making accessibility testing harder, and that this doesn't make it easier.

<Chuck_> alastair: My opinion is that it has yet to be tested and confirmed. It's possible we picked some of the most difficult to work with at the start.

<Chuck_> Glenda: I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: We learned a lot. We will continue as we get into the nitty gritty. We realized that we had broken every accessibility testing tool with a certain approach, and we changed that.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: As we dig into the details more, we'll find more things and fix them. I share your concerns.

<Chuck_> dm: My biggest concern with our direction, will we come out with something viable for companies to test? That's a big question mark.

<Chuck_> alastair: fair point, something that.. I don't think the structure makes it more complicated, but it would be dependent on the methods are done and scored.

<Glenda> +1 david just said what I was gong to say!

<Chuck_> dm: Counting up all the passes and fails is some workload. Rather than just identifying the errors. Maybe automation, but it's a concern.

<MelanieP> +1 to David and counting

<Chuck_> alastair: I think there are directions we can go.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: That's something we do only in issues that can be tested with automation. The ones that don't, we are looking at a much easier way to test. That's our direction for manual testing. But automated testing...

<Chuck_> Jeanne: It counts passes and fails.

<Chuck_> Glenda: I did not realize that distinction.

<Chuck_> MelanieP: As far as counting and automation goes, the examples that are there, for headings that is something automation won't be able to do.

<Chuck_> MelanieP: How will automation determine decorative or informative for images?

<Chuck_> Jeanne: What we've done, when it comes to score it, it groups all the images together. As we dug into it... we realized we had to change how we were doing it.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: That example, what we did was go across all the methods scoring. So testing tools don't need to know if it's decorative, informative. What was key was the look at the path, and see if the error is on the critical path.

<Chuck_> Rachael: There are cases... different times when % applies and when they don't. When looking at objects with clear boundaries it makes sense. But images and such require manual testing.

<Chuck_> rachael: For example you can do a manual test for headings, it's hard to do an automated test against headings. It's often not clear.

<Chuck_> alastair: Seems like it's a dial you can move on at an out-come level.

<jeanne> +1 Alastair - the dial we can adjust at an outcome level

<Chuck_> Rachael: Contrast, you can do a character test, and another where you look at the lowest level contrast. That could be an automated test. The methods provide that flexibility.

<Chuck_> gn: I would like to bring in some ideas on counting topic. When counting passes, you need a whole number where compliance is needed. There are issues with that.

<Chuck_> gn: color contrast on non text elements, many are spacing or structure. Then a conversation about specific contrast is needed.

<Chuck_> gn: You may not know before hand how many tables are on page, it's hard to count them.

<Chuck_> alastair: These are things that we can tackle at that level. It doesn't need to impact fpwd.

<Chuck_> gn: Yes, when talking about counting and scoring, needs to be taken into account.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: I agree, we continue to work on that.

<Chuck_> alastair: Next comment... Michael Gower, focusing on high level structure.

<Chuck_> alastair: He's got some suggestions.

<Chuck_> mg: I pulled back at a higher level than Sarah. I'm ignoring text and paragraphs, and looked at heading structure. Are people who are hitting this doc fresh understanding it?

<Chuck_> mg: What happens is we almost deviate from initial structure (heading structure for 2.x), for a while it follows then deviates. I think it's easy to align the doc.

<jeanne> +1 MichaelG for the outline, I like it much better

<Chuck_> mg: for the rest of the doc, it could benefit from that figure as well, or a new figure gets introduced to reflect that.

<Chuck_> mg: if you go back to figure 1, to use your guidance, you see it at 4.x 5.x they stop aligning with figure one and there's no guidance.

<Chuck_> mg: I didn't consider if figure 1 applies to whole document. or if the whole model changes. I think it would be good to tackle the high level structure layout.

<kirkwood> +1 MichaelG for coments on structure layout

<sajkaj> +1 to having an accurate graphical diagram overview -- with a good Summary/Details!

<Chuck_> mg: I'm not sure if it needs to be done before fpwd. But if some have challenges reviewing a large document, it would be helpful.

<Chuck_> Rachael: Will try to tackle for next week.

<Chuck_> alastair: Thanks Michael.

<Chuck_> alastair: Detlev commented on 4.3 captions has no critical errors listed.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: I'll address. It's a very recent change that needs to be updated in that content. Originally it was only going to be for xr, and we did not want to list a critical error for xr, and it's evolving rapidly.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: Now that it's just captions with XR examples at the method level, yes we need to address.

<Chuck_> alastair: That brings us to end of comments.

<Chuck_> Rachael: We can go back to previous comments in survey.

<Chuck_> alastair: <sharing screen> These are ones I pulled out, needs more comments.

<Chuck_> Rachael: This is from 1 survey ago two weeks, these are comments we couldn't address before.

<Chuck_> alastair: Term "simplified summary", someone suggested "plain language summary".

<Chuck_> Rachael: Q for group is, we had "simplified summary", and suggestion is to rename.

<Chuck_> Rachael: Any comments on that?

<kirkwood> +1 plain language.

<Chuck_> Rachael: Any reason Jeanne we started with simplified language?

<kirkwood> if it truly is plain language

<Chuck_> Jeanne: When we first started the idea, we had plain language, and then we looked at what we had and determined that because it is a technical document, there were things in there that would not be considered plain language.

<kirkwood> +1 to working more on plain language

<Glenda> +1 to plain language https://www.plainlanguage.gov

<Chuck_> Jeanne: That could set the expectation of more plain language than we had. What I did is go to Laney-Feingold site, she has kept writing plain language summaries of her site ever since.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: She calls her simplified summaries.

<Chuck_> alastair: Q that comes to mind, could we fit the expectations for plain language? I can appreciate that might set up the expectation.

<kirkwood> if US gov’t can, we can.

<kirkwood> ;)

<Chuck_> Glenda: I'm looking at plainlanguage.gov, I think that we can meet plain language. I don't think... for people new to the term, they may go "oh, if I can't understand right away, not plain".

<kirkwood> +1 to Glenda

<Chuck_> Glenda: It really means...

<Glenda> “write clearly, so your users can:

<Glenda> Find what they need

<Glenda> Understand what they find

<Glenda> Use what they find to meet their needs

<Glenda> “

<Chuck_> glenda: That's not a limitation on which words can be used or not using technical references.

<alastairc> https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/words/avoid-jargon/

<Chuck_> alastair: Advice on jargon seems practical.

<Chuck_> alastair: Jeanne mentioned concerns about the time it would take.

<Chuck_> alastair: We could work on it in the future.

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to suggest we observe this is both important and challenging to achieve

<Chuck_> Janina: won't fall on my sword, my opinion is I'm worried about our plain language section. We want to eat our own dog food and exemplify the process.

<Chuck_> Janina: We should do what we can, and acknowledge it's both important and challenging to achieve. You can get advanced degrees, and maybe get a well paid job. It's not a skill certain people have.

<Glenda> +1 to what Janina is saying. Plain Language is hard to do!

<Chuck_> Janina: We need to acknowledge the importance and difficulty of getting it done.

<Chuck_> alastair: In terms of what we call these summaries, it doesn't sound like you are concerned about the term.

<Chuck_> Janina: I like Laney's simplified summary.

<Chuck_> dm: A couple of things... is there a global standard for which there is a coalition around plain language? Seems like "sufficient size of target".

<Chuck_> dm: There's things for usability like 48pixels, seems like same approach for plain language. Is there what the wcag is for accessibility that applies to plain language?

<Chuck_> alastair: I don't think so. I will take Rachael's suggestion to do a poll.

<Chuck_> wilco: There isn't such a thing. Us trying to come up with one, we need to be very careful and accidently invent a world wide definition for plain language. We aren't the right people for that work.

<Glenda> Can we ask for Whitney Quesenbury to get involved with “Plain Language” https://www.wqusability.com/

<Chuck_> Sarah: We aren't talking about defining plain language, we are talking about simplified summaries and what we call them. That's a feature of the document that is intended to...

<alastairc> A) for "Simplified summary for..." B) for "Plain language summary for..."

<Chuck_> Sarah: address any shortcomings. Maybe we should just do what we are about to do and decide what to call them, the simplified summaries.

<jeanne> A

<Wilco_> B

a

<alastairc> A

<sajkaj> a

<sarahhorton> A

<GN015> b

<david-macdonald> B

<MelanieP> a

<Glenda> B) change to Plain Language Summary

<Chuck_> alastair: If current one is fine, put in "A", if you think it should change, put in "B"

<Jennie> A

<sukriti_> A

<st> A

<Francis_Storr> A

<Chuck_> "C" not decided.

<KimD> c

<Detlev> Not sure

<Glenda> B

<Levon> B

<Chuck_> alastair: Seems like leaning slightly towards 'A'. Is there anyone who cannot live with 'A'?

<GN015> I feel that 'simplified summary' suggests there is a further, non-simplified summary.

<kirkwood> Summary.

<kirkwood> +1

<Chuck_> raf: Why can't we use the term "summary"? "simplified summary".... isnt' "summary" sufficient?

<sarahhorton> FYI, Lainey changed her approach on the current redesign, to "On this page": https://www.lflegal.com/negotiations/

<sajkaj> +1 I like it. just 'summary'

<david-macdonald> "simplified" is a big word

<Chuck_> alastair: q for John or those familiar with the audience... is plain language a term people look for?

<kirkwood> There is a US one to be clear. www.plainlanguage.gov The Plain Writing Act Law and requirements

<Chuck_> alastair: If not, it doesn't matter what we call it.

<Chuck_> Raf: If we use "simplified" we need to define.

<david-macdonald> + summary

<Glenda> “The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities includes plain language as one of the "modes, means and formats of communication””

<Chuck_> alastair: I do like the idea of just calling it a summary.

<Glenda> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_language

<Chuck_> Janina: Especially since we don't have other summaries.

<Jennie> *Take question to COGA?

<Chuck_> alastair: Yes, we are summary free.

<kirkwood> +1 to summary plain language is too loaded

<sarahhorton> +1 to summary

<Chuck_> alastair: If it was just called "summary for..."

<Chuck_> alastair: Anyone feel strongly we shouldn't just use "summary"?

<Jennie> I am not sure

<Chuck_> +1 to use just summary.

Proposal: Use summary and double check with coga to ensure they agree.

<Chuck_> +1 to Rachael.

<Detlev> It might be important to make it explicit that it is pain language

<Chuck_> alastair: Should we do a round trip with Coga?

<Detlev> plain dammit

<KimD> "summary" seems too generic.

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#normative-requirements

<Chuck_> alastair: It is a generic term, but we are using it in specific places in this document. Pretty clear if you look at it in context.

<Chuck_> alastair: pastes an example.

<sajkaj> +1 to just summary. it makes it more of a curbcut

<Chuck_> kirkwood: Do we want this to be a plain language summary? Calling it whatever is fine, but is that the mission?

<alastairc> So that would be "Summary for Normative requirements"

<Chuck_> kirkwood: We can, is there a drive to do that? That takes effort.

<Chuck_> alastair: I think yes we would, might be a q of time.

<Jennie> Great point John K, for example, a summary can have long, hard to read sentences.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: We have a group of experts who are helping us. We had one write the plain language summaries, and then started changing rapidly.

<Glenda> I’m seeing plain-language referenced at the UN https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-2-definitions.html

<Chuck_> Jeanne: We've just been editing it as non experts to make it consistent. Our plan is to have experts make it plain language. Just haven't had time.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: Once we stabilize on these comments, we'll ask them to do another pass.

<Chuck_> alastair: We are aiming for that. Not sure if it makes a difference.

<Jennie> Just to clarify, we are interested in what those that need a simpler language version would use to find these areas in the document, correct? Not what to call it from a technical perspective.

<Chuck_> alastair: We could maintain "simplified summary" or call it "summary", as long as it's understandable.

<Chuck_> kirkwood: It does matter. if we say plain language summary, that is written into law in the us.

<Chuck_> glenda: I'm seeing this referenced at UN.

<Chuck_> glenda: I'd like coga to review.

<Chuck_> glenda: I won't block, we can figure out the wording going forward.

<Chuck_> glenda: I love plain language.

<kirkwood> There is a US one to be clear. www.plainlanguage.gov The “Plain Writing” Act Law and requirements

<Chuck_> rachael: asking jk, if we have a plain language summary, but we call it summary, are we removing functionality?

<Chuck_> kirkwood: Only meeting requirements of plain language around the standard, but it doesn't remove functionality from cognitive aspect.

<Chuck_> alastair: This is probably not the biggest.

<Chuck_> Jenny: I've 2 points. Clarify: Are we looking to name it based on what user will use to find the section? Or based on expectation of what's inside.

<Chuck_> Jenny: If we frame question for coga, we have clearly defined requirements on what the section is intended for and how we achieve that.

<Chuck_> alastair: From what John said, if we use plain language we should meet that. Implies we shouldn't for now. If people are looking for that in the doc.

<Chuck_> alastair: Next comment... outcomes written as outcomes....

<Chuck_> alastair: should practices be replaced with methods or techniques?

<Chuck_> Rachael: definition is outcomes that reduce barriers. We don't want to create circular definitions. What's people's opinions? Can we move forward?

<Chuck_> Rachael: Pasting in definitions.

MEthod: Detailed information, either technology-specific or technology-agnostic, on ways to meet the outcome as well as tests and scoring information.

<Chuck_> alastair: We should avoid circular definitions.

Outcome Result of practices that reduce or eliminate barriers that people with disabilities experience.

<Chuck_> wilco: Not a fan of circular definitions. Let's avoid.

<Chuck_> wilco: What is it based on?

<KimD> +100 to avoiding circular definitions

<Chuck_> alastair: Can we just leave this one? Does anybody have a better alternative that is circular free?

<Chuck_> alastair: <reads from comment 47>

<Chuck_> alastair: I don't know how this would be addressed at the spec level. We'd want to keep an eye on it at the method level.

<alastairc> Comment 47: Functional needs for different user populations can at times conflict with each other. What mechanism exists to address instances where such a conflict exists? For example, individuals with cognitive disabilities require plain language that can at times create lengthy text but that experience would be clunky for a blind individual who is using a screen reader and/or refreshable braille device.

<Chuck_> alastair: pastes in question.

<Chuck_> Jeanne: We had a couple of people work on this back in 2018. I don't know how their recommendations would flow into current architecture. I agree with Alastair it's at the method level, not spec.

<Chuck_> alastair: Next one... AG should consider working off test cases.

<alastairc> Comment 49: I think AG should consider working based off test cases. Very few web standards these days are developed without a rigorous test suite. A test suite will help keep us focused and explicit, and will prevent backsliding.

<sajkaj> All in due time! Required for PR

<Chuck_> alastair: Rachael's comments: This is part of the testing work that will be done after FPWD.

<kirkwood> +1 to simplified summary

<Chuck_> alastair: I don't think this will block fpwd, it would keep consistent in document.

<Chuck_> Rachael: comment 76 is too big to do in just a few minutes.

<Chuck_> alastair: Are we ok cribbing from wcag 2.0 if we have them already?

<Chuck_> Jeanne: "text alternatives" is cribbed from wcag 2.1.

<sajkaj> I don't think we've ever said WCAG 2.x is all bad!!

<Chuck_> Jeanne: That's our example of how to move wcag information to wcag 3 w/o significant changes. I think we can just take wcag definition.

<Chuck_> alastair: we are at time. Thank you scribes.

<sajkaj> Ciao!

<alastairc> me /https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/broadcasting/broadcast-app/

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/ tome/to me/
Default Present: alastairc, JustineP, Chuck_, ChrisLoiselle, MichaelC, Jennie, MelanieP, sajkaj, Francis_Storr, JakeAbma, Levon, Wilco_, Raf, Rachael, Glenda, GN, stevelee, sukriti_, kirkwood, Detlev, sarahhorton, mbgower, david-macdonald, Laura, SuzanneTaylor, AWK, jeanne, KimD, jon_avila, Katie_Haritos-Shea, summary
Present: alastairc JustineP Chuck_ ChrisLoiselle MichaelC Jennie MelanieP sajkaj Francis_Storr JakeAbma Levon Wilco_ Raf Rachael Glenda GN stevelee sukriti_ kirkwood Detlev sarahhorton mbgower david-macdonald Laura SuzanneTaylor AWK jeanne KimD jon_avila Katie_Haritos-Shea summary GN015
Regrets: BruceB CharlesH Nicaise
Found Scribe: Glenda
Inferring ScribeNick: Glenda
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: Chuck
Scribes: Glenda, Rachael, Chuck
ScribeNicks: Glenda, Rachael

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.)