<Ben_Tillyer> Unfortunately cannot scribe today, joined from mobile phone

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

New members and topics

Rachael: first topic is new members and topics. Any new members or members in new role?
... Welcome Azlan.

<azlan> scribe+ Azlan

Rachael: Any topics to get on agenda?

Announcements

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

TPAC

<jon_avila> Do we need to register for TPAC to come to remote AG meetings?

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/register/tpac2022/registrants

<azlan> Rachel: Agenda is starting to be formed for TPAC. Ye you need to register for remote meetings

<azlan> Fee for remote registration is notably less than in person

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2022/09/TPAC/registration.html#fees

It should be your W3C signing

signin

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about the early bird rate

<azlan> shawn: Asks about the early bird rate

<azlan> MichaelC_: Early bird rate is for the first four registrants per compnay

<azlan> bruce_bailey_: Is it possible to drop in for specific sessions

<azlan> MichaelC_: Would ask to register prefer not ad hoc drop in

<MichaelC_> mailto:[email protected]

<azlan> Ben_Tillyer: Asks about switching from in person to virtual

<azlan> janina: Confirms that rebates will be provided if a participant switches from in person registration to virtual

<azlan> mbgower: the list linked above only includes in person registrants

Subgroup Check In https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki#subgroups

<azlan> jeanne: Been filling out the framework document in preparation for AGWG next week. Considering past comments from the larger group.

I can give an update on our TPAC planning subgroup, even though not listed.

<azlan> Makoto: Week 3 meeting was today finalising the goals and will poresent pros and cons of two options - to keep accessibility supported or not. Will document some examples - how they have been addressing the concept in reality.

<Makoto> Our working document - “Accessibility Supported” in WCAG 2 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XxzwsgWZSDh2EDqTag-nYfrqAT3b6Glpu8DGbVpTd9M/

<azlan> Francis_Storr: We walked through an issue severity worksheet and now have a document that lists the methods and tests along with some areas. These have been scored and will continue to build that out.

<sarahhorton> Issue severity worksheet (in progress): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MEdnI4CvrTlq1843MZfWLaIBGmoGXXQPpUOhEY1NgV4/edit#gid=1547267797

<azlan> shadi: Continuing to work on test types adding examples. This week debating the first two types if they are the base types and the others build on that. Hope to have an interim report on the 16th

<azlan> ch

<azlan> Chuck: TPAC planning leadership team is working to maximise productivity where many will be participating in person. Plan to announce a schedule for those that cannot attend full time.

Protocols pull requests https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2027-07-28-Evaluating-Procedures/handler

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2027-07-28-Evaluating-Procedures/results

<azlan> Rachael: proposals for test and conformance sections. The test section is ready for review

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluating-procedures-proposal/guidelines/index.html#outcome-implementation-procedures

<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluating-procedures-proposal/guidelines/index.html#procedural-tests

<azlan> MichaelC: Made some typo edits. The majority of the work in is "Outcome implementation procedures"

<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluating-procedures-proposal/guidelines/index.html#outcome-implementation-procedures

<azlan> MichaelC: ...continues to present the document

<jeanne> +1 for an omnibus

<azlan> The examples are rough drafts to begin conversation

<azlan> Rachael: Talks through comments and concerns raised in the questionnaire

<azlan> maryjom: created a doc to go into the questions a little further. Will send the doc to the chairs list

Add "Evaluating Procedures" Proposal into testing section (replacing procedures) as Exploratory

<azlan> jaunita_george: maybe we can speak with jennifer to resolve any conflicts? Will take lead

<azlan> Chuck: has a question for Jennifer . Would like to see both proposals advance. Further conversation necessary with Jennifer.

<azlan> MichaelC: If implementation and evaluation section is confusing that is a problem. Would love to find clarification and would love input form anybody that can help. Can some of these be resolved during the exploratory phase?

<azlan> GN015: would like further clarification

<azlan> Rachael: we have space in the meeting. We can ask the groups to rework and come back for approval. Or we can put in a placeholder. Or the third option is to not add it

<Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) Add as placeholder 2) Add as exploratory but continue to work 3) Don't add until rework 4) Don't add

<Rachael> We don't publish placeholder and exploratory to the working draft

<Jennie> +1 to Michael's idea

<Rachael> Straw Poll: 1) Add as placeholder 2) Add as exploratory but continue to work 3) Don't add until rework 4) Work in meeting 5) Don't add

<mbgower> 2

<Ben_Tillyer> 2

<maryjom> 2

<jon_avila> 4

<jeanne> 2

<Lauriat> 2

3

<GreggVan> 2

<jaunita_george> 2

<Rachael> 2

<Jennie> 2

<GN015> 3 or 5

<azlan> 2

<GreggVan> 2 or 3

<MelanieP> 3 or 1

<sarahhorton> 3

<laura> 2 or 3

<Detlev> not sure

<kirkwood> 2

<Makoto> 2

<ToddL> 2

<azlan> Rachael: Seeing pretty good support for option 2.

<Rachael> Can everyone accept adding it with a committment to bring it back in 3 weks

<maryjom> +1

<Rachael> Can everyone accept adding it with a committment to bring it back in 3 weeks

+1

<jaunita_george> +1

<azlan> Chuck: Do not object to 2. Would like to talk with Jennifer.

<mbgower> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Jennie> @Michael - I may be able to help as well.

<GN015> +0.1 can live with it, but am not happy with it

<laura> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Makoto> +1

RESOLUTION: Add as exploratory but bring it back in 3 weeks with updates to terminology and the editor's note

+1

<jeanne> +1

<Jennie> +1

<iankersey> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

<Lauriat> +1

How is this survey process for exploratory content going?

<azlan> GreggVan: have trouble tracking where concerns are raised

<Jennie> +1 go GN - having a separate box for typos separates the severity of issues

<azlan> GN015: asks about raising typos

<azlan> Rachael: will add a survey question for typos

<azlan> typos can be sent to editors or chairs to be resolved

<jeanne> +1

<iankersey> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Jennie> +1

<azlan> Is the group comfortable with the process?

<ToddL> +1

<michael> 0

<azlan> +1

<MichaelC> Leadership team: [email protected]

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> Strawpoll on comfort level with new process.

<Ben_Tillyer> 0 not used to process yet but that's a fault with me, not the process

<maryjom> 0

<Makoto> +1

<GreggVan> WCAG Chairs <[email protected]> ,

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/communication#email

<GreggVan> forget WCAG editors <[email protected]> IT NO LONGER EXISTS

<GreggVan> WITH OUR CHANGE TO AG

<Francis_Storr> scribe: Francis_Storr

Categorization exercise https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1KQY7f__Yvpexhavj2_nql--Ng0inxMsv

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ozuzzJWfGI_-oIFcGNLyg-WRfYXw89-z/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=108128412827946725597&rtpof=true&sd=true

RM: we've been working on categorizing exercise.
... we're working through next steps. It's not perfect and we're not aiming for it to be perfect. We want to better understand the data and the SC that we have now.
... we need to organize how we talk about how we create the next step of the guidelines.
... we have an initial breakdown of the silver taskforce work
... we are not aiming for perfection because we have a writing process that people will use. Our goal isn't to create the guidelines
... are people feeling comfortable with what we're trying to do?

<jon_avila> If we could share all of the links to the Google docs where we can put in comments that would help.

GV: people can't make all of the meetings because of time differences, work, etc. Could we set up mini-discussion lists where people could go to asynchronously to work on issues?

RM: the short answer at the moment is yes but I want to come back to it later

<Chuck> I have noted it down, and love Gregg's idea

RM: we wanted to better understand what groupings of content could be merged
... we want to get feedback on this today
... JS I did a quick analysis of what the groups would look like if we grouped them by functional need.
... there's a lot of different ways we could do this, this is just one

<jeanne> Regroup by functional need https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ozuzzJWfGI_-oIFcGNLyg-WRfYXw89-z/edit#gid=1712047213

RM: I took a breakdown of the functional needs and started at the new column and worked backwards.
... it pulled together the SCs that have similar functional needs and addressed similar types of people
... you can take a look and see where things landed and what they landed with. This could be useful for us.

<jon_avila> Background audio could affect those with specific types of cognitive disabilities as well. Some of the items like non-text don't mention limited vision - but people with limited vision need access to alternatives as well.

RM: we're going to have a number of different ways to re-group the data and look at it differently. This could give us a way to migrate the WCAG 2 criteria.

<GN015> It's definitely very interesting.

GV: I think this is really useful for tagging not grouping. It's really useful for understanding the different SCs have impact further than the immediate on they first think of.

<jon_avila> I agree with Gregg.

GV: this would be a huge educational advantage

<Rachael> +1 to thinking about grouping not fully grouping

DF: I think this is a very good starting point to think about groupings. One think that would improve grouping and sorting would be to make a distinction from low vision from blindness.

<GN015> +1 to Detlev

<jon_avila> I think we need to account for visual accessibility and non-visual accessibility - but I agree that the needs overlap.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that IMO we should not use the higher level of functional need.

JS: I want to go back and experimenting with the data. I think we're going to get more nuanced analysis.

<Detlev> @Jeanne: fair enough!

JS: I agree with Gregg that this is going to be fabulous for tagging but it's also going to be important for how we approach the guidelines.
... we have a number of proposals on how the guidelines could be better organized, this work will help us work on that.
... kudos to Rachael who put in a ton(ne) of work on clearing up the data.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to ask "detlev can you post link to your org -- and perhaps replace Vision with Low/no/color vision to show spectrum within categories

RM: I'll email the group the content and the raw data. I strongly encourage people to look at it.

<Detlev> @Gregg - not sure what link you want me to post

<jeanne> Gregg, it's an word doc. I'll send it to Detlev

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say didn't each person doing the individual SC exercise already do this?

MG: This is maybe a way to confirm how consistent the recent migration exercises have been.

DV: would it make sense to have something like "programmatically available" which might be a useful way to bring things together that we struggle with in evaluations?

JA: if we have comments or suggestions for categories that might have been missed, where can we do that?

RM: we discussed whether or not to do a validation stage with this. The data is very rough.

<ToddL> I have to get to another meeting. Thanks all.

<jeanne> Folder with a detailed breadown of each SC https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t9H47G5gIUUSONx-Aly3UGCfQ7G0NI_V

RM: I think the goal is to send round the document so people have it.
... I think the best place to send feedback is to the AG Plan address
... I would love to hear from people who haven't commented before we close the topic today.

JS: I added a link to IRC that has a document for each SC
... if you have insights on detailed perspectives on the content in the documents in the shared folder, leave them in the documents

CA: the chairs are trying to make this process as inclusive as possible

RM: feel empowered to play with this data.

Discuss subgroup asynchronous participation

RM: we do have time to talk about this item
... not everyone can be in every conversation, and we recognize that
... we're hoping that there are diversity of thought will work with these smaller subgroups
... we're hoping that there is diversity of thought in these smaller subgroups
... you can also participate by contributing to subgroup work where subgroups post links to shared documents
... you can use the Silver wiki to follow the work of subgroups

GV: when the minutes are posted, using the name of the subgroup in square brackets would be helpful.

<Chuck> No objections, +1

<jeanne> Some of us are already doing it

<Chuck> Francis: That would be useful. If you wanted to be more specific (lists a specific approach)

<Rachael> format: [Subgroup name] Meeting minutes *Date* week *#*

<Chuck> Francis: Subgroup in square brackets, then followed by most important words for theme, such as "meeting minutes"

<bruce_bailey_> +1 to putting [subgroup name] in subject line for listserv postings

<kirkwood> +1

RM: we can add that to the subgroup handbook

<jeanne> +1

<Ben_tillyer2> +1

<maryjom_> +1

<Chuck> subgroup in square brackets, theme, date

<azlan> +1

<bruce_bailey_> +1 for meaningful email subject lines

<bruce_bailey_> -1 to detailed expectations for subject line

<Chuck> subgroup in square brackets, theme, date, week #

<jaunita_george> +1

BB: I don't think we need to be too worried about having lots of detail. Having the subgroup name in brackets would be useful.

<GN015> +1 to detailed subject line, specifically subgroup name

<kirkwood> +1 to weeks left

<bruce_bailey_> +1 to recent emphasis on count down -- it has helped with focus !!!

(If time permits) Review of future agenda topics

GV: using "weeks left" instead of "week" might get people to pay more attention to minutes.

CA: we're going to pursue getting external speakers for AGWG meetings, but after TPAC.

<laura> Great, thank you!

CA: we are constantly looking at the suggested future agenda items

<Rachael> aclk bruce_bailey_

<Chuck> +1 to figure it out outside of meeting

<bruce_bailey_> as owner of a domain with hyphen it is bad

<bruce_bailey_> accessdashboard.gov

<bruce_bailey_> www.access-board.gov

RM: any other topics before we close for today?
... thanks for everyone's time today. Have a great week.

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/Add add/Add as/
Succeeded: s/ WCAG editors <[email protected]>//
Succeeded: s/them/theme/
Default Present: alastairc, chuck, janina, wilco, GreggV, Jeanne, Francis, Ben_Tillyer, jon_avila, iankersey, Lauriat, ShawnT, Makoto_, maryjom, sarahhorton, shadi, StefanS, kirkwood, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Laura_Carlson, AWK, jweismantel, JF, mbgower, Jen_G, .75, ToddL, Azlan, SuzanneTaylor, MelanieP, laura, GN, Rachael, Jennie, Francis_Storr, joweismantel, MichaelC, Fazio, Makoto, Peter_Bossley, Detlev, jaunita_george, GreggVan, bruce_bailey_
Present: alastairc, chuck, janina, wilco, GreggV, Jeanne, Francis, Ben_Tillyer, jon_avila, iankersey, Lauriat, ShawnT, Makoto_, maryjom, sarahhorton, shadi, StefanS, kirkwood, Katie_Haritos-Shea, Laura_Carlson, AWK, jweismantel, JF, mbgower, Jen_G, .75, ToddL, Azlan, SuzanneTaylor, MelanieP, laura, GN, Rachael, Jennie, Francis_Storr, joweismantel, MichaelC, Fazio, Makoto, Peter_Bossley, Detlev, jaunita_george, GreggVan, bruce_bailey_, GN015
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Found Scribe: Francis_Storr
Inferring ScribeNick: Francis_Storr
Scribes: Chuck, Francis_Storr
ScribeNicks: Chuck, Francis_Storr

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


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.)