Silver Community Group Teleconference

18 Dec 2018


Lauriat, Jennison, jeanne, KimD, kirkwood, AngelaAccessForAll
Shawn, jeanne


Meeting Friday, do we have enough people who would make the call?

no meeting on the 25, the 28 of December and the 1 of January

<scribe> scribenick: jeanne

Jeanne: Let's have an informal meeting on Friday the 21st of December. It can be a working meeting.

Shawn: I will not be back on the 4th

Jeanne: I can be there, so let's plan on meeting on the 4th.

Timeline check

Shawn: We have been talking with the chairs and MIchael Cooper about the timeline
... the charter expires on 30 October 2019
... Silver needs a charter draft by June
... Silver will need a reference draft by June
... the reference draft has to be real enough

Charles: Do we know if AGWG will be going for 2.2?

Shawn: AGWG will be deciding that at the F2F at CSUN

JF: I think they will continue in parallel. There were enough SC proposals to make it worthwhile to do 2.2.
... we don't want to lose the cadence we built with 2.1

<kirkwood> JF characterizition is my understanding/feeling as well

JF: we want to look at portability and how to move the content to Silver
... I think it is chancy that Silver will be done on time

Jeanne: We can structure it so we will make a deadline, because we are going to follow a procedure that allows us to make a timeline with what is completed.

Shawn: We have our current work on the Conformance document. We are going to follow the procedure we have been discussing.
... finish the Conformance model and share it with AGWG
... piece the prototypes together so we have an overall document that we can share.
... since the reference draft is not due until June, we have time to make several reference drafts to share before June to get feedback

Jeanne: How do we want to do the user testing for Silver?

<Charles> link to initial draft of a test plan for the plain language prototype: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V-5truHrJY9prr2uzwDmur1iv2krcHdTByRIm4-lb9g/edit?usp=sharing

Jeanne: There has been a number of people in the group who have wanted to test each prototype individually.
... I think we have run out of time for that.
... I think we can save time by user testing the combined prototype
... I think it will be easier to understand

JF: I think that AGWG struggled with understanding it in parts. Presenting it as a whole becomes a signal that Silver is progressing

Shawn: The reason we wanted to test it separately so we can determine what individual options work better than others

JF: I don't think there is a bigger value of testing nuclear parts.

Charles: We want to validate our assumptions -- the Information Architecture can be tested to see if people can accomplish tasks within the Information Architecture before we start to put all the plain language into it.

JF: I hear you say that you want to test the framework separately than the content.

Shawn: If we have the plain language, information architecture and the conformance in one prototype and there are failures, it is harder to determine what part failed.
... for example, we can isolate an issue like: the information architecture worked well, but they didn't find the information in the plain language. That allows us to isolate the issue
... I'm not opposed to accelerate combining the prototype
... I don't want to put off the combined draft.

Charles: We can fit them all together and test each part separately, even if they are all together.
... integration can happen and we can still test isolated things

Shawn: That sounds like a perfect compromise, because we are still putting together a comprehensive draft so people understand how they all put it together.

Jennison: If we can hold the testing until CSUN, because there is an opportuntity to ask a lot of people to do testing at CSUN.

<Charles> i have to drop off the call to get to another meeting.

Jennison: Accessibility Camp Bay area on March 9 would be a good opportunity for a soft launch.
... I think we should be doing testing aat CSUN

<Charles> off call, but lurking on IRC

Shawn: So we agree that we will combine the prototype and test it separately.

Jeanne: I think we should send the Conformance document to AGWG by 8 January
... we should have the combined prototype on 31 January, so we can get feedback

<Lauriat> Open questions section of the conformance super-drafty draft https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.5roee9ue0h46

Jeanne: we can get feedback and refine the draft in Feb for a rollout at CSUN in March

Meeting Friday, do we have enough people who would make the call?

Conformance model working discussion: building up points

Conformance Draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.5roee9ue0h46

Open Questions: Minimum set of tests?

9 gold and one bronze means overall bronze - how to recognize the 9 gold?

How to balance minimum sets of tests or methods against applicability given the content?

How to come up with the number of points per method? How does that work with future maintenance? Past & future conformance claims?

How to award points for more extensive testing for validation (eg: butts in seats testing)? Boosts given the kind of testing?

How do we guide people through creating use cases and tasks?

Sketch with limited vision: The goal was to build it up based on existing SC

scribe: minimim tests
... how to come up with the number of points per method

Jennsion: We should start with a minimum site for "How to balance minimum sets of tests or methods against applicability given the content?"

Shawn: We were discussing a restaurant site with just a simple menu, hours and directions. There would be a lot that would not be applicable.
... black text on a white background would only have one method. It would be difficult to build up to gold if there was only one method that would get them points.
... what would be the heuristics of usage without perception of color where the usability would be very high. It could get a lot more points than something complicated.
... perhaps the headings would be in color, and that method could get them more points. This might be a bad idea, it's an idea.

Jennison: We don't want to make it complicated for people, so we want to keep it simple for simple sites.

Shawn: We discussed that certainly have categories of personal need be not applicable, so we wouldn't have to have to have a complicated system.

Jeanne: That is what people currently do for VPATs, so it would be considered what people do today.

Shawn: For example, for Usage without Vision. This site has no graphics, so any Methods about graphics don't apply. But Methods that require the site to be coded correctly, so those would apply. It can determine Headings, it can determine Language of the page. It doesn't have regions, so the Method for Regions wouldn't apply.
... because we have assigned points at the Method level, a site that was simple wouldn't get the points

Jeanne: So a simple restaurant site that wanted to get Gold, they could do usability testing, involve people with disabilities -- they could be simple versions.

Jennison: But that would be harder for people with simple sites

Jeanne: If they want gold, then they have to work harder for it. That's their choice. The minimum is bronze, and they can work toward gold and do more.

JF: That gets back to how to get people to do that: Having their nextdoor neighbor test it isn't sufficient.

Jeanne: Agreed. We have to figure that out later.

<Charles> test participants and recruiting advice could be suggested somewhere in the guidance

Shawn: Different usability scales could be used to boost points for simple sites.

Jeanne: I want to reintroduce the old idea of having different points score sheets for different types of sites where the site owner self-selects the point system that applies.

Shawn: The problem is that is makes it too complex, the definitions are tough, and it limits the types of technologies that it can apply to.

Jeanne: I agree that limiting the types of technologies is a powerful argument. I agree not to do that.

Jennison: I don't see why we have to look at the last questions "How do we guide people through creating use cases and tasks?"

Jeanne: This goes back to JF's question a few minutes ago. We have to give people definitions and boundaries of how to do the testing.

JF: AGWG will have questions about this, so even if it goes to the nuclear level, AGWG will want to know.
... we have to be prepared for that.

Shawn: For everyone not attending the meeting on Friday, Happy Holidays.

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: 2018/12/18 15:40:32 $

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)

Succeeded: s/OPen QuestionsMinimum set of tests?/Open Questions:  Minimum set of tests?/
Present: Lauriat Jennison jeanne KimD kirkwood AngelaAccessForAll
Regrets: Cybele
Found ScribeNick: jeanne
Inferring Scribes: jeanne
Found Date: 18 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]