Silver Community Group Teleconference

28 Jun 2019


Chuck, Rachael, AngelaAccessForAll, Lauriat, CharlesHall, shari, Cyborg, KimD, jeanne, Jan, JF


<jeanne> conformance goals

<jeanne> conformance goals

Brief Review of requirements related to conformance and

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#design-principles

<Lauriat> 1. Support the needs of a wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs.

<Lauriat> 2. Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.

<Lauriat> 3. Be flexible enough to support the needs of people with disabilities and keep up with emerging technologies. The information structure allows guidance to be added or removed.

<Lauriat> 6. Improve the ability to support automated testing where appropriate and provide a procedure for repeatable tests when manual testing is appropriate.

JS: reviews designs principles that are directly related to conformance

<jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#requirements-0

<Lauriat> Multiple ways to measure All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.

Flexible maintenance and extensibility Create a maintenance and extensibility model for guidelines that can better meet the needs of people with disabilities using emerging technologies and interactions. The process of developing the guidance includes experts in the technology.

Multiple ways to display Make the guidelines available in different accessible and usable ways or formats so the guidance can be customized by and for different audiences.

@ Lauriat - I appreciate the help

Technology Neutral 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.

Readability/Usability The core guidelines are understandable by a non-technical audience. Text and presentation are usable and understandable through the use of plain language, structure, and design

Regulatory Environment The Guidelines provide broad support, including Structure, methodology, and content that facilitates adoption into law, regulation, or policy, and clear intent and transparency as to purpose and goals, to assist when there are questions or controversy

Motivation The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards organizations which demonstrate a greater effort to improve accessibility.

Scope The guidelines provide guidance for people and organizations that produce digital assets and technology of varying size and complexity. Our intent is to provide guidance for a diverse group of stakeholders including content creators, browsers, authoring tools, assistive technologies, and more.


CA: what does technology neutral mean? I know what it means but I wonder if someone might get tripped up.

SL: the guidance itself needs to be tech neutral.

CA: okay, then it is good.

No Silver meetings next week because of US and Canadian holidays

CH: the use of the term technology still means input tech, output tech

<jeanne> zakim take up item 2

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMesy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0/edit#heading=h.b1oovxl0m7o4

Discuss proposals. Start with C

<Cyborg> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMesy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0/edit#heading=h.b1oovxl0m7o4

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gW1PPI5pQ-yUNxR16XbLiPxTJzrBjqB3EroLfmLfe0s/edit#gid=1455183688

<CharlesHall> I also have questions

<Lauriat> Lauriat sees JF and CharlesHall on the queue

<Lauriat> Lauriat sees JF, CharlesHall, and Lauriat on the queue

CS proposal: in conclusion - we determined it would be best to not rank user need for impact. For reach and process, we included usability testing.

page 11 is more philosophical and we can discuss it further at a later date. It has been examined a lot in healthcare and we need to figure out our minimum standard.

The horizontal axis has: Factors for Assessment What It Measures Score Type Unifying Unit of Measurement (across score types) Weight and Justification Score on This Item

Vertical axis: Meeting user need: Impact, Meeting user need; Reach/Inclusion, Investment by Org: Ease of implementation, Investment by Org: Difficulty or complexity of testing, Score by guideline, Score by section, Overall score

JF, CH and SL are on the speaker queue

JF ?: I see you have weight and justification in column F so what metric are you planning to use?

CH? in the source material does it include the most recent email thread on conformance? CS - are you asking if it includes the issues with John's proposal?

CS: we didn't get into the back part of the conversation but we did look for items related to topics that are part of this proposal.

JS: at the time we were working on this last weekend, that email thread was evolving very quickly and we were trying to capture the old stuff for people but it wasn't an attempt to condense that email thread.

CH? in all the source material what did we have that suggested ranking user needs? did it exist in previous discussions? CS - I'm not sure I understand your question?

CS - in the thread there were multiple people +1ing giving more weight to various populations, etc. So yes, this is a way to move away from that and removing the bias that can occur.

<CharlesHall> i will post and share my availability via an ‘office hours’ that you can grab my time from

JohnF Proposal

JF: I do have one final question. CS metnioend we would get so many gold, silver, bronze points. The question I have with respect to a scoring model is that we need to report outcomes as well. The well I heard points mentioned suggests to me that you are incrementing by steps. In the model that I envision, it is more like a credit score. In each of the 4 broad categories of poor, fair, good, excellent there is a numeric range.

JF present his proposal of a conformance model.

JF: I've raised a number of troubling questions or questons we don't have answers to. To be transparent, I spoke with JS this morning and I don't feel comfortable not having answers to the design.

JS: instead of critiquing CS proposal, please present your proposal.

JF: In my original spreadsheet, I identified what user group this impacts. Captions don't benefit blind people. If we expand out the needs of the users, if we ask who is it benefitting and who its it not?

SB has a question

<CharlesHall> +1 to JF description of “who is and isn’t”, except I prefer the terminology of what functional need and not what ‘disability’ or group of people.

<Lauriat> +1 to CharlesHall

JF: if you encode a heading properly, it benefits screen readers but if you get the headings hierarchy right, then it benefits people with cognitive disabilities. All of those things would have an impact on the scoring piece but it also benefits a variety of user needs.

SL ?: how points relate to user needs? are you sayign the more it relates to user needs the more points it would get?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about points in relation to user needs

JF: what i'm saying in the spreadsheet that I created, all are tests are binary, but when I went through I added up all the 1 and 0's. It was an attempt to give weight
... we can't be asking large organization to do everything for every user because some of the groups are so small.

CS ?: JF I know you had a pretty developed proposal so I hope you'll show it next time.

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: 2019/06/28 19:03:17 $

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/JS: In my original spreadsheet/JF: In my original spreadsheet/
Present: Chuck Rachael AngelaAccessForAll Lauriat CharlesHall shari Cyborg KimD jeanne Jan JF
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: shari
Inferring Scribes: shari

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 28 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]