<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

RdR: work for Dutch government, work on European legislation, part of Maturity Model Sub-Group

Approach to publishing WCAG 3 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/approach/results

AC: no new ideas from the group to discuss
... wish to publish often is a goal, also be careful on what we publish so we can defend what we do
... question: how do we get the right content in a new draft
... thinking on a fast and a slower track for internal / wider review
... Jeanne want to continue with approach as discussed with W3C

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to offer edit to "fulfil" and to

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about TR vs Ed and to talk about review opportunity, outreach, and deadlines

MC: TR is a more visible place, where the editors draft may not be, we don't have to use TR, but it's a bit harder for editors draft

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about recent W3C staff input to the survey

MC: we need to publish on regular basis for momentum

<AWK> +AWK

JF: we use Github, I don't see why this would be lack of momentum, it's out there
... the snapshots every quarter, what do we communicate there?

AC: it signals 'more available for review'

JF: like to see the diff, so we can spot the differences

<Jennie> +1 to JF: demonstrating progress can be done differently than having something ready for review

JF: some big questions are not tackled yet, for instance Conformance

<JF> +1 to Melanie

MP: we're putting car before the horse by adding to the draft

<Detlev> +1 to Melanie's point

MP: publishing more content takes the focus away from the high level framework

AC: the foundational aspects don't seem to go forwards as much as adding to extra guidelines

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to respond to JF and to say +1 to diff, review mature content

AC: the proposal was to catch up faster, also internal with the publishing

MC: the diff JF was talking about seems a good solution, possible
... the publishing frequency is another question than the design / framework question

<AWK> 6.2.6 from the Process document: "A Working Group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group. If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a specification, a Working Group should publish a revised Working Draft, whose status section should indicate reasons for the lack of change."

MC: some groups auto-publish to TR, so editors draft is almost always the TR version

<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#revising-wd

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to support regular schedule and evaluation of critical mass for each

JS: best to stick to processes of W3C, not to wonder off too much, might get us into trouble

AWK: previously as I remember, the new editors draft always was a consensus in the group of different ways / approaches / ideas, and after our internal consensus get it in the draft

<bruce_bailey> fwiw, i heard MC say we COULD auto-publish ED to TR space -- but i am not hearing anyone say that is a good idea

<JF> +1 to AWK

AWK: if the WG has issues with possible content, we might want to fix that before publishing first

<bruce_bailey> +1 to AWK that there is a risk of burning good will on publishing too often

DF: the foundational clarity as Melanie mentioned is very important first I think, not sure if it's me or others also just don't ask the question, but it feels a bit queasy

<JF> +1 to Detlev. Open Issues - conformance: 28, requirements: 32, scoring: 27, testing: 18 = 105 issues

<MelanieP> +1 to Detlev

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say wg made a resolution to create more guidelines

<Detlev> -q

Chuck: we need to draw a line, do we want to tackle content or process

Jeanne: we're only moving migrating content, not adding new material
... we're waiting for 2.2 being done and get everything ready
... but we need deadlines

DmD: identify with Andrew strongly, specially that the public is the higher authority
... feel like a number of us don't understand the Silver document

<AWK> +1 to the current organization of WCAG 3.0 being hard to understand

DmD: it's not clear on what exactly is what in relationship to outcomes, methods, conformance etc.

<ChrisLoiselle> FYI, for reference https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#approximate-mapping-of-wcag-2-and-wcag-3-documentation

DmD: we need good consensus, regroup and maybe take a step down to align

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say 2.1 on faster turnaround than 3.0, so strategies for review may differ and to say it should normally be viewed as a danger sign if we don´t have new

MC: strategy may differ from the past, worry if we don't have new content, we're not getting anywhere

JF: completely for milestones, but proces and content is intertwined, that makes it hard right now

<JF> Open Issues - conformance: 28, requriements: 32, scoring: 27, testing: 18 = 105 issues

JF: concern is we just continue on the same path, we don't tackle the difficult questions about the framework
... let's identify a date, but also that we have concrete adjustments to publish including tackling the open issues

AG: we should concentrate solely on the Conformance model first, needs to be adopted for the public

<alastairc> acl alastairc

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask how we approve updates more quickly and to ask about speeding approval, and time vs milestones. Both are clarity of changes.

<AWK> +1 to figuring out conformance

<Ryladog> Cant getny audio to work. I think we need to clarify the FRamework of this

<Ryladog> stANDARD

<JF> +1 to Detlev

<AWK> Support a goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of methods/outcomes, followed by time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

DF: we had a assignment at MATF TF, seems a bit waste of time to work on those templates, it didn't feel right to fill in, was the bit the world upside down

<alastairc> So question: How many guidelines do we need to properly assess the conformance (and scoring)?

DF: how it fits within a framework wasn't clear, we need better planning on high level

+1 to Detlev, have seen this in other groups too

AG: the conformance model and guidelines / content needs to be separated, you never want the to be dependant on each other, will take years before you can start if you do it that way

+1 to JF and AG, don't think we need the content before thinking of / working out a conformance model

RM: we're intending on working on the Conformance model, looking at current model of 2.x, ACT rules etc.

<Lauriat> Having audio issues, but wanted to point to the high-level map that we did a while back that a couple of people have described. We could, if it'd help, add drafted placeholder guidelines for each of those grouped WCAG 2.x SCs in the draft, and revisit once we've gone through our writing process for real. That'd give the shape of guidance to come that several have noted might help?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that we could use 2.x to run tests on possible conformance models

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to point to our higher level planning Detlev described: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that I don't see WCAG as separable as software can be.

<Detlev> scribe: Detlev

Chuck: agrees process & content are intertwined - wants to get some decisions regarding process in the survey

<Zakim> MelanieP, you wanted to say that work on the conformance models can be done in parallel with the high level work of defining Guidelines and Outcomes. It's the Methods and such that

Melanie: we can work on conformance models in parallel to defining content

DmD: Focus as much as possible on conformance - the substantial bit with WCAG 3 would be a better, more suitable conformance model
... it is th eelephant in the room that needs to be addressed before next WG publication

<JF> +1 to DMD From the outside view, the most significant change to WCAG 3 is a proposal for graduated 'scores', yet the how to achieve that is the big open question

<AWK> AWK: Support a goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of methods/outcomes, followed by time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

<alastairc> 1) Publish the current work (new guideline)

<alastairc> 2) A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of methods/outcomes

<alastairc> 3) Time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

alastairc: not mena tas opitions, more steps

<Rachael> +1 to staged approach outlined above

<garrison> +1

<JF> for time-based, could we discuss every 4 months as an option?

<jennifer_> 0

<AWK> Remind me what the new guideline is please?

<alastairc> Error (something)

Sarah: It may be impossible to discuss publicatino sched without talking about the process - there simply isn't enough engagement right no wto predict when things will be ready

<Lauriat_> +1 to sarahhorton

Sarah: initial involment fell off in the Errors TF
... difficult to present that as consensus due to too little involvement

<Rain> 2 - the COGA TF is working with Silver on two templates and we feel that it is critical to have these well thought out before bringing drafts forward

<AWK> If involvement falls off it may be that there is too much being asked of participants

Sarah: who is that "we" who's going to do the work - then set realistic publication schedule

alastairc: was discussed with Jeanne and Shawn - need to get a handle on how many people will be involved

<Chuck> Proposed steps: 1. Publish the current work (new guideline) 2. A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of methods/outcomes 3. Time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

AWK: There is a lot going on

alastairc: Can ypou people on the call contribute a couple of hours per week?
... A bit strched at the moment

JF: Respond to Sarah - hesitancy as to getting involved partly smaller groups - then the big unanswerd questions makes it hard to work on more granuar stuff because fundamental changes may invalidate it - points to the need to have a bigger discussion, then when that is resolved (conformance model) agreed, involvement will pick up

alastairc: So JF do you agree that there is a goal-based milestone based on conformance?

JF: yes, absolutely

alastairc: not all milestones fit into the same model - the next one is having something to show to get public feedback

<Ryladog> I think it is not just the Conformnce Model but the entire planned working framework

Jake: Adds to what Sarah and others said: many were trying to figure out structure of Silver and fill out templates - there were differences across groups where people have different understandings - like logical relationships between outcomes and methods
... some guidelines lack that richness and sometimes even don't fit that model, so people get tired having to change their worl to make things fit - we may not need a complete overview but a rough understanding of outcomes, methods, user needs, functional categories - without that there is little common ground between guidelines
... we need agreements on key terms before filling in templates

<JF> But are they Alastair?

alastairc: understand we need a better understanding on conformance model due to knock-on effects

<PeterKorn> +1

JenniferS: Without conformance model in place all the content work feels loose (switches in the dark) even more confusing as WCAG 2.2 is moving forward and nit complete - so we need to find agreement on the conformance model to work to the same basics - it feels frustrating, trying to learn for a year, not seeing so much progress. This is important work - we need good management alignment now to move forward

alastairc: We have a good next step as to publishing, good feedback to have more in place before starting people to contribute to the guidelines / content

Rachael: Can we get resolutions now?

alastairc: Regarding publishing we had:

<alastairc> Proposed steps: 1. Publish the current work (new guideline) 2. A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of methods/outcomes 3. Time based-milestones as we make the set of guidelines more complete.

<Chuck> b. Proposed RESOLUTION: adopt Proposed steps: 1. Publish the current work (new guideline) 2. A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of methods/outcomes 3. Time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

<JF> Step 1 - when?

alastairc: 2 as a reference point to create guidlines

1 was planned for September

<Chuck> Proposed RESOLUTION: adopt Proposed steps: 1. Publish the current work (new guideline) in September 2. A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of methods/outcomes 3. Time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

alastairc: Then tackle the points raised by JFs presentation

JF: There are many outstanding issues in the github, is anything resolved by the new publishing of WD
... we don't want to burn goodwill

Rachael: If we move to publication we need to look at the issues and try to put them to CfC

<Chuck> Proposed RESOLUTION: adopt Proposed steps: 1. Publish the current work (new guideline) in September 2. A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of draft methods/outcomes 3. Time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

AlistairG: would feel more comfortable with high level in a draft, we will not need all methids in detail

<MelanieP> Methods are too deep - we need a complete set of Guidelines and Outcomes first

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if there happen be substantial coments, should those be paused

alastairc: We have 6 guidelines with some level of outomes and methods - that is necessary to evaluate the conformance model, otherwise it's too abstract

<AWK> Until we know what is normative it is hard to specify what pieces need to be included or not

Bruce: an internal gov has worked on comments on the first PWD - should they wait till Sept. or ask them to post them now?

<AWK> Accept feedback when it is ready, IMO

<Lauriat_> I vote to take those comments now, no reason to hold off on feedback.

<JF> +1 to AWK

alastairc: They should go ahead and post them

<Lauriat_> +1 to AWK. We'll get more through other routes as well.

<sajkaj> Thanking BB for insisting on github issues!

alastairc: Will be looking at critical mass - what we have now may be reconfigured in light of an updated conformance model

<Chuck> Proposed RESOLUTION: adopt Proposed steps: 1. Publish the current work (new guideline) in September 2. A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of draft methods/outcomes 3. Time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

<Chuck> Proposed RESOLUTION: Focus on conformance model over the next 6 months

<JF> +1 to Chiuck

<Chuck> Chiuk likes his new name

<MelanieP> Where does defining a complete set of Guidelines and Outcomes fit into this?

alastairc: Milestone 2 is a new conformance model published as part of the new WD

Peter: New things besides new guidelines? Anything else? We have been discussing user-generated content...

Rachael: Yes, user generated content, one new guideline, updated explainer

<Chuck> Proposed RESOLUTION: adopt Proposed steps: 1. Publish the current work (new guideline plus user generated comment, and explainer and note) in September 2. A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of draft methods/outcomes 3. Time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

Rachael: Moving forward with publication, and the process for that

Melanie: Where does stepping bacl to get a full view of guidelines and outcomes fits in to thid?

alastairc: probably at the end of 2, start of 3

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#approximate-mapping-of-wcag-2-and-wcag-3-documentation FYI

Melanie: Misunderstandign the taxonomy - why are we not looking at the full scope of guidelines and outcomes before lookeing at methods?

<Rachael> I think # 2 should be revised to say guidelines

<jennifer_> +1 to Melanie - completing guidelines before beginning methods.

<Ryladog> Framework

Melanie: we need the bigger picture to see it is consistent and rational

<Lauriat_> Melanie: I earlier noted a way that we can do exactly that, using the mapping document to draft that scope of guidance, if that'd help?

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#differences-from-wcag-2

Shawn: We can do that via the mapping document with placeholder guidelines to give us the scope and general shape

<Zakim> Lauriat_, you wanted to ask more explicitly whether this would require a full, complete conformance model before we publish any additional draft?

Shawn: we can then go through to writing the real guidance bsing it on user needs

<ChrisLoiselle> Guideline - High-level, plain-language content used to organize outcomes. See Guidelines in the Explainer. Here's the link to the explainer https://w3c.github.io/silver/explainer/#guidelines-structure

Shawn: want to ask more explicitly whether this means having to have a full agreed conformance model before publisheing the next WD

<PeterKorn> +1 to idea of proposed conformance model, perhaps with "here are plusses and minuses we see, and questions we have", vs. trying to be close to perfect.

Shawn: seems too big of a milestone - we should have a proposed incremental conformance model that can be then tested

JF: haveput forward an alternative proposal without methods, just tests - addressing some comments wanting to reduce the amount of manual intervention
... guidelines should set the expectation without necessarily defining particular methods
... in my proposal, there would be another mechanism to address that need - methods might not be the right approach

<ChrisLoiselle> Currently a test is : Test : Mechanism to evaluate implementation of a method.

alastairc: there will be knock-on effects - not precluding such changes, will depend on discussions in step 2

<alastairc> Proposed RESOLUTION: Adopt Proposed steps:

<alastairc> 1. Publish the current work (new guideline plus user generated comment, and explainer and note) in September

<alastairc> 2. A goal-based milestone related to conformance and some critical mass of draft guidelines/outcomes

<alastairc> 3. Create resources & arrange meetings for creating guidelines & materials

<alastairc> 4. Move to a time based-milestones as we make the set of criteria more complete.

AWK: Agree with Shawn substantially - whatever conformance mode lwe come up with may niot be final but should be more than a kernel of an idea

<Chuck> +1 to "serious contender"

the model should be a serious contender

alastairc: After planned discussions, what can we agree to go out for public review? could be 2 different modes to get feedback on, could be an improvement on the last one
... revised steps

<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the conformance model won't be perfect but it needs to be enough that we know how it works with requirements that are developed.

Rachael: step 2 may be two different models for comment, rather than an agreed one

<PeterKorn> +1 to flexibility, but then we can revisit our decision at any time. I still like having a regularly publishing deadline expectation.

Wilco: can you clarify 3rd item?

<Rachael> Rachael: may want it to be “milestone(s)”

alastairc: Point was that it is hard to make guidelines therefore we need a better proces sfor working on material
... other comments?

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Jaunita_george> +1

<JF> +1

<JenniferC> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<garrison> +1

<laura> +1

<Rain> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<jennifer_> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Wilco> +1

<AWK> +1

<PeterKorn> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

0 since I'd see more commitment to addressing issues on github before re-publisheing

<Jennie> +1

RESOLUTION: adopt Proposed steps: 1. Publish the current work (new guideline plus user generated comment, and explainer and note) in September. 2. One (or more) goal-based milestones related to conformance and some critical mass of draft guidelines/outcomes.

<alastairc> 3. Create resources & arrange meetings for creating guidelines & materials. 4. Move to a time based-milestones as we make the set of guidelines more complete.

Other issues

alastairc: John was asking for specific references to public comments - yes if issues should be addressed so we can close them

JF: We got many open issues, as part of the publishing activity we should run through the isseus and see which ones are actually closed by the new update

alastairc: will check
... (going through issues listed in the survey)

<david-macdonald> +1

alastairc: Jake's issues in survey - should be addressed as we tackle conformance model update
... readign Wilco's concerns from survey

<bruce_bailey> Good enought for the call notes, but minor editorial:

<bruce_bailey> Move to a time based-milestones as we make the set of guidelines more complete --> Move to time-based cadence as we make the set of guidelines more complete

alastairc: see how complex creation and maintenance of content in the new model is going to be

<ShawnT> +1 on the Github discussions

alastairc: the initial proposal included suggestion of a fast-track approach (blog) - now superseeded - does not work so well in WCAG 2.X but might be useful now - we don't have blog now - we might use github discussion - you can reference issues etc.

Janina: We have agreed user-generated content which addresses some issue raised to the FPWD - so we could comment and keep the conversation going, does this address your concern?

alastairc: good to update the issue in any case
... if someone in the AGWG would know what has been updated this other format would help

<Jennie> Recommend distinction between updates for non AG members/public, then a way for them to follow work without using Github

Janina: There are no explicit requirements for editor#s drafts

Peter: More concerned about the quality of interaction - we should reach out to them to say: in the editor#s draft we have made such-and-such changes, we would like your feedback - it does not matter so much in which format the communication is provided

<Lauriat> +1 to PeterKorn on proactive outreach to specific stakeholders, in addition to generally making things available. We have a stakeholder map for exactly that purpose and should make better use of it.

<JF> +1 to janina

Janina: The concern to do this in editor's fraft is that it is unclear what will survive

<ChrisLoiselle> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pulse/monthly and https://github.com/w3c/silver/pulse/monthly offer such updates

Janina: Comments on ideals that may not survive a week is not the right format

Peter: We should reach out, perhaps not in the editor's draft

alastairc: The issue thread is probably the best place - a separate point is knowing: what has changed?

<Jennie> +1 to Alastair, especially for those that have great interest, but are not able to use Github

JF: Whats the diff? is what people will want to see easily

<kirkwood> +! agreed on outside of Github ecosystem

alastairc: explanation nees to be human

<Rachael> Thank you!

<ShawnT> Thank you!

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/some group update TR/some groups auto-publish to TR/
Succeeded: s/John substanially/Shawn substantially/
Default Present: AlastairC, JakeAbma, ShawnT, Chuck, PeterKorn, JF, sajkaj, Detlev, Jennie, Lauriat, nicaise, sarahhorton, garrison, MelanieP, Rain, kirkwood, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Aimee, stevelee_, MichaelC, MarcJohlic, AWK, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Joshue, jenniferS_, KarenHerr, OliverK, Wilco, jennifer_, Jaunita_george, bruce_bailey, ChrisLoiselle, Raf, david-macdonald
Present: AlastairC, JakeAbma, ShawnT, Chuck, PeterKorn, JF, sajkaj, Detlev, Jennie, Lauriat, nicaise, sarahhorton, garrison, MelanieP, Rain, kirkwood, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, Aimee, stevelee_, MichaelC, MarcJohlic, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Joshue108, jenniferS_, KarenHerr, OliverK, Wilco, jennifer_, Jaunita_george, bruce_bailey, ChrisLoiselle, Raf, david-macdonald
Regrets: MichaelG, Azlan
Found Scribe: JakeAbma
Inferring ScribeNick: JakeAbma
Found Scribe: Detlev
Inferring ScribeNick: Detlev
Scribes: JakeAbma, Detlev
ScribeNicks: JakeAbma, Detlev

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.)