<Chuck_> meeting: AGWG-2021-05-04

<Chuck> chair: Chuck

<Detlev> scribe: Detlev

Calls for AGWG Participation

Chuck: introductions anyone?

<AWK> +AWK

Chuck: Volunteers needed for subgroup on headings
... Joined ACT meeting

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/ACT_-_Silver_Joint_Meeting_May_2021

ACT and Silver members will discuss testing and how ACT rules can be leveraged for WCAG 3.0

Jeanne: still working on the agenda

<AWK> +AWK

WCAG 3.0 topics survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Follow-on-topics/ (60 min)

Chuck: questionnaire following April 29 face-2-face
... can we agree to use a rating scale for outcomes (reads options)
... 7 say yes use rating scale of outcomes 7 want somwething else

Jenny: was unsure why phrase "but not the final outcome score" was used. For item 6 assumption was that research was available to determin the number of scale points, should we review research?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to respond

Rachael: No. 4 was perhaps a typo
... as to 6: valid point, we should look at extant research but we also have experince to bear on this

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about web metrics and the balance of granularity and adequacy

<Fazio> wheres the survey link?

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Follow-on-topics/results

<Fazio> thx

<Chuck> sorry for forgetting to put in the link

Jeanne: Where research exisits is in the web matrix, was done by a symposium in 2011, papers by academic and commerical players. We processed that

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qoXwyq3Q2uezlAHI0Jn9XL_DD9zDlnF0zegSPdm3hSg/edit#slide=id.gb3ceb32d61_0_33

Jeanne: number of rating points in sensitivity and adequacy part - tradeoff between number of scale points and ease of differentiations between them - so we settled on 5 to start with - a subgroup is working on testing, work is ongoing

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that the scales aspect is a big "it depends", we should proceed and then normalise.

Wilco: Havng a hard time answering the question, looks like putting cart before th ehorse. Content is largely not yet worked out, what is there does not always stand up to scrutiny - we still don't know whether we have the right approach. Do we need this discussion at this pint. Another problem is tying the conformance question with metrics. Org shave their own metrics. Writing that into the conformance model takse away flexibility for orgs ho wto do[CUT]

<jeanne> Wilco, those metrics are for evaluating WCAG3 itself, not for organizations or testers to use.

Alastair: As to 3.57 for rating scale - in our case it will depend how granualr a particular guideline has to be to capture results - so it may be 10 levels for readability and less for others. That isn't necessarily a problem. Once we have a number of guidelines, we can then normalise that

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to allowing appropriate scale by guideline (so those working on guidelines are not forced to invent additional levels that are not truely needed)

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to comment on 5 and a minimum score of 3.5...

Alastair: we could proceed by writing the best testable set for each guidelins, then normalise

JF: We use 5 points and use 3.5 out of 5 for our ranking scale,that is 70 percent - we could have set 10 and take 7 as threshold

David: Referring to Greggs discussion of the topic - do we have a summary - it is not clear what all this sums up to

<Fazio> I think that makes sense

We need to see the type sof testable statements we are going to have, then organise it from there

<alastairc> bit chicken & egg, do we fit the guidelines to a structure or the structure around the guidelines? Difficult either way!

<jeanne> +1 Sarah

Sarah: Seems premature to make a decision now - working out the guidelines and test shelps working out qwhat will work and what won't
... working on the errors guidelines, it seems clear that there is a strong connection between scope and rating

<Zakim> Rain, you wanted to add that the ranking feels very arbitrary right now considering that a site could be 90% conformant but still entirely block a user from being able to complete

<Fazio> +1 Rain

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to talk to interdependence

Rain: agrees that it feels har dto determine if any ranking approach feels appropriate - a site may feel near excellent with one critical issue. the 3.5 out of 5 seem difficult to understand in that context

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to Rain's comment "a user" versus "users"

Rachael: Interdependence of things is a critical problem now - it will be helpful about we are going to make decisions that take us forwar, so we move forward, making decisions that seem right and can later be reworked

JF: @Rain: we will never achieve perfection for all users - the goal is more to minimise impact on th wemost people
... that was one of the reasons to move to another conformance model

<alastairc> The current decision is potentially: Continue writing guidelines with rating categories (i.e. not binary), and we will re-group on the number of levels and how they contribute to a score.

Chuck: We should also discuss scope queistion today

<bruce_bailey> +1 to prototypes and iteration

Sarah: Respons to Rachael - I'm a fan of prototyping, trying things get feedback, iterate - that approach is not well supported by out structure - without having to make decisions

<bruce_bailey> +1 to the five metrics (Validity/Reliability/Sensitivity/Adequacy/Complexity) for evaluating any scoring

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to note five metrics mostly do not apply to 2x SC

David: History of struggles in WCAG 2 - we were struggling how to organise that before Success Criteria there were HTML tests and such - did not know how to organise that - it moved forward when all the details test were collected so it was possible to organise them

Bruce: The factors of testing (reliability etc.) are always relevant - 2 differnet experts may read the SC differently, so it can be useful not to have to deal with the complexity - it gets trickier

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say Rain's point about critical errrors =0, and to test the numbers as we continue to develop tests

<bruce_bailey> they apply to anyone who tests against WCAG2

<bruce_bailey> but WCAG2 does not address testing against WCAG as a whole

<Rain> +1 thank you for clarifying

Jeanne: It's important to look a tthe factors from the metrics and see what it means for WCAG 3. As to Rain, we do have the critical errors (blockers) - if you have one of these you'd have a rating of zero and cannot reach bronze

<bruce_bailey> so Trusted Tester and companies have come up with their protocols for testing pages for WCAG2 conformance

Jeanne: we are asking for feedback if it would be acceptable for people that things may not fail even with critical errors in them. We want to continue to work out the scoring as we continue to develop the tests
... we need more people to work out how we do the testing

Chuck: We have accumulated date and results by doing tests, but we only have actual results from 3 people - we should run through that and evaluate these data

<jeanne> +1 that we need more data.

<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to note that the scoring format needs to be accessible

Chuck: please donÄ tgo into queue now

<Fazio> way to get content usabl in there Jenny!

<jeanne> +1 for inclusive scoring being inclusive

<stevelee> +1 for inclusive scoring

Jenny: appreciate the discussion. accuracy of scoring is important, but whatever we decide that the scoring os accessible for people who have problems with numbers - we want the score to be inclusive to people with a variety of skills. I was concerned that scoring might become very difficult to participate

Jennison: Confirms Jenny's point - if we cannot agree on the fine details, the average user will have even more difficulty applying them

<Fazio> that concern gets raised a lot

<Wilco> +1000 This is not going to make WCAG easier to use

Jennison: the average person won't have much experience, go with their gut, so all of our schemes may not work, and it won't be consistent

<jeanne> we have to start some where -- this isn't a final proposal. We have a lot of work to do, and we need to keep advancing it.

<alastairc> +1 to documenting process as part of silver/gold levels. Do many people here have experience of ISO standards like 27001?

Mike: See comments - but the last thing is, I cannot help feeling that while outcome-based rating is fine, it may end up being all automated. Where does that leave us? I think we should look at the process of design/development and how that is documented to show due diligence. If we create a suggested process and teams measure against that, some of what we want will get baked into that process. Some of that can be automated, and checked. The measurem[CUT]

Sorry Mike I could capture all that..

<JF> wondering aloud about Michael's point and the intersection with EARL (https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/earl/)

Rachael: We want the end result to be simple. That our conversations are complex does not mean that the result will also be complex
... it is a tough process - so how can we design the process to succeed?

Chuck: (reads question about scope of conformance)

<mbgower> as per my "ISO-ish" comment, I like Alastair would like to understand how much standards like 27001 are being considered.

15 want to use WCAG 3 process, 2 whant something else

Oliver: Thought of measuring against users' ability to do something (like time to fnd something)

David: The tests will determine how best to proceeds. Nothing against processes though. Views and processes defind by the organisation. Are processes documented, or what process is taken to be in scope?
... once we have the tests in place, we can start organising

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say yes defined by org

Chuck: Current take: scope can be defined by the organisation. have naive opinion that whatever you test happens to be in the boundaries, and if you change the boundaries the test will still remain the same

JF: concern about scoping: regulators may want to weigh in on scopeing - currently it encourages cherrypicking of those things to be in scope that work well

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that applies to WCAG 2.x as well

Alastair: That also applie sto WCAG 2. Th econformance claimant can selct the pages where conformance is claimed.
... WCAG EM has recommendations for scoping

JF: W3C says conformance is on page level - this is what regulators get. That discrete unit is expanded to views / processes. Concerned what "process" might look like. Every link potentialy is the start of a process

<JF> that needs to be better defined then Alastair

Alastair: If you have a process form on page (with a flyout menu) that would be part of the process, you would add the next views/pages in the process to the scope
... we need to better define both, as people said in the survey

<JF> I think as well that there is a difference between 'test methodology' versus 'reporting'

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer wilco

<Rachael> I thin it is a set of related views with an outcome

Wilco: In what sense are processes more than a superset of views?

<alastairc> sub-set of content on views then?

jeanne: it is a narrower focus of views, you could focus on those view aspects essential to complete the process
... many people have an interest to say: there are things on thios page that fail but it does not impede users in running through the process

Chuck: No "something elses" - Alastair?

<JF> But if that offscreen content is on the page, clearly it is there for something, so "important" is relative AND subjective

<Chuck> proposed poll: Use the WCAG 3 FPWD scope to views and processes and better define both.

Alastair: As to Wilco's question: subset of content in views

<jeanne> +1 to Alastair's understanding

Chuck: proposes poll

<sajkaj> +1

<Rain> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<AWK> +1

<Jennie_> +1

<jeanne> +1

<MelissaD> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<MarcJohlic> +1

<johnkirkwood_> +1

<Ben_> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<mbgower> +1

<alastairc> +1

0 unsure

<oliverK> +1

<KarenHerr> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<morr4> +1

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to ask what "use" means

Wilco: What does "use" mean?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer

<JF> +1 to better definitions, but still unsure about "processes"

<Wilco> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<laura_> +1

<Makoto> +1

Rachael: We can move forward with these and flush them out further until we have enough data to see if it works

<Raf> 0

<Rachael> Use = We move forward with the concept until we have data that shows they don't work or are not sufficient

RESULTION: Use the WCAG 3 FPWD scope to views and processes and better define both.

<david-macdonald> +1 IF the processes are disclosed to 3rd party testers (who are not working for the company)

RESOLUTION: Use the WCAG 3 FPWD scope to views and processes and better define both.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to reply to david

<sajkaj> If you make a conformance claim on a process, wouldn't that imply revealing it?

Alastair: In some cases orgs can disclose processes to third parties. But it is not that difficult, defining pages now, and in a similar way you would define processes that you test

<mbgower> Defining the test samples and outcomes are likely going to have to be part of a site's report, IMO

<alastairc> Same as if you didn't include that in the pages for WCAG 2.x

David: If someone makes a complaint against a site, and the owner says: it is not one of the processes we evaluated?

<Fazio> reasonable is the operative word in US and UK

Alastair: So it needs a reasonable assumption that includes all that is critical for a certain process

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/earl/

<alastairc> and WCAG-EM has advice on what to include

JF: Jeanne's not on reporting requirements - will be more closely tied to testing. Not all will be familiar with EARL, which gives us an RDFa outcome
... could b interesting to look at

Conformance subgroup use cases (30 min)

Chuck: Summary is that we have resolved the issue of scoping, got work to do to refine vies/processes and have input to resolve the first question - the current take is that it may be premature to make the decision now. Another point was to ensure that the scoring process is easy to understand for people with numeracy (?) problems
... The subgroup will presnet som use cases to the wider AGWG

David: We are not really putting the process into a public statement that makes it clear what is contained?

Chuck: no immediate answer

Jeanne: We don't know yet - this conversation illustrate the importance of migrating exisiting 2.0 content to silver so we get a better idea of the big picture.
... Scribe?

<alastairc> scribe: alastairc

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

sajkaj: Silver asked our sub-group to look at edge cases. Started with what kind of things might already be covered. What might be supported in the current concepts in FPWD

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

sajkaj: e.g. don't have to score 100%

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change and introduce peter

sajkaj: In March we looked at 2 particular use-cases
... In April looked at what wasn't covered. 2 types, the 1st is third party content.

<jeanne> WCAG3 being evaluated both by numberic metric testing and by defining use cases that examine the edges of whether we have included what we need to. This is part of our being research-informed and data-driven goal.

sajkaj: Then have overall topic of whether it is very large/complex. All sites have bugs, especially if constantly changing. This is less about use-cases and more about operating principles, e.g. how do we define success?
... In the real world all sites have bugs, want to show that we treat accessibility bugs the same as other bugs, prioritise appropriately.

Jeanne: Wanted to intro on a slightly higher level. We want to be research informed and data-driven. After the FPWD was prepped we put effort into testing for metrics, and having a numerical appraisal.
... this group approached from a use-case point of view, that should stimulate discussion. Would be great to share some examples.

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

Fazio: I heard there were mixed reviews on the maturity model, I'd like to revisit at some point. Tried to bake-in different views on this topic.

Peter: Would be great to have cross-team meeting on that.
... For March, we were asked to come back with areas that the structure of the FPWD could address our use-cases. Came up with 4.

<jeanne> We will schedule a presentation of the maturity model team with AGWG

<david-macdonald> is there a screen sharing we are missing

Peter: Missing headers (reads from page)
... Use Case B: Simple Table Without Header Labels

Reads from https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/March_Report_to_the_Silver_TF

scribe: once we start doing guidelines for tables, could be handled in scoring.
... if we carried forward reflow guideline, there would be edge cases where it doesn't quite meet the bar, but not a substantial barrier.
... oops, the last one is duplicated.
... we discussed those on silver, not with AG

Peter: Looking at April https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF
... we looked at use-cases in general, our second deliverable was where we are looking for modifications. Beyond how you score the guideline.
... we also wanted to suggest how it might be handled. Did better on the 3rd party content than the bugs.
... Looking at 3rd party content, there are a few categories. e.g. hired someone to provide content.
... it might not be hired, might be a payment processing system.
... it might be under copyright, so there are restrictions.
... finally legacy content that is under copyright is another example.

<mbgower> Advertising?

Peter: WCAG applies to all content, regardless of where it came from. However, due to differences, we might need to treat differently.
... So use-case C is about a travel site. (Reads from page)
... it is a big hairy mess. Then tried to look at some more narrow examples, before going back up. So use-case D looks at a 3rd party payment service.
... the embedded service has accessibility issues, but they haven't found an alternative.
... So can the WCAG 3.0 conformance model make a claim that notes the issues, and talks about steps to address?
... that payment service may be critical to the site, but how could that work, how could it be dealt with?
... There is possibly a distinction between levels of error.

DavidMacD: Comment that in Ontario the AODA, they talk about things not being practicable where commercial tools don't support it. Do we leave it to legislators? Also, in working with 3rd parties who can be quite small (but working for large companies), turns out they wouldn't fix it if they didn't have pressure from the large client.
... so sometimes the pressure is useful.

<Ben_> +1 to the pressure story

<laura_> +1 to david

<Fazio> I had a similar experience with a Fortune 100 fast food client

Peter: Wondering, should there be a separate look/cut/take on UI libraries. Could we have a separate analysis on that?
... Could we clarify the source of the issues?
... between march & april we didn't find a good solution that would likely get consensus, but have some ideas that could be taken forward.

<Fazio> I don't see that holding up in court

<jeanne> I think the pressure story doesn't work in the direction of Large to small company. The Boy Scout troop has no leverage against a big payment system

Peter: the challenge of how it was handed off to regulators in 2.x was limited. You could do partial conformance, which was essentially non-conformance. Hoping that in WCAG 3 we can do better.
... Use case E - end user comments (reads from page)
... As end-users are not required to meet any guidelines, that content appears on the site.
... the partial solutions we had included: making conformance claims that ID 3rd party content. Noting steps they have taken (e.g. promoted alt text). To date, I'm not aware if a clear language prompting tool.
... The all software has bugs, there are lots of possible use-cases, didn't fully discuss.

1st case is that a startup unveils their 1st product. It is not finished, there are issues, rough edges (reads from page).

Peter: Might be called public beta, invite only etc.
... could be issues that affect all website visitors. E.g. don't work in older browsers. Doesn't handle non-english date formats. The accessibility bugs are similar in nature to the rest of the site.
... second example, video game (reads from page)

<Fazio> whats that law protecting tech companies that aren't new q+

Peter: only thought of having an attestation that it is tackling accessibility issues in the same way as other issues. It isn't in-equitable, it's just buggy.

Fazio: Just want to re-itterate maturity model, where we ask orgs to provide public information about the accessibility.
... can help drive these things.

<JF> How does that work for the Scout Troop?

Fazio: transparency is key, so people know what to expect.

<PeterKorn> @JF - I don't think Maturity Model addresses all of these use cases.

<JF> exactly

<Rachael> Great work on the use cases. These will help!

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to say that Profiles (see Option 7) are another possible solution:

Next steps on 2.3 (30 min)

Suzzanne: Just wanted to point to 'profiles' from JF as another possible solution.

<Jennie_> Peter and Janina: please consider adding public comments to government that get mailed in as a part of the use cases

Chuck: After this conversation, we'd agreed we'd work on WCAG 3, but some entity would work on potential WCAG 2.x content.
... wasn't just new criteria

<Fazio> we are pursuing mental health

<Fazio> I would

<mbgower> And me

<bruce_bailey> yes, i volunteered for working on 2.3

<Fazio> TF

<david-macdonald> I could be available once SCs are identified and need help with wording

Chuck: Anyone wanting to join this group, please let us know.

<Chuck> alastair: The group would look at requirements and then we would all be supporting.

Chuck: one of the big discussion points was around TF vs sub-group.

<Fazio> It's more important than a sub group

Chuck: Someone was concerned about the TF, because it is provided resources by W3C, but that is VERY allocated, and sub-group doesn't require as much support.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to propose subgroup moving to taskforce if needed

Rachael: it is quite tight in scope right now, looking for things for 2.3 and then coming back to the group. We could revisit that after 6 months. There are many paths it could take.
... can bridge later.

<Fazio> +1 JF

JF: Just had announcement about LVTF, why would another group have the same footing.
... another group doing that could be the conduit.

<Fazio> JF makes a lot of sense

<Rachael> alastair: We need participation more than anything. 3 people does not a taskforce make. It may not even be sustainable as a subgroup

<Fazio> we could all koin forces

<Fazio> join not koin

<Rachael> ...last time, the majority wanted to focus on 3. We will need others to join that. As far as putting it on equal footing with Low Vision, their focus is likely 3 not 2. They got as much as they thought they could get into 2.x framework

<Rachael> ....low vision as a taskforce isn't just focused on 2.3. The immediate need is finding requirements for 2.3

<Fazio> pretty much I think

Wilco: What status does a sub-group have? Is it more than a random group of people that decided to meet? A TF has things around it, e.g. what they can do. Non of that exists for this type of group.
... It seems like it would more work to setup a sub-group

<Fazio> +1 JF

JF: Clarification, we're talking about setting up a group to find testable statements.
... they should look to fill in both

<PeterKorn> +1 - especially if the task force also thinks about scoring in their testable statement work.

<ChrisLoiselle> I think that I would be integrated in WCAG 3 and WCAG 2, if they are both simultaneously active. I.e. I'm in the Silver subgroup Visual Contrast within Silver , I'm in AGWG, and I'm in the LVTF and pushing efforts forward wherever I can however I can. Open to whatever works but don't want to add to work or do work twice. Agreed to JF on whatever testable statements are , they should be applicable universally , or as best they can be

Fazio: Jeanne explained sub-group to us, the sub-group is loosely defined. It is low on the totem pole.

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that it doesn't work to do both

Chuck: to expand on what david said, subgroup is not formally acknowledged. This has both advantages and disadadvantages.

Alastair: Just responding to John about a taskforce for testable statements. I don't think that works in the short term. Its fine to have a requirement and ACT level test. Once you start looking at SC and techniques, that is all separate work.
... there is no economy of scale. Wilco points out overlap. If you imagine that is the starting point, then the rest of it is separate.

AWK: I want to respond to the characterization that a subgroup is low on a totem pole. Not well defined but still part of teh working group who writes normative specs. Puts it quite high

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 Visual Contrast of Text is a subgroup , of Silver Task force , which is part of AGWG it all moves accessibility forward

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to AWK

AWK: depends on the value Working group places on the output. Not impactful if viewed as not important. Very impactful if the group values the output.

<sajkaj> +1 to awk, recalling that the Media Accessibility User Requirements (MAUR) were developed by a subgroup of the HTML Accessibility Task Force

Chuck: Debate on subgroup and taskforce. Option proposed to start as subgroup and become taskforce.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say where I see we are at.

Chuck: Other point I heard was that there is a lack of resourcing, only 3 volunteers and a supporting role. Not enough to support any entity.

<alastairc> +1, without more participants, it doesn't matter!

<sajkaj> Come to think of it, ARIA started as a subgroup of Protocols and Formats WG

<alastairc> and 2.0!

Detlev: Wondering whether there is any SC waiting at the sidelines. If not and I'm not aware of any pressing. Why do we have to start on this anyway? There are so many loose ends and open ends with 2.2 and 2.1, lack of clarity about exisiting, its worthwhile to tie up those lose ends rather than opening yet another arena if no clear need.
... can anyone point out anything needed?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about Silver use of subgroups

Bruce: I agree there are not that many SC to add to 2.3 if we keep constrained in the same way as 2.1 and 2.2. I propose we think about it as a 2.5 or 2.9. Maintain backwards compatibility but try to figure out how to make the next 2 version shift. Reorganize, address audio description, address common mistaked in or vs and lists, and last I would argue the biggest deficit is 1.3.1. Its a kitchen sink that reads more like a guideline.

<Detlev> JF: Can' they be tailored for 3.=?

Bruce: to much implicity and not explicit.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to discuss suggested 2.3 criteria

<GN015> Could you explain the metaphor of a 'kitchen sink'?

<Wilco> +1 to Bruce's suggestion. Thinking of it as more of a 2.9 seems like a good idea

Alastair: To Detlev's question, do we have new requirements. That is where we started. Minutes from about 4 weeks ago. We were asking and we got 1 possibility from John Kirkwood. In terms of new requirements, we got very little concrete suggestions.

<JF> @Gundala - a mashup of a whole bunch of semi-related ideas. It's a reference to the idea that in a kitchen, there is a drawer or location where all the "misc. stuff" is stored

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to point to MAUR, RAUR, and XAUR as areas for a deeper dive for new testable requirements

Alastair: that would be the focus of the taskforce. Not low visiion or mobile, but looking at other technologies. We don't seem to have a lot. Low vision and COGA are looking at 3.0 because there is more potential there.

JF: I was thinking of the MAUR, RAUR, and XAUR. We've done good work looking at future tech. Can we make requirements around those needs? If it doesn't fit into 2.3 framework, it doesn't change the need.

Then the larger group can focus on 3.

<alastairc> So... who will look at those and try? Need ~10 people to keep it sustainable.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about Silver use of subgroups, nimble to test interest

scribe: we can't put all our focus on that and ignore everything else. So we shift bulk to 3 and the group look at can we identify new requirements and raise the bar.

<Detlev> We will need measurable statements for Silver as well...

Jeanne: Silver has used subgroups as a way to be nimble. Test to see if there is something there. Its been a really good way to get a group of people to put their heads together in a little but somewhat more formal way to see if there is a way to move forwards. I spent time in my previous job spinning up taskforces and its a lot of work. STarting with something nimble and small and then looking at the taskforce is a good path.

Janina: Is small and nimble but very good to scope the work.
... scope what you want to get back from the group.

<Chuck> proposed poll: Sub-Group or Task Force?

<alastairc> Suggest need more participants before TF is even a question

<Chuck> agreed, cart & horse. Understood.

Janina: need to get it approved formally. Subgroups spin up quickly. Taskforces take time. Two subgroup examples: Aria started as a subgroup. I also recall when we worked with the HTML working group to create a taskforce and subgroup that was to go out and create a set of accessibilty user requirements. Was a subgroup. Still had leaders and editor. there was an escalation proceedure.

<Chuck> Rachael: we have 2 things we are talking about. A potential sub-group that answers what we would bring into 2.3, and then a larger question of structure of task forces.

<Chuck> rachael: I think they are different questions, and the overlap is causing confusion.

<PeterKorn> Regrets; need to drop early

<david-macdonald> +1

Sarah: Suggestion that one approach is that we have a taskforce with silver and they are already addressing issues not addressed in 2.2. Can that be the taskforce that surfaces those additions?

<alastairc> We'll email out about that again, but didn't get any response last time.

<JF> I've expressed interest Chuck

Chuck: I had proposed a poll because there is no sense in taking the poll. As Alastair points out, there are not enough people who have volunteered to sustain any group. If you have an interest in pursuing this, let us know. We will keep that list. When we reach enough people who can work on this to make it viable, we will pick this back up.
... We can adjourn.

<Ben_> Thanks all

<laura_> bye

<Makoto> bye all

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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/and use 3.5 /and use 3.5 out of 5 for our ranking scale,/
Succeeded: s/scroing/scoring/
Default Present: JakeAbma, Lauriat_, JF, ChrisLoiselle, jeanne, Rachael, Jennie, Makoto, MelanieP, shadi, Francis_Storr, Rain, sajkaj, JustineP, Ben, AbiJ, Fazio_, jaunita_george, Azlan_, AWK, Laura_Carlson, SuzanneTaylor, Sheri_B-H, bruce_bailey, Detlev, KimD, kathyeng, Wilco, alastairc, Nicaise, jon_avila, Chuck__, david-macdonald, johnkirkwood, Jennie_, Azlan, Fazio, MichaelC, ToddLibby, KarenHerr, AngelaAccessForAll_, PeterKorn, AngelaAccessForAll, Ben_, Raf, juliette_alexandria, sarahhorton, joconnor, MarcJohlic, Sheri_B-H_, johnkirkwood_, MelissaD, kirkwood, morr, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, stevelee, oliverK
Present: JakeAbma, Lauriat_, JF, ChrisLoiselle, jeanne, Rachael, Jennie, Makoto, MelanieP, shadi, Francis_Storr, Rain, sajkaj, JustineP, Ben, AbiJ, Fazio_, jaunita_george, Azlan_, AWK, Laura_Carlson, SuzanneTaylor, Sheri_B-H, bruce_bailey, Detlev, KimD, kathyeng, Wilco, alastairc, Nicaise, jon_avila, Chuck__, david-macdonald, johnkirkwood, Jennie_, Azlan, Fazio, MichaelC, ToddLibby, KarenHerr, AngelaAccessForAll_, PeterKorn, AngelaAccessForAll, Ben_, Raf, juliette_alexandria, sarahhorton, joconnor, MarcJohlic, Sheri_B-H_, johnkirkwood_, MelissaD, kirkwood, morr, Katie_Haritos-Shea, mbgower, stevelee, oliverK, morr4
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Scribes: Detlev, alastairc, Rachael
ScribeNicks: Detlev, alastairc, 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.)