Silver Community Group Teleconference

10 Aug 2018


KimD, jemma, Lauriat, jeanne, LuisG, kirkwood, Charles, AngelaAccessForAll, Jan
jeanne, shawn


Conformance Examples

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aBoQ1HDindVnFk_7Ljp-whpK3zAiqAdgJxsgpqsNpgU/edit#

<jeanne> https://ebay.gitbooks.io/oatmeal/priorities.html

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NlgycSkw_fpdDPHpzhovni6eeMHDCHpCSZCeXt3sm_g/edit#gid=0

<Cyborg> i'd like to contribute feedback on this one too please

<jeanne> Charles: I don't think we should measure feasibility. It gives the impression that accessibility is hard

<jeanne> Shawn: I agree, I think we shouldn't measure that yet. We may have to add it back in later, but let's not start there.

<jeanne> Cy: The testing seems more about generalist tester or a specialist tester

<jeanne> ... The time element of how big a barrier could also be used to motivate people

<jeanne> ... if you did accessibility early on, what are fast and generalist? If it cost more because you did it later than it shouldn't be awarded more points.

<jeanne> ... I am concerned about the people being excluded because their disability isn't a P1 barrier.

<jeanne> ... it says that their disability isn't as important as the people who have physical disabilities that are a barrier.

<jeanne> ... "the barrier that makes a completion of a task impossible or cumbersome. COmbine P1 and P2

<jeanne> ... then P3 becomes whether completion of the task becomes difficult or fatiguing.

<jeanne> ... How do you test a conformance model? One way to test it after we get the Conformance Model a little better developed is to ask people with disabilities to recommend what is a good product and what is a bad product. Then take our model and run it through testing those sites and seeing how well the COnformance Model does.

<jeanne> Shawn: There is a lot of good ideas here. I think it should be about how well people accomplish tasks.

<jeanne> ... I don't want to discard the idea out of hand

<jeanne> ... I think we want to say more of how it blocks against different personas.

<jeanne> ... it overlaps with "declaration of conformance"

Usability testing plan

shawn: we can start with what do we want to get out of the usability testing and then what types should we do? but it depends on the kinds of things we need to learn
... there is a lot we can do in terms of cognitive walk throughs. we can pick key types and do some walkthroughs to identify barriers for a given stakeholder without recruiting 10 of them

jeanne: right now we want to be getting feedback on what we have
... then move to the point of doing stakeholder walkthroughs

shawn: before sending out for feedback, we do walkthroughs and heuristic evaluation to identify "obvious" things

<Charles> so, the post-usability testing plan should account for at least: remediation and possible re-testing; publishing analysis / report of testing; publishing final prototype for public comment;

shawn: I tend to look at it from my perspective with my biases/ignorances...how would the manual test wrangler/manger say about something. I can put that hat on and shift my perspective. It could lead to some good discoveries; not the same as having the person doing it, but trying to get the prototypes ready for real srutiny

<Lauriat> +1 to Charles' comments.

Charles: in an ideal scenario you go into testing with a working thing and learn something about it

<Cyborg_> Are we talking about user testing the conformance prototype, Flavor or the plain language prototype?

<Cyborg_> and are we talking about user testing with developers, PWD, or other groups?

shawn: yes

<Cyborg_> So one test to test all three prototypes at one time, or different groups for different tests?

<Cyborg_> So this is some kind of amalgamated prototype for testing?

shawn: different tests for different prototypes or it confuses what you're getting results on

jeanne: hopefully we'll have more prototypes for tests
... encourage other people to submit prototypes; just write it up in an email, doc, etc. and send it to us
... we need things for people to test and get feedback
... meeting with folks at TPACon Oct 22
... will want to show stuff at that point, so it's a hard deadline for some things
... who can start working on preparation we'll need to be ready when the prototypes are ready
... need people working on prototypes and people working on usability testing
... shawn, maybe we should figure out who wants to specialize/work on what by Oct 22 which is very quickly approaching

<Cyborg_> I'd like to work on developing a prototype for meta-guidance on meaningful involvement of PWD

<Cyborg_> does that count?

jeanne: you can work on anything you want to

charles: it could double as recruiting requirements for usability testing to make sure we have PWD participating

<Cyborg_> great re: recruiting requirements, yes

<Charles> I would love to do both plan and prototype. However, my time is very constrained before 9/11.

<KimD> +1 I like that idea, Cyborg

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/08/10 18:59:18 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
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/CPAC /TPAC/
Present: KimD jemma Lauriat jeanne LuisG kirkwood Charles AngelaAccessForAll Jan
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: LuisG
Inferring Scribes: LuisG
Found Date: 10 Aug 2018
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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]