Silver Community Group Teleconference

25 Jan 2019


johnkirkwood, Charles, LuisG, JF, KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, Shawn, Lauriat, AngelaAccessForAll, Makoto, JanMcSorley, Jennison, Jan
Jeanne, Shawn


quick review of useful IRC commands

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDV9uZEryZc2OeM88QLOYu9KCsqaUxspeBqc-foq648/edit#

Jeanne: I saw in Tuesday's agenda that you wanted to talk about task evaluation.

task evaluation

Lauriat: This came up as part of the conversation. Cyborg requested that we spend a session talking through how we do task evaluation
... and I thought it was a good idea to talk about it in depth
... in particular, it's in the context of moving from WCAG-level conformance to task-based assessment
... instead of page by page, it's task by task
... we said previously how non-interference works with this. and something we talked about previously...let me link to the conformance draft and specifically the non-interference part

<Lauriat> Conformance draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.hgpudncy21e

Lauriat: I'm thinking we could have two different kinds of guidance; one that is non-interference and covers anything in the environment the user goes through
... even if the user isn't interacting with things, it can still interfere with the user's task
... audio controls, pause stop hide, etc.
... and other guidelines are primarily about what the user is directly reading or interacting with to complete the task
... one of the things we should probably talk through, is that a good idea. would it add more complexity and confusion on how to judge whether you're conforming

Charles: I wonder if there's both.
... if points are limited or capped somehow for meeting all of the test that support a method and you get the appropriate points towards conformance
... but you can't get the maximum amount of points if there's interference

Jeanne: Currently, you can't get WCAG conformance even if you met all the SCs, if you don't have one of the 4 interference SCs
... people mentioned at TPAC, if you failed non-interference, you can't get bronze

Lauriat: Since we're going by lowest score, you might be able to get points for other things, but it wouldn't be at a bronze level because of that

Charles: The points are still additive even though that task was blocked. So your cumulative score could pass the bronze threshold, but contradicts Jeanne's suggestion

<Cyborg> sorry just joined. if there are links, can someone please re-share?

<KimD> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.hgpudncy21e

Jeanne: That's why there's only 4 of these. We would have to say there's a special category that even if you're accruing points you need to meet the non-interference guidelines

<KimD> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDV9uZEryZc2OeM88QLOYu9KCsqaUxspeBqc-foq648/edit#

Lauriat: What does it look like in terms of how you determine conformance if it's task based instead of page based.
... instead of listing URLs..it would be, list all the use-cases for your website

<Cyborg> is this about methods or about creating task-based guidelines?

<Cyborg> but do we already have task-based guidelines? are those new guidelines we need, that are more journey based? for example, would we want product owners to be creating processes to gather feedback about where the barriers lie in task completion?

<Cyborg> how granular do they get in where the specific barrier is?

<Cyborg> not need to get

<Cyborg> so that's tricky for improvement then?

<Lauriat> Related to the topic of flows: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc3 Essentially, I think we want to modernize WCAG's "Complete processes" part of conformance.

<Charles> task based assessment is hopefully a viable framework for human evaluation. then the evaluation would be scored.

<Lauriat> Noting so we don't lose it: we should look into adding guidance about providing help (documentation, contact, something) for users.

<Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

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: 2019/01/25 20:03:53 $

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)

Default Present: johnkirkwood, Charles, LuisG, JF, KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, Shawn, Lauriat, AngelaAccessForAll, Makoto, JanMcSorley, Jennison
Present: johnkirkwood Charles LuisG JF KimD jeanne kirkwood Cyborg mikeCrabb Shawn Lauriat AngelaAccessForAll Makoto JanMcSorley Jennison Jan
Regrets: Angela
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: LuisG
Inferring Scribes: LuisG
Found Date: 25 Jan 2019
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]