Silver Community Group Teleconference

08 Jan 2019


KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, Shawn, Charles
Shawn, jeanne
kirkwood, jeanne


<Lauriat> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Silver Community Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 08 January 2019

<scribe> scribenick: jeanne

Conformance model working discussion: pre-AGWG presentation

Shawn: We want to go through the Conformance proposal in light of what

<Lauriat> Silver Conformance Draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit

Shawn: we will present to AGWG today

<Cyborg> quick question - can someone please repost links from today?

<Cyborg> as i just arrived. thanks so much.

<KimD> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit

<kirkwood> SL: comments in google doc need to be resolved before going to working group

<Cyborg> thanks

<kirkwood> SL: do have draft to answers to Andrew’s questions, how are methods authored and approved. Makes sense to answer question here, I can do that

<kirkwood> SL; methods authored by some approval process

<kirkwood> SL: how points assigned are outlined below

<kirkwood> SL: i will respond to him now

<kirkwood> SL: next comment from Alistar, in doc. to acknowledge methods are there for different types of content…

<kirkwood> SL: discussing Alistairs comments in Doc

<kirkwood> SL: inclined to leave open for now

<kirkwood> SL: think we do walk through these exact cases

<kirkwood> SL: Jeanne flagging user needs

<kirkwood> SL: next up from Andrew “they only scored enough for gold…” so therefore user testing would need to be for 10 users or more” pretty sure the answer is no

<kirkwood> SL: only scoring enough in cognitive category would demand user testing

<kirkwood> Jeanne: thought JF having minimum in each category was a better response

<kirkwood> SCRIBE: kirkwood

<Cyborg> P1-3 - are we there yet?

<Cyborg> does that make it good? will have to look at EU mandate 376...

: I can respond to andrew the specifics of this aspe3ct of point system needs to be worked through more. any regerence to user testing would not mandate a particular number of users

Charles: one type of evaluation is a heuristic evaluation doesn’t have participants it has evaluators . but we’d recomemmend around 3 evaluatiors , but method myight be too much, need 1 ideally three but wouldn’t be a requirment and include coginitve walk through

Jeanne: maybe lets go through w/o comments for timing

SL: walkthough in a reasonable amount of time

Jeanne: we can answer offline

<Cyborg> just read the reference in EU 376 - some will take exception to that language

<Cyborg> "usage with cognitive barriers" is better

SL: discussing Andrew’s comment as alternative proposal of cumulative points to add to a certiain level
... additive versus subtractive scoring we’ve gone through

Jeanne: subtractive is to difficult oevery time you add a method so need to rebalance then you get to zero too fast

<Cyborg> there are conflicts between how LDs get defined in Europe and N America, for example...

SL: Task based assessment versus page based
... Alistair point is valid regarding user impact

Jeanne: pretty sure have icons for navigation in own category

SL: really difficult to predict

Jeanne: let work out, the relationship of the icon and navigation

SL: we can highlight and say yes that is a valid point. How to merge point siystem with task based conformance to have it all make sense tog3ether

Sevelle: I might be broken record the whole point was to flatten down to 2 in particular would prioritze any barrier to fatigue and stress P1. worried it would be a problem splitting it this way

Jeanne: A, AA AAA was methods not value of guideline hope we are not going towars that

I JUST LOST AUDIO, sorry cna someone scribe for a bit

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

I’m back

<scribe> scribe: kirkwood

<jeanne> Cyborg: People with cognitive disabilities are often told that their barriers are inconvenient. Even if it is not visible to the general public, this is dangerous to include

<jeanne> Jeanne: agreed. Changed the document

<jeanne> SL: Usability Evaluation. AWK asked if this had been agreed by the working group.

SL: the docs organization determines the scpe of formulation of conformance. all code lives in different places but company would define tasks rather than the application

Jeanne: i’d be in favor i’d like to see company has to set scope

SL: another example would be the nytimes website, crossword puzzle versus article etc would be a good example
... we can saythis is not something we have completely determined. it would another step to determine scope of performance.
... we have a couple of suggested terminology which is more minor
... number 3 under process identify tezt cases relevent to flow and comment on test cases and were responses on defining but may be a bit close to web page but concepts are spot on
... we can take scotts response and rework to be less technology specific I think its a good start
... appendix b section for early confomance

Jeanne: just wnated to put in appendix to not throw it away, but now I’d like to get rid of it

I agree

SL: removed
... I’m inclined to not call them levels
... usability evaluation didn’t really talk through becasue not many comments

<Cyborg> what page are we on now, or heading? sorry, i got lost...

page 8, under heading accessibility supported

Jeanne: there are 4 WCG conformance success criteria an important but hidden part of SC. There are 4 you must have otherwise you fail. wanted to make a noted this is somehting we need to still address
... I’ll add a note to scope of conformance

SL: lets people know we have thought about it and not doing right now
... helpful having addendum with open questions lets WG know we are thinking things through even though no solid conclusion

Sebelle: is there going to be a criteria or invitation to create new guidance so 2.1 criteria doesn’t enter into a vacuum

SL: what do you mean by 2.1 criteria

Sebelle: long list that suggested SC had to pass to be included a number on list were problamitic

SL: good question. one of major goals of reworked conformance model not to have as strict black and white testing
... we want conformance model to reflect a variety of end user experience
... better way to express usability

Jeanne: we will talk abou more as we get actuall content and saw the difficulties of list

<Cyborg> to be discussed: how to enshrine values of Silver which allow a more flexible approach to creation of new guidance, within the conformance framework

not sure how to make minutes at end

<jeanne> Jeanne: That's a good point, because we want to ensure that the Silver is maintained over time, and that the goals and requirements of Silver persist into the creation of content (or the decisions to decline to include content).

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: 2019/01/08 15:37:04 $

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: KimD jeanne kirkwood Cyborg mikeCrabb Shawn Charles
Found ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood
Found Scribe: jeanne
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood
Scribes: kirkwood, jeanne
ScribeNicks: jeanne, kirkwood
Found Date: 08 Jan 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

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]