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.
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
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.
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]