Silver Community Group Teleconference -- 30 Apr 2019

WCAG to Silver Migration Outline

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

Shawn: We left off with Technology Neutral

<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutral

jeanne: We were asked to bring it in line with WCAG 2 Requirements https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/

Shawn: It is also too specific in how - Guidelines and Methods

Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one platform or technology.

jeanne: The above was the most recent proposal from Friday

[discussion recapping proposals]

<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutral

<JF> Core guidelines are user-centric. Methods are technology-centric. The core guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the Methods but are not required to understand guidelines.

<Lauriat> Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist.

<KimD> +1 it's very close to 2.0 and I'm fine replacing the current with the new short.

jeanne: I like including the second sentence.

JF: "Specific technical advice"
... it's clearer than the original.

<kirkwood> +1

<kirkwood> seems clear to me

<Makoto> +1 to "Specific technical advice"

<Chuck> +1

Shawn: ANd it avoids saying Guidelines and Methods

<KimD> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Shri> What is the difference "technology" and "platform?"

<Cyborg> the phone number code isn't working...

Shawn: Not a huge difference. Technology is what you creating something in or with: like HTML, java, XML, CSS. The platform is the operating system.

JF: agree with Shawn

<Cyborg> sorry, it's ok, figured it out - in now

RESOLUTION: Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if specific technical advice doesn't yet exist.

<Cyborg> link again please if you can

<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutral

<Cyborg> +1 to that

<Cyborg> what is the concern about design principle 9?

<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#design-principles

<KimD> It's under §2

<Cyborg> let's wait

reminders of AccessU and AGWG surveys

<Jan> I am having trouble connecting to the audio and webex.

<Jan> Here is the text I came up with as a part of my homework from last week:

<Jan> Be data-informed and evidence-based, recognizing that research outcomes may come from small sample sizes due to the prevalence of certain types of disabilities. Research-based recommendations for large groups of people with disabilities should not override recommendations that are made for smaller groups. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible and to ensure that the needs of all disability categories are effectively represented. This means that

AccessU

<Jan> I will continue to try....

Jeanne: We have a room at AccessU for Wed, Thurs and Friday. I will also be there MOnday and Tuesday if anyone wants to get together .

Design PRinciple 9

<Cyborg> the problem with the audio on my end is that i was using an old email from April 19 that somehow other people responded to with regrets more recently.

Be data-informed and evidence-based, recognizing that research outcomes may come from small sample sizes due to the prevalence of certain types of disabilities. Research-based recommendations for large groups of people with disabilities should not override recommendations that are made for smaller groups. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible and to ensure that the needs

of all disability categories are effectively represented. This means that

<Cyborg> Jan - check heading of your email - for April 30

<Jan> This means that new Methods submitted by the public could require user research test results to verify validity. When in doubt, see Design Principle 1.

<Cyborg> she just added more

of all disability categories are effectively represented. This means that new Methods submitted by the public could require user research test results to verify validity. When in doubt, see Design Principle 1.

<Jan> Thanks, John ... trying that.

jeanne: I like it without the last two sentences.

Cybele: I want to work on the phrasing of the small sample sizes, It's not always prevalence -- it can also be about bias.

Shawn: One aspect is the number of people with that disability, the other is the size of the body of research. We are trying to balance it.

<Jan> Okay ... finally on

Shawn: it can also be under-representation in the research

Cybele: Using "prevalence" gives a context of number of people in the disability. Shawn said it was more about under-representation in the body of research.

Jan: I used prevalence is referencing small sample sizes

<JF> +1 to Jan

JF: We want to say that pure numbers will not influence final decisions. Small groups have equally valid needs.

Shawn: It's more about the body of research

<KimD> Are we saying this? Be data-informed and evidence-based. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the number of people with a particular disability and also by the size of the body of research. The needs of the people with disability shall be prioritized equally with all other groups.

<kirkwood> other than cognitive ;)

<Jan> +1 to KimD's wording

<Chuck> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Makoto> +1 to KimD

<JF> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<KimD> Be data-informed and evidence-based. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the number of people with a particular disability and also by the size of the body of research. The needs of the people with disabilities shall be prioritized equally with all other groups.

Are we saying this? Be data-informed and evidence-based. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the number of people with a particular disability and also by the size of the body of research. The needs of the people with disabilities shall be prioritized equally with all other groups.

<KimD> (fixed typo)

Racheal: We have people who fall under a large category of disability but have individual needs.

<JF> We recognize that the amount of research and evidence available are influenced by both the number of people with a particular disability and also by the size of the body of research.

<Cyborg> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible and to ensure that the needs of all disability categories are effectively represented. <--lost from Jan's original wording

Jan: People with cognitive disabilities are the largest group by size, but have individual needs and may not be covered by the tools.
... people who are involved in standards work have noticed that their group has not been well-represented and I'm not sure if that is captured here.

<kirkwood> +1

Jan: In the COGA 2.1 work, the COGA group was asked "Where's the research?" We need to rely on experts as well as research. Bodies of experience and expertise

Rachel": Due to the complexities of some disability needs, we will also rely on subject matter expertise.

<KimD> Is this better?

<KimD> Be data-informed and evidence-based. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the number of people with a particular disability, by the size of the body of research, and the difficulty in capturing research regarding some disabilites. The needs of the people with disabilities shall be prioritized equally with all other groups.

JF: In the absense of research, anecdotal evidence is important, but it needs to be separate.

<ChrisLoiselle> I agree with JF, anecdotes would be rather soft based evidence. Reliable research and actual data that provides verifiable measurements / evidence.

Shawn: We need to be evidence-based where possible. In the absense of hard data, we need to take anecdotal evidence.

Jan: We are creating a large loophole. We have struggled with this on the COGA task force. We need to capture the prepoderence of evidence in surveys and capturing experience of individuals.
... we have to be careful of people influencing the standards by manipulating the research.

Cybele: Can we encourage more research?
... I chafe with SME vs. experience of poeple with disabilities

JF: Lived experience is the weakest, because they have individual experience.
... Subject matter expertise shows more than the individual experience.

<kirkwood> volume evidence but specific application of evidence to direct to requirements framework becomes somewhat difficult

Cybele: THere is something that chafes about that, my experience in the last 10-15 years are that people with lived experience have reached out in the community and actually have real contextual exeriencee and insight.

<kirkwood> sorry, the volume evidence/research is great but specific application of evidence to direct to requirements framework becomes somewhat difficult

JF: We are dealing with two extremes and trying to find the sweet spot in between.

Cybele: We need the word rigor. THe problem with research is lack of rigor, the SME without empathy has a problem with rigor, and the person with disabilities with too narrow a focus lacks rigor.

<Cyborg> except i would spell it as rigour - lol (Canadian)

<ChrisLoiselle> If data-informed and evidence based, is within the wording, I feel that we should note that it is objective and observing what people do. SME's opinion would need to be verified somehow , based on their own research to show proof of evidence.

<Lauriat> +1 to Chris

JF: The example of WebAIM surveys is a good example of data that may not have rigor because the audience isn't random, but the body of resesarch from their surveys over time is valuable and important.

<Cyborg> +1 to encouraging more research

<ChrisLoiselle> I.e. what is evidence?

Rachel: I propose another paragraph when we don't have evidence what we will do.

<ChrisLoiselle> field visits, formative , summative usability tests , a/b testing? task analysis? Those would be strong evidence

Jan: I like that idea. I think we can set a procedure to handle the circumstances where we don't have research.

Cybele: A lot of research is interpreted. We need to look at the outliers as well as the conclusions.

<KimD> How about this:

<KimD> Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the number of people with a particular disability, by the size of the body of research, and the difficulty in capturing data regarding some disabilities. The needs of the people with disabilities shall be prioritized equally with all other groups.

<KimD> In situations where there is no evidence or research, information may be obtained from advocacy groups, subject matter experts and other others who can inform the design.

<Cyborg> my concern was about how evidence-based can equal oppression of majority - and so interpretation of research ought to address outliers' needs as well

<Cyborg> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible and to ensure that the needs of all disability categories are effectively represented. <--lost from Jan's original wording

<Cyborg> +1 to John's change

<Lauriat> +1 to JF's change

+1 to JF's change

Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the number of people with a particular disability, by the size of the body of research, and the difficulty in capturing data regarding some disabilities. The needs of all people with disabilities shall be prioritized equally. In situations where there is no evidence or research,

information may be obtained from advocacy groups, subject matter experts and other others who can inform the design.

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to JF

<Makoto> +1 to JF

Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by the number of people with a particular disability, by the size of the body of research, and the difficulty in capturing data regarding some disabilities. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever possible to ensure that needs of all people with disabilities shall be prioritized

equally. In situations where there is no evidence or research, information may be obtained from advocacy groups, subject matter experts and other others who can inform the design.

<JF> +1

<Jan> Yay!! +1

<Cyborg> +1

<KimD> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Cyborg> if i could +2 that would be good

<Lauriat> +1

<Chuck> +1

<JF> +1+1

<Makoto> +1, but what does it mean by "others who can inform the design"?

<Cyborg> we still need paragraph about encouraging research that is rigorous, includes those at edges (not just address needs of majority).

<Rachael> +1 but add some clarification about rigor and aggregation on the last sentence

Jan: You may have a need and there may be others who have the technical expertise.

JF: Technologists may not have subject matter experitise but may have valuable expertise in how to implement the need.

Rachel: drop the "others"

<JF> In situations where there is no evidence or research, information may be obtained from advocacy groups and subject matter experts.

<kirkwood> +1 to JF but didn’t go in minutes

<Makoto> +1 to JF's edit.

<Jan> +1 to JF's recommendation

<Jan> We still need to add some additional text for rigor

Jan: We don't want to have people pointing to a blog post as research. As that has happened in the past.
... I don't think we can use "rigor" but perhaps "methodical"?

<KimD> In situations where there is no evidence or research, information may be obtained from advocacy groups, subject matter experts, and other valid data- gathering methods.

<Cyborg> information-gathering and evaluation that aims to be rigorous and includes those at the edges (rather than just addressing the needs of the majority)

<ChrisLoiselle> valid and reliable data? i.e is it replicable?

<Rachael> Maybe: In situations where there is no evidence or research, information may be obtained from a survey or other methodical information gathering method of advocacy groups and subject matter experts.

<Jan> In situations where there is no evidence or research, valid data-gathering methods can be obtained from advocacy groups, people with lived experience and other subject matter experts.

<Rachael> In situations where there is no evidence or research, valid data-gathering methods can be used to obtain information from advocacy groups, people with lived experience and other subject matter experts.

<Cyborg> +1 to Jan's wording

<Cyborg> or to Rachael's <- better

<KimD> +1, nice

<Jan> +1 to Rachael's

<Makoto> +1 to Rachael's wording

<JF> +1

<Chuck> +1

equally. In situations where there is no evidence or research, valid data-gathering methods can be used to obtain information from advocacy groups, people with lived experience and other subject matter experts.

<Cyborg> outliers can be left out in research

<ChrisLoiselle> leaving meeting, thanks all.

<JF> Gotta drop - bye all

<Makoto> Arigato. Sayonara!

jeanne: LEt's take this up in email and resolve it before Friday so we can get back to the WCAG to Silver Migration work.

Requirements: Technology Neutral

Jeanne notes that the agenda was incorrect (pasted from an earlier email) and that the first topic was Technology Neutral. I will fix it in the email but I can't fix the html minutes.

- DRAFT -

Silver Community Group Teleconference

30 Apr 2019

Attendees

Contents

WCAG to Silver Migration Outline

reminders of AccessU and AGWG surveys

AccessU

Design PRinciple 9

Requirements: Technology Neutral

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output