Silver Community Group Teleconference

06 Nov 2018


AngelaAccessForAll, Lauriat, LuisG, Makoto, kirkwood, jeanne, Cyborg, KimD


Lauriat: First thing to talk about is the Requirements. We have a chick and egg problem. We want to get the Requirements in the general right direction, but we still have open questions saying they're not sure how it would work.
... so we want some more solid prototyping done of the conformance model done first
... difficulty there is in defining how much needs to be done before taking it back to the working group
... we need to take a look at the Requirements and make a decision

<Lauriat> Link to the current open issues in github: https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues

Lauriat: this link goes to all open issues; not all about requirements, but several about requirements

<Cyborg> just reading now about lawsuits involving WCAG in there; does anyone know where to find out about those lawsuits?

Jeanne: We should pick another existing Success Criterion and write it from the ground up, from the test up, and include tests that are more innovative and flexible format.

Lauriat: I know the usability evaluation test has the sticking point of many of us not having the ability to put it together
... who should we reach out to for that

<Cyborg> which SC were you thinking of? one from COGA?

Lauriat: That would be fantastic. Ideally one from COGA, one from Mobile, one from Low Vision, etc.

Jeanne: We might not want to jump right into brand new content.

<Cyborg> is there a current SC where the current test is problematic?

Jeanne: maybe we should do one current one and one new one

<Cyborg> (like it can be passed and not really achieve its goal?)

<Cyborg> who has complained the most about the current tests? lol

Jeanne: Who could we reach out to create some evaluation tests?
... who was the expertise to write the evaluation and make it valid?

<kirkwood> can we put language to what we want in a person to reach out to

Charles: I'm not clear on what kind of evaluation you're talking about creating and how that solves the Requirements doc

Jeanne: We need to be able to show people that we can go beyond a true/false statement of a Success Criterion and have valid tests.
... This Requirement issue is about how can we test the content that's in Silver.

Charles: So the assumption statement is that alternate methods of testing that don't produce binary true/false reults but have some other result on a scale are still valid.
... and useful
... The tasks you come up with need to prove that scale is valid and useful to validate the assumption that it is.
... or the people that say we need true/false will say you proved your assumption wrong.

Lauriat: Why using an existing success criterion would be helpful since people know and acknowledge there is a perceived subjectivity to the quality of a label or alternative text.
... If we can show it through that scale, it could go a long way in demonstrating how this could work

Charles: First you want to show a non-binary test result is useful. Then you want to determine whether or not there are only certain Success Criterion that a non-binary test result is useful for.

<kirkwood> prove a non binary test result is useful then certian success criteria non binary test material is good for - excellent point!

Jeanne: Many of them have a quality test which could be scaled. There are a lot where we could write a scaled test.

<Cyborg> can you please provide an example of one that would do well with quality test?

kirkwood: Charles' point resonated with me. The aspect of the non-binary testing paradigm seems like a critical decision point for us
... I think it's a very good point and something we should think through

Jeanne: Do you think we need to prove it or that we have enough research of people wanting it for it to be good enough?

Charles: I'd think it'd need to be proven if it's a normative statement claimed in the Requirements aspect

Lauriat: The research we have just proves that people want it

Charles: Like Color Alone. If you use color plus an attribute, it might pass the intent...

Jeanne: I was thinking of doing something with images. With meeting the image is usable using task based assessment. But color alone and contrast could also be good.
... we need to get people that are comfortable writing the tests

Lauriat: Sounds like before we should send the Requirements, we need to show that other types of testing can work.
... and including task based assessment, instead of element based assessment. And this is something we want to more reflect the user's experience
... is that something we need to better prototype or is it not as much of an issue as the testing and measurability

Jeanne: Not as much of an issue
... we could do, but let's not lock it into the Requirements yet

<kirkwood> use case based assessment is a very captivating solution though

Charles: For testing and measureability, the same solution that exists in other testing contexts is that external testing can be valid to prove the assumption
... other models in the world that work in a binary and non-binary testing pattern can serve as validation of the assumption
... like we were using the LEEDS model; if there are examples out there that already have a two simultaneously seemingly opposed testing methods that are valid...

<kirkwood> other standards such as the LEEDS model I think deserves research to give examples, agreed

Jeanne: If we gave people an example, they would see the validity from their own experience

<kirkwood> give an example and how it applies

Charles: Is bringing a single example going to address the concerns? Or do we need to create a test in order to prove it?

kirkwood: My feeling is the latter on that.

Jeanne: the example would be a test. It's something they could put their hands around as a valid test and it could work.
... do we have to prove that other types of testing are valid in themselves?
... if that came up as an issue we could refer them to research, but just having a thorough example would be persuasive

Lauriat: Would be better to have examples that show different kinds of guidelines that we could have tests for like that

Jeanne: I'd be happy if we had one example at this point.

<kirkwood> I agree with that

<Lauriat> Testing efficiency question: https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/39

Jeanne: We also have two other documents of issues from AGWG.

<jeanne> More Issues from AGWG Surveys https://docs.google.com/document/d/11eSnUw9iBf_07GZsna5ozj--zZx6DTATguaTv8uauEo/edit#heading=h.e4f7qe4qdp34

Jeanne: they have two surveys done about the Requirements document. We answered all of those.

<jeanne> Second AGWG survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gQENTuHuOUErWHv-1YikFtJw_SNA8aERRKJyaaI5_1o/edit#heading=h.e4f7qe4qdp34

Jeanne: we addressed a number of these, but not all of them
... there are some good ones in there

Lauriat: What do we still need to address.

Jeanne: We fixed typos, changes to wording. There were things related to the conformance model that had thoughtful questions.
... I think we need some real examples instead of hypotheticals

Charles: I think there's still a third category. If it's not pass/fail and it's a scale, where's the cut off point?
... it goes back to the human need and the intent.
... if the criteria is written similar to WCAG then it would be easy to keep that on a pass/fail testing method.
... but if you go backward to the intent of differentiation and you can reach that in another way, it's not necessarily a pass/fail or another method. It's validating by the test
... there's a third option to validate the intent of the criteria
... if it's not pass/fail or not pass/fail based on the criterion or a scale, it could still validate the content achieved the intent of the criterion

Jeanne: Can you write something up?

Charles: I can write up an example considering color alone

Jeanne: If anyone could write a general idea of how you could test it, we can get it to someone to build off of
... go look at what we could possibly do and at least start it

kirkwood: Not sure I fully understand the ask

Jeanne: Pick something in COGA that needs more than a binary test
... write up an idea of how it could be tested
... not super polished or technical statistical validity...we need to bring together examples of how we could do this

kirkwood: usability testing or automated testing?

Jeanne: If you have an example for automated, go for it.

kirkwood: IBM has been experimenting with a content simplifier. It would take the content on a page and simplify it...there might be something in there
... not sure what that would mean in the world of real users

Jeanne: There is a test in a WCAG technique related to Readability. We might be able to build upon that.

KimD: Do we have access to the COGA work?

kirkwood: Yeah, it's all in Github

KimD: Could we get a link to those things as a starting point for review?

Jeanne: I have a link that's publicly available...I have several links that were things to defer to Silver

<jeanne> David McDonald made this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XShLFX8fxHYYLn8A6avDwu37w9JfnZCGWvAKBpK9Xo4/edit#gid=264773938

<jeanne> ... it lists all the SC that didn't make it into Silver

KimD: I heard there were things that didn't even get that far from the task force.

Jeanne: We have the original list from COGA...like 50-ish proposals

<Lauriat> Maybe this? https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+label%3ACOGA

Lauriat: They closed everything out, but I filtered for the label "COGA" and it has 52 items in there. There may be some subfiltering to find what didn't make it in

kirkwood: that's exactly what I was looking for

Jeanne: And there's a list that says "defer"

Lauriat: we're pretty much at time, how do we make sure we can carry on from here
... we can reach out to some folks to send out requests for help

Jeanne: Who else is taking an action item
... Write a test

<jeanne> Jeanne: Or reach out to someone you know who could write one.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/11/06 15:33:46 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: AngelaAccessForAll Lauriat LuisG Makoto kirkwood jeanne Cyborg KimD
Regrets: Jennison
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: LuisG
Inferring Scribes: LuisG

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

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

Found Date: 06 Nov 2018
People with action items: 

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

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]