<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10zDtAvu0vP4BpZ4yYqupj7nDfk1jPNnbnHmnby_AGn8/edit#
<scribe> scribe: Chris
Jeanne: Friday's call was about timeline and whether or not we were going to meet timeline
Chartering may not happen for Silver
Shawn: Timeline isn't solid enough to declare charter
Jeanne: Community Reports have
been provided...
... AG working group members should join that call today if
possible
Shawn: Project Management / conformance model topic should be discussed , Jeanne agrees.
Jeanne: conformance needs to be completed. Possibility to split group. Conformance and Content two separate groups. People can join one or both.
Shawn: We want to take advantage of enthusiasm on conformance , diving and conquering may lead to good progress.
<CharlesHall> re: chicken / egg dependency. we need to have enough testable guidelines available in order to conduct usability testing on the conformance model.
JF: Migration from 2.x into
silver template is not possible due to conformance model is not
there...where does it lead us?
... Does content mean migration piece ? Or task based
content?
Shawn: For example, cognitive walk through can't be met until conformance model. Groupings we can start to build up. We can take some of those and write those as examples for conformance model work.
Jeanne: Cognitive walkthrough is a piece of content that we need to get to next level.
concrete examples are needed
one example was hard to do , color contrast, a , aa, aaa levels... we picked this because of the issues related to conformance and content.
Shawn: Conformance aspect is reasonable request to be in place, Jeanne agrees.
<CharlesHall> the points / scoring / result aspect should be validated as a baseline before the cognitive walkthrough or task-based evaluation can be tested as an extension of that model.
CharlesAdams: The migration
aspect of moving color contrast has found barriers. The
conformance model wasn't clear thus issues arose in full
migration.
... Lack of understanding of conformance model was one of the
barriers.
Shawn: We need to move forward on both migration and conformance. JF agrees, but states issues in migration will occur until conformance model is set.
JF: Conformance model based on techniques , i.e. metrics and points associated with [...] , may not be right way to go about conformance model. I.e. alt text vs. aria-label and which is best in eyes of end user.
Shawn: It needs to reflect the outcome of the user, outcome based.
Jeanne: can't all be outcome
based , automated testing would be affected.
... Anything else on migration?
Shawn: Additional calls - when those times are will hopefully be easier for all (international members included)
CharlesAdams: Should I talk to my migration issues?
CharlesAdams: two related issues. 1) Tests are written to test against different levels, a, aa, aaa. Hard to implement per our template.
Jeanne: Did you think about writing different methods?
CharlesAdams: I took existing
methods on wcag ...2) methods themselves are based are on wcag
2.x aa, aaa , lack of understanding on conformance model
itself.
... Other barriers: WCAG technique tests - Copying and pasting
from testing technique into our document , does not preserve
formatting , highlights, etc. Formatting for tests from wcag
goes into preserving existing test hierarchy.
A lot of work to copy actual tests over. Not all tests were ported over. If an anchor is possible, that would benefit as a reference point.
Jeanne: There should be anchors for links and we can look into that.
<jeanne> It is #tests
CharlesAdams: Research material linking was not possible as couldn't find the research links.
Color contrast information that talks to bold text , if / then statements were introduced and writing tests in our template was a challenge.
should we consider this font standard part of a different migration rather than color contrast?
CharlesAdams: email sent to Shawn and Jeanne in terms of hypothetical solutions. Process has evolved
Jeanne: #tests is the link
for the technique
<CharlesHall> some research is in the “B2. Informative References” section of the Recommendation doc: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#informative-references. others are in the Resources section of the Understanding Docs, like: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/use-of-color.html#resources
Shawn: Material design team at Google did some research. There is a ton of variables associated with...CharlesAdams: I ignored research as it was a migration process from WCAG vs. scope creep of other resources.
Cyborg: migration is to show the benefit of silver. creating new tests as well as migrations. I.e. emerging technology , which will come up in the future in work of migration itself.
There should be the ability to note, "drop it in bucket" and come back to it rather than re-research the issue when it comes up again later in process.
Jeanne: key thing is the methods that we can work with.
CharlesAdams: Copying current methods or creating new methods?
Jeanne: Write a method that associates A, AA, AAA and group them. If new type of test is needed, then write it. If opportunity for cognitive walk through, rubric, then take it.
Cyborg: Mapping exercise and abstraction of methods may help.
What does "opportunity mean" in terms of creating a new test or new method?
I.e what is the purpose of writing the test in your head? write that process down.
Jeanne: Cybil do you want to talk to your topic?
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10zDtAvu0vP4BpZ4yYqupj7nDfk1jPNnbnHmnby_AGn8/edit
Cyborg: This is content creation process. Goal is to be able to provide ability to create content for others. Chuck and I spoke to the fact that users are one of the 4 "groups" that relate to supply chain of content creation.
a reviewer should be able to understand if this is "ready" before they post live. Access U work contribute to this. This definitely needs to be tested against migration goals. This may be in a form if that works.
<CharlesHall> link to “Guideline Explainer”?
Cyborg: first piece is to define user, then test, then method, then write the guideline explainer.
JF: Tests go into methods. Scoring methodology based on methods? Seems wrong. We aren't going to have a fixed score. Sites change etc.
Jeanne: We know we will have to write this on the high level and move the content. Please hold question for conformance work.
JF: In wcag , all tests are pass / fail currently. Primary reasoning to move to silver is to deal with this situation. Copying over pass / fail tests, ignores that accessibility sits somewhere in the middle.
CharlesAdams: I'm experiencing what JF is talking to.
Jeanne: We expect the progress to happen while moving forward to this , rewriting the first 6 is iterative process based off of feedback on process document.
CharlesAdams: I will still take approach and discuss challenges and ways of overcoming.
Cyborg: Should JF's questions and concerns be talked to in content creation process for section #5 in terms of conformance?
<Chuck> Time Check
Shawn, is there a specific way to close out the meeting on irc?
rrsagent still work?
thanks so much!
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: chrisloiselle CharlesHall JF KimD Lauriat Chuck Makoto Jan Cyborg No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: chrisloiselle Found Scribe: Chris Found Date: 18 Jun 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]