Silver Community Group Teleconference

29 Jan 2019


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



<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html

<scribe> scribenick: jeanne

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#identify-input-purpose

There is a thread on the AGWG about what is a failure condition for 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose

Shawn: Many solutions are "postpone to Silver" and there is good discussion about Silver and the conformance model
... I hope it makes it easier to include some of these issues as requirements for Silver.
... How far are we from going back to the working group to address the Requirements

Charles: two questions for Silver: Does Failure apply to Silver? Yes - it is a score of zero
... the other is does Accessibility Supported have a zero? I don't know that.

Jeanne: The difference between Programmatically Determined and Accessibility Supported is that Programmitcally Determined means it is coded to standard, and don't have to have an assistive technology, Accessibility Supported means that the content developer is responsible for finding a solution, even if the assistive technology doesn't support it.

JF: I agree with JEanne. 1.3.5 is an important example.

Shawn: IN terms of saying which tests to run for a different task, you look at the Methods available to meet certain guidance.
... for example, if there is no method to set a default language in a VR town, then this doesn't apply.
... It highlights that the VR platform needs to support default language, not that the content developer has to find a way to do it.

JF: Currently with Flash and WCAG, the author is responsible for finding a way to do it.

Shawn: The thread in 1.3.5 in AGWG provided some suggestions of how AGWG and Silver could address the problems in 1.3.5 and it gives an opportunity for AGWG to relook at the Silver requirements.

jF: Not sure there is consensus in AGWG

Shawn: We want to make sure that the overall working group agrees that these are suggestions we should investigate.

<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#oppotunities_conformance

Shawn: These are not included in the formal Requirements het
... I think some of these are pretty solid, but I want to do a sanity check.

Jeanne: We should also review Detlev Fischer's comments, because he had comments that talked about how Germany handles

<Lauriat> Github issue started by Wilco: https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/41

Jeanne: some of these issues

JF: I will discuss this at Deque

Jeanne: I will reach out to TPG and LEvel Access to see if they would accept current testing for for Bronze level and usability accessibility accessment for SIlver and Gold level.

Shawn: We can test mechanically for alt text, but we also need the cognitive assessment of the quality of the alt text.
... In the Opportunities section, is there a better way we can express the direction we want to go to and the problems we want to solve.
... I want to say that these are the problems we want to solve instead of writing Requirements of how to do it.
... for example: In Silver we want to include more measurable outcomes, like alt text quality. The end of the day, the user has a lousy experience, so how we do we measure that?

JF: But how do we do legal conformance?
... How do we measure quality in a legal conformance.

Shawn: We already have this problem. WCAG says "that serves the equivalent purpose" which is undefined.

JF: That is the big problem.

Shawn: We want to improve the problem. We want to give a way to express that in COnformance. Today it is pass fail, We could have "it passes, but its a lousy experience." We want to express that.

Jeanne: We could do Bronze is WCAG AA, and the measurement of quality is in SIlver and Gold level.

JF: What's the difference between Silver and Gold?

JEanne: We have roughly talked about using internal evaluation for Silver and PwD with Gold.

Charles: IT gives a qualitative response, so that helps improve where we are today.

JF; I'm interested in a testing terminology that Charles talked about is a Cognitive Walkthrough.

Charles: It's not the number of users testing, it is the variety of human functional needs represented in the testing.

JF: I don't see that scaling -- it keeps out the smaller companies -- only the largest companies.

Cyborg: It creates a demand for a new kind of business for people with disabilties for testing.

Shawn: It's still valuable to get more usability testing to get to higher levels in Silver. I want to know if AGWG will agree that this is a valid need that Silver needs to address.

JF: Which brings us back to 1.3.5 - if they used microdata they could get to bronze, but couldn't get higher because it doesn't exist. But if they used @autocomplete, they could get at least to Silver.

Shawn: Yes, it gives a way for people to express conformance when they are using innovative techniques, or you can express that they tick the boxes, but have a terrible user experience.

JF: WCAG 2 tried to improve that. But it has limits. For example, alt="alt text" is not accessible.

Shawn: The example of a meme, does the alt text describe it.
... I'm not concerned with the details now, because I want to get input from more people who have more detailed experience.
... up until now, we have gotten so bogged down with AGWG in the details of how to do.
... let's clean up the Requirements, make sure that we highlight the functional needs that we want to include in Silver.
... do you think we could bring it to AGWG?

Accessibility Supported

Kim: HOw are we wholistically addressing conformance

Shwan: The author makes a site, it works beautifully and then JAWS does an update and it's broken.

Kim: The example of a site that can't work right because of a browser issue. Today, WCAG requires that it is the author's problem.
... an example of making it working for a mouse but not keyboard because it causes a security breach.

Shawn: For Japanese users, the screen reader doesn't support ARIA, so the end users don't have an option.

Kim: What do we do about it?

Jeanne: We had part of the Methods prototype. The language of page example had VR platform that said it was the platform problem.

<Charles> have to drop for another meeting

Shawn: That doesn't address the problem that different Methods may work better than others.

JF: The person using a WYSIWYG editor is an AUTHOR, the developer is the CREATOR.

<jeanne2> 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: 2019/01/29 15:50:21 $

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/There isn't consensus in AGWG./Not sure there is consensus in AGWG/
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
Found ScribeNick: jeanne
Inferring Scribes: jeanne
Found Date: 29 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]