Jeanne: Can we agree on our Holiday schedules? Christmas is on a Tuesday, so I would assume we wouldn't have meetings on the 25th and Jan 1, but would we meet on the 21st and 28th.
<jeanne> No meeting on 28.
Lauriat: We could just ask folk on the Tuesday before.
Jeanne: Let's plan to meet and then ask on the Tuesday before.
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#
Jeanne: Around when WCAG was
published, W3C dropped the conformance requirements. They kept
it in WCAG since it was already done.
... That said, we want to do conformance because WCAG is used
in regulations. And people need to show that they meet the
guidelines.
... what we've been thinking for conformance is a larger
picture of conformance. I took some time to take what was in
our slide deck and update it based on conversations we've
had.
... I want to go through to it make sure I've put it in here
correctly
Lauriat: When we were talking
about heuristic evaluation, I don't think we need a catch all
method to go along with it
... I'm not totally confident about it, but that's what I'm
feeling at this point
... I can't think of a way to implement it that would just be
restating of the guideline
Charles: What about technology agnostic? At the beginning we say that methods are technology specific. If there are 5 technology specific methods is there room for a technology agnostic method?
Lauriat: I don't think so but the opposite might work. A technology specific catch all method.
Charles: Does that suggest the methods outside of this are not only tech specific, but implementation specific?
Lauriat: I think that's the direction we were going.
Charles: So method is almost synonymous with implementation. How you did it.
Lauriat: It was almost like the current techniques.
scottcooley: Sounds like methods are synonymous with "how to" regardless of technology
Charles: I think it was specific to technology though
Jeanne: They're the Silver
equivalent of the techniques; although we anticipate some of
the existing success criteria will become methods since they're
technology specific.
... the guidelines are the technology agnostic advice
... and the methods are how to do it
scottcooley: So there may be several methods to satisfy a guidelien
Jeanne: ... yes
Charles: Do we need to identify
what technology means within this?
... technology seems to imply content technology and not
delivery technology
Lauriat: Maybe earlier than what
I originally thought, but don't need to identify that yet
... I think we're thinking more of...things that are different
enough that they would warrant having separate methods or
guidelines
... like "a website" "a web application might be
different..."VR" would definitely be different
Cyborg: How does IoT fit into that? Or would that be a category?
Lauriat: Maybe a category, but this is where the lines blur a lot.
Charles: Because we know it's on the horizon and we need to define; does the statement "methods are technology specific" hold true?
Jeanne: We're getting in the weeds a little bit, so let's move on.
Lauriat: I've made a note in the doc so we don't lose track of this thread.
stevelee, we're looking at this doc right now https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.6oetdyu21wzd
Jeanne: The points system, we
worked on this right after TPAC. One of the issues was that
it's too easy to game, so we talked about ways to reduce the
harm of gaming.
... in each category of user need, someone needs to get points
in that category. There would be a minimum for Bronze, Silver,
Gold in each category. There's a diagram of a hypothetical
example.
JF: I'm still worried about
points attached to methods. You might be able to do a test that
gets you a lot of test but not address all the needs.
... what about a minimum number of tests that need to be
performed?
Jeanne: We had talked about this about the interference SCs. Saying those would need to be required.
JF: I can see that as a "minimum tests that must be done and you must score X"
Lauriat: For the points sytems basics, I see different category of user needs and points in each level, but don't understand the connection between points and bronze silver gold
Jeanne: They're arbitrary and they're just demonstrating that the points don't need to be the same for each category.
Charles: So this is basically a scoreboard of what you've ended up with.
Lauriat: Why are there points at all? With the "you must get all bronze to get bronze" it seems how conformance works now for A, AA, AAA and it looks like we've renamed them
JF: That kind of matches my understanding as well. For the categories there, you had to have a minimum number of tests for each disability type would give you the medal level.
Charles: So the points might not be related to your conformance claim.
JF: They could be. Consider a VPAT where you usually provide a good amount detail. You could publish the points there.
Charles: I'm concerned if you put actual earned points into public conformance claims, that's more bad behavior for gaming the system.
<jeanne> trackbot, end meeting
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) Succeeded: s/preesnt+// Succeeded: s/sorry it was me going on mute, just joined// Default Present: LuisG, Cyborg, KimD, Makoto, jeanne, Shawn, Jennison, Angela, MikeCrabb, Charles, AngelaAccessForAll, kirkwood, Lauriat, JF, shari, johnkirkwood, Scott, Cooley Present: LuisG Cyborg KimD Makoto jeanne Shawn Jennison Angela MikeCrabb Charles AngelaAccessForAll kirkwood Lauriat JF shari johnkirkwood Scott Cooley scottcooley No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: LuisG Inferring Scribes: LuisG Found Date: 07 Dec 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]