<alastairc> scribe:Francis_Storr

WCAG 2 Supporting Document redesign https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/

<Sukriti> present_

hdv: worked on new look + feel for techniques and understanding docs
... also trying to make it easier for users to discover WCAG docs
... want to make the documents easier to understand and navigate
... want to make it easier to understand if the content a user is looking at relates to other guidance and content.
... in research for the project, users want older documents to be phased out. Not part of this project, but should do later.
... prototypes of individual pages (mature), landing page (early draft), "all" page (starting work on this next week).

<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/2020-07-15-prototype.html

<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/2020-09-22-technique-and.html

hdv: new techniques design has a "sufficient" box at the top of the page that lists which criterion the technique is sufficient to meet.

<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/alt-index.html

<Glenda> Just a quick comment to say…”Lookin’ good!” Thanks for your work on this, Hidde :)

<MarcJohlic> +1 to Glenda! I really like that Sufficient box and how you're handling the 'sufficient w/ another technique' situations. Looks really clear and easy for users to consume.

hdv: new Guidance page breaks out content into sections including sufficient techniques, ACT rules, failures, etc.
... file comments, feedback into the GitHub repo

<hdv> Comments welcomed here: https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/issues

<Levon> -present

<MelanieP_> Great work!

shadi: working with other working groups including COGA.

<jeanne> +1 to great work! This improves what Silver was looking at, so we need to see if we can adapt it for a future draft.

<kirkwood> well done

<Sukriti> +1

ac: will talk to other chairs to try to schedule future feedback

<AWK> +AWK

saz: there are some confusing terms relating to "techniques". Maybe there's another way to present this that are specific to COGA or other areas.
... if there's any renaming of content and categorization that can be done, need feedback ASAP.

hdv: trying not to change content where possible. There will be some change of markup.

Silver scoring survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_Scoring/

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_Scoring/results

mc: the scoring document wouldn't be a google document for the FPWD.

js: we have a group working on the validity of the scoring example. The current scoring example is meant to demonstrate how scoring would work.

<Rachael> +1 to the purpose of this document being for demo purposes not validity. Many more examples needed to test the structure.

js: working on a suite of pages to test the validity.

gs: will the silver group be able to show the scoring mechanism works before the CFC?

js: some of the validity testing has already started. The more detailed validity testing won't be available before the CFC.
... this is going to be an on-going multi-year process

mp: how many ratings do we think we will have?

rm: need to stress that these are examples and that they need further work. We need to work this through more.

pk: real examples are important and if we can't get those then we should take scoring out until later.

<PeterKorn_> +1 to having a clear banner @ Top

ac: it would help to have a large banner at the top of pages to state that the examples explain how the system could work.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG3/2020/outcomes/translates-speech-and-non-speech-audio

rm: if content isn't clear in the documents we should add editors' notes.
... we need to make clear that the details are examples.

<KimD_> +1 to editor's notes to make it clear that the scoring info are there as examples.

<Rachael> I should say we have those editor notes but are they attention grabbing enough as written

ac: what can we do in the immediate future to make documents "stand up" in the future and not need so much framing?

rm: if someone can help re-organize documents, I can give them editor access.

mg: will try to find content that would be a good model.

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/restructure_12_oct/guidelines/index.html#clear-words

ss: guidelines for clear words needs to be clearer

ac: the documents are to demonstrate how they could be scored and to present a total.

<Rachael> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#clear-words

ss: how can people comment on Silver?

<alastairc> https://github.com/w3c/silver

js: GitHub Silver repo.

ac: with the time we have before FPWD we don't have time to create another scoring example.

rm: one of the challenges we have is that sites change so we're using static examples.

<alastairc> Here's the example page: http://accessibleescaperoom.org/sample-page-escape-room/

RESOLUTION: Include existing scoring example in FPWD with to be determined and approved framing

Silver spec updates review

<alastairc> scribe:Sukriti

<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h1CF09v-7pHQ45SvfVN8BVlMl0d_CzUJ9JVUTREvwXw/edit#

Complete conformance

<Rachael> editors note at https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#conformance-levels-0

Editor's note whether 100% is needed for conformance

Wilco: inaccessible but conforming? Should use another term?

<kirkwood> +1 to Wilco. I have difficulty with “small amount of inaccessible content”

Wilco: Testability/ measurability/ other phrasing?

Rachael: Note saying looking for alternatives

<Rachael> editors note about alternatives https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#conforming-alternative-version

Jeanne: Improvement on current practice. Giving people chance to conform

Alaistar: Disagreement with the terminology instead of approach

Peter: One of the most critical changes from 2. Deserves longer note to describe philosophy, why and feedback we are using
... Would not use inaccessible
... Phrase as conformance model not conformance
... Would like to work on note

<kirkwood> +1 to not using tern “inaccessibile content”

Wilco: Fully onboard with idea of not requiring 100%. Clear distinctions between requirements and how you measure compliance

<PeterKorn_> Maybe "website conformance" vs "webpage conformance"

Glenda: It maybe the detail - conform vs accessibility score

Alaistar: Conformance means meets a specification

Andrew: Conformance depends on the specification set by wcag 3 vs compliance which is a legal requirement or externally defined
... Conformance doesn't mean perfection

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say Conformance is a W3C term of art; we can define what it means, but removing it will introduce other confusions and to say in particular, conformance can

Michael C: Conformance is widely used by w3c to advance recommendation

Michael C: It doesn't have to mean meeting all

<sajkaj> Closest definition I could find on w3.org was:

<sajkaj> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/

Michael C: Should be no ambiguity on tests and outcomes

Michael C : Conformance section does not need to be absolute

Alaistar: What would the change be? What does a certain conformance level actually mean?

Wilco: Let the document not be ambiguous about problems in the product even if the level is met

Jeanne: That will not pass because of critical path

Alaistar: Would depend on scope of path

Peter: depends on how important it is for what the user is trying to do
... richer editor's note is important

Michael C: In wcag 2, conformance does not guarantee accessibility

Michael C: a11y is an ever growing field and that is why we need rapid update model

Janina: we're providing help to those who are trying to build accessible products
... attribution and accountability with third party content

David: how would this apply to process

<Rachael> that was the intent. Whoever makes a conformance claim statest the scope

Alaistar: still work in progress/ TBD

David: What defines a critical path?

Alaistar: In that sense, similar to how wcag 2 works

<Wilco> +10

Shadi: some level of guidance to those judging will be helpful

<jeanne2> +1 to Shadi

Wilco: Would like to see extended editor's note

Mapping for functional categories

Rachael: Scrum to look at their action items

Alaistar: Mapping for functional categories is in method level. Should include in appendix?

Rachael: Multiple, not 1:1. Outcomes that map to functional category

Alaistar: Should that be normative/

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that it isn't needed in 2.x but it affects scoring in 3

Michael C : We can put it in the document and name the section as normative

<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#functional-categories

Alaistar: Functional category 3.3. is already in normative, just the mapping is missing

Rachael: The mapping is in the methods which is the informative portion

Michael C : mappings are implicit in the guidelines. Might have collision between listing and what the guidelines say

Aliastar: Something gets updated in one place and not the other

Wilco: How are the categories implicit in the guidelines?

Michael C: Guidelines have outcomes, they they have functional needs and outcomes. Which is where the mapping is

Michael C: Do not want duplicate content

Rachael: Methods evolve quickly. Can move list to normative

Michael C: working on supporting infrastructure

David: Concerns about simple writing example

Alaistar: It is a difficult area we tried to address in 2.x. Tt is helpful to include and why it was picked to be included

<kirkwood> clear language should deintely be in there. it is not difficult. It is not precarous.

<kirkwood> strongly disagree with David

Jeanne: We are addressing the difficult parts in 3.0

<Rachael> in great detail.

Alaistar: What is the scenario for using the mappings besides scoring?

Wilco: Determine score

Michael C: Can understand guidelines based on functional needs better

<Rachael> I think it is most helpful as both read along and as an appendix.

<Wilco> +1

Evaluation vs Conformance

Alaistar: Merging those sections?

Janina: Preference to keep them separate but with some cross pollination

Wilco: Scoring is an important part of conformance and evaluation

Alaistar: Conformance claim is a specific task. Requirements can be used to evaluate products but not necessarily make conformance claims

Wilco: Lots of ways to evaluate WVAG

WCAG

<Rachael> Remove Evaluation section, Move Testing and Scoring to higher level sections. Merge Evaluation Scope and Conformance Scope

Jeanne: Having them split up is easier to understand
... How do we make it easier for people to find things?

<Wilco> +1

Jeanne: Onboard. No objections

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)

Default Present: alastairc, Chuck_, Francis_Storr, StefanSchnabel, hdv, Lauriat, Rachael, KimD_, shadi, Nicaise, mbgower, Caryn-Pagel, MelanieP_, Glenda, Sukriti, Laura, stevelee, jeanne, MarcJohlic, Wilco, kirkwood, AWK, PeterKorn_, JakeAbma, sajkaj, david-macdonald, jon_avila, Levon, Raf
Present: alastairc Chuck_ Francis_Storr StefanSchnabel hdv Lauriat Rachael KimD_ shadi Nicaise mbgower Caryn-Pagel MelanieP_ Glenda Sukriti Laura stevelee jeanne MarcJohlic Wilco kirkwood PeterKorn_ JakeAbma sajkaj david-macdonald jon_avila Levon Raf

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: JustineP)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Detlev, Fischer

Regrets: Detlev Fischer
Found Scribe: Francis_Storr
Inferring ScribeNick: Francis_Storr
Found Scribe: Sukriti
Inferring ScribeNick: Sukriti
Scribes: Francis_Storr, Sukriti
ScribeNicks: Francis_Storr, Sukriti

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.)