Silver Community Group Teleconference

07 Jun 2019


jeanne, Rachael, JF, bruce_bailey, Jennison
Shawn, Denis, Makoto, Cyborg


<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

TPAC early registration discount ends 21 June

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/TPAC/registration.html

jeanne: Reminder to everyone attending TPAC in person in Japan, early bird registration closes on June 21

quick review of changes to the Phase 4 folder in Google Drive

jeanne: I made organization changes to the Google drive folders. As we solidify, it changes how I look at the folders.

<jeanne> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15u5P_VwQUu--1NXSzu2Wwsj-QalDCt_W

jeanne: That is a link to phase 4. I got rid of the templates folder because it made no sense for people to learn how to move between google folders. Tool hard.


I renamed templates so they sort to the top.

There is a new document with new permissions. All old documents have link to the new doc. Update the new doc!

Review Headings with the improved Content Process

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcCyt9PJKUIjj341qc_ERiQrwoMUCWMP-exGXZgkzEk/edit#

jeanne: Updated template document to bring together all the proposals on how to do the content process.

I'd like to take headings document and walk through the new process and see how the new process works.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IVmg0MVHeJipg2ovENQtIkCzbq2izWeGKWaIqYLf0M4/edit#

This document won't pass the process as it was written early on.

scribe: but I thought it would be a good way to test it out.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qs4EkOLTs2VWZ6RHiLJquIAEp4tlUqeZ0kp7ZE7j2Lk/edit#gid=0

scribe: also a spreadsheet. Both are useful; different purposes. We will update the template document today and then update the spreadsheet
... look at the extended description of user needs. We don't have a bullet list of users.

One challenge in 2.1 was the number of discussions happening in many places. We've been proposing different ways to address that. A new proposal was to create a parallel document that is the discussion at the same time we create a document. Whoever owns the SC is responsible for summarizing the issues in the discussion document.

Someone who has an idea, objection, or concern can look at the discussion document. Idea is based on wikipedia

Anyone who needs to can see the discussion.

Jeanne: Today, I thought we'd try this by creating a separate document. Any concerns with this approach?

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qs4EkOLTs2VWZ6RHiLJquIAEp4tlUqeZ0kp7ZE7j2Lk/edit#gid=0

First is to list the wcag success criteria.

So the Headings document has both 2.4.10 Section Headings and 2.4.6 Headings and Labels along with a note to move 2.4.6 out.

The next section is user need. There is a template for this.

There is a lot of detail in the template. It can be used to fill in the guideline explanation.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcCyt9PJKUIjj341qc_ERiQrwoMUCWMP-exGXZgkzEk/edit#heading=h.5fvydehoofcq

The template takes you step-by-step through what is needed. It says "Self-advocate information is useful, but may be inadvertently mixed with personalization needs, so be cautious"

Jeanne: We could make a new headings document but that is more work. I don't want to make new work. I want to review the process.

So if we look at the templates document and I will reference the headings document when needed.

scribe: first change other than detailed explanations is that the template recommends writing the extended description before writing the short description. This makes sense even though they are displayed in the other order.
... Identify the common need across these multiple user groups in one sentence. That is the first sentence of the “Extended description of user need”. List unique needs of specific user groups as bullet points. Identify and list conflicts that may exist within and between user groups as additional bullet points. Explain words or concepts. Are there terms in the sentence about common user need that need specific examples or description to explain co[CUT]

Write the general solution to meet that need. That is a minimal concept that applies across different technologies. This is the third part of the “Extended Description of User Needs”. Keep to one sentence if possible.

Jeanne: reading headings document.

<jeanne> Semantic labels and headings describe structure of content and provide navigation for screen reader users.

<jeanne> Section headings organize content for screen reader users and people with cognitive impairments.

<jeanne> Heading order is important for people who are screen reader users who use headings to understand the organization of content and to navigate the page. If a heading is skipped, the screen reader user may believe they have missed content.

<jeanne> Section headings are important to screen reader users and people with cognitive impairments because they can “chunk” the page into logical sections.

<jeanne> Many assistive technologies provide an outline view of the heading structure so that the user can move directly to the section that probably contains the information they need.

Rachael: I think the detail is great. From an editing point of view, we should write in how we want to handle tense, plurality and other editorial format. So They, s/he? passive or active tense? etc

JF: Note that some needs are more important than others. Are we capturing weighting.
... impact on user.

Jeanne: Haven't included that yet. Its important to include.
... user needs, methods, guideliens or all three?

JF: also applies to testing.

at highest level.

<jeanne> JF: Headings are a part of semantic structure. The criticality is high. At some point, we have to do the weighting exercise.

<jeanne> JF: We have to look at the Conformance model because the scoring is the most important part of how we measure bronze, silver or gold.

<jeanne> Jeanne: Please keep in mind that the most important part is improving digital accessibility for people with disabilties and scoring is one of the ways we do that.

<jeanne> ... we are doing content process first because writing content takes the longest part of producing the spec. Once content writing process is running smoothly, we will have more bandwidth to go into the details of the Conformance.

<jeanne> ... I share your concern that the COnformance isn't complete yet, but I think we can get the writing going and then add the pieces around conformance as they are worked out.

<jeanne> BB: That was what Shawn was saying last week -- we can write the Methods and then add the points.

<jeanne> JS: Take a look at the Methods of Headings and see what we have for a process

<jeanne> JF: I don't like the questions for writing the heading. Are we going to weight the Methods?

<jeanne> JS: The Methods are where the points are going to live, but we don't know if they will be in the Method or in the Test.

<jeanne> JF: Look at the new test for a Rubric for measuring the quality of headings (#4 under Step 2: Tests)

<jeanne> ... the rating of Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent, that gets back to what I have been saying about weighting and assigning points. WIll that be for all content guidelines?

<jeanne> JS: Probably not every guideline. It doesn't apply to guidelines that can be measured with an automated test. For example, it wouldn't apply to the existance of alt text, but it would apply to the quality of the alt text.

<jeanne> JF: How do we measure the alt text when one page had 4 images and another page has 40 images. It isn't fair to count them the same because the page with 40 images has a greater chance of failing because one is missing or wrong.

<jeanne> JS: Two points: First, we can't measure by page because that doesn't scale beyond web. Second, the Substantially Meets problem applies here. What we have proposed is for each Method, to have a percentage that has to meet for the project/product to conform. For alt text, we might say that 95% of informational images have to have alt text to conform. But images used in menus or navigational

<jeanne> icons must have 100% to conform.

<jeanne> JF: That gets back to weighting.

<jeanne> JS: Agreed. We tried to do weighting last summer and ran into a lot of unexpected difficulty because the weight for one group might be different than another group. How to weight it when different user groups have different criticality of need. I like the idea of putting weight on the user need to give us some data to solve that problem.

<jeanne> scribenick: jeanne

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: 2019/06/07 19:18:47 $

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)

FAILED: s/tool/too/
Succeeded: s/dicussion/discussion/
Present: jeanne Rachael JF bruce_bailey Jennison
Regrets: Shawn Denis Makoto Cyborg
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found ScribeNick: jeanne
ScribeNicks: jeanne, Rachael
Found Date: 07 Jun 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]