I can scribe
Jeanne: Conformance proposals is first on agenda
JF: provided url for scoring and reporting proposal.
Certain success criteria have more worth than others. We need to acknowledge low hanging fruit in relation to other requirements. Points and basis for points should be relative to effort
SC 3.1.1. would have base score of 4 points. SC 1.3.4 would have 12 points as base score.
Overall severity is debatable. JF chose max score of 10 , then assigned values.
I.e row four SC 1.1.1 , total score of two: 1 point for visual, 1 for cognition, gives total score of 2 for impact of users
<Cyborg> can someone please repost link?
Row 7 goes into how JF did the calculation. Row 8 is Best Possible Score explanation.
Column M talks to total score. Are we going to use decimal points ? Should we aggregate up ?
If you look at Sheet 2 : We would look at Sensory, Mobility, Cognitive ... and then look at User Needs per Mandate 376 Functional Performance Statements , I.e. usage without vision, limited vision, perception of color etc...
Sheet 3: Talks to Point System vs. Step system. What does reporting 30 points mean in context ?
JF talks to bad, fair , good and excellent ratings , which is grouped by point ranges , i.e. bad would be 300-629 points, excellent would be 720 to 850 total points.
example was based off of U.S.'s FICO score vs. Point System Basics . If looking at Point System Basics: Bronze , overall grade for bronze is 30 points.
<jeanne> jeanne notes that the diagram for Point system that John is comparing to is an old straw man that was not accepted by the group. We need to find a way to mark old proposals as old.
<scribe> scribe: ChrisLoiselle
Sheet 3: JF talks to User Tests / Cognitive Walkthroughs vs. Mechanical Tests, Human Verification and then be put through a Score Aggragator
The score would also talk to a time base dynamic conformance report
Does a cognitive walk through still hold same value 6 months later ? I.e. homepage content may have changed. Structure stays , but content changes. How does that impact users and overall score?
Jeanne: defers to Leonie
Leonie: the multipliers are great. Prioritizing user needs of groups of people with disabilities would need to be debated.
JF: Agreed we don't want to make this into a competition between user groups.
I.e. SC 1.1.1 benefits non sighted users , but may not help a person with a mobility issue. There should be some sort of weighted aspect
<bruce_bailey> Here is my post about having an additional currency:
<bruce_bailey> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2019Jun/0045.html
JF: Audio description - level of impact is important.
Leonie: User requirement should be defined , i.e. I cannot see, therefore I need "x,y,z".
JF: We have to acknowledge the impact of our efforts and how that impacts one or more groups.
Leonie: Prioritizing off of disability type may lead to excluding other user groups and we need to avoid that.
Leonie and JF: Talk to levels of disability within a disability group.
<bruce_bailey> i don't think john's proposal encourages going after low hanging fruit -- because those items are worth fewer points
<jeanne> +1 to Bruce
Leonie: What if a user group has lower number of people within the group against another group of disabled group?
how would that impact end users?
Jeanne: We don't want to make a hierarchy of disabilities.
<KimD> +1 to measuring something besides "disability"
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask why "low hanging fruit" has to have impact on user, when the example given was effectiveness and ease of implementation
JF: Time as a factor needs to be looked at as well...
<bruce_bailey> Several weeks ago I pointed out that WCAG 2x could be point based, iff A sc are 10K points each, AA 100 pts ea, and AAA single pnts.
Bruce: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2019Jun/0045.html
<jeanne> Cybele's proposal on Friday addressed the measures we SHOULD be making that would prioritize while being fair.
Bruce: JF's work is great. The inherent problem, do all difficult things and then not do anything for SC 1.1.1 then still meet "bronze". We need different "currencies" or points toward gold, silver, bronze.
Point system is for most discrete goals. Then other currencies for other levels of accessibility
JF: Bronze, Silver, Gold , how are they different?
Lauriat: The range for bronze was a range. Points are points. Number of points builds up to a level
You can't build up in one category and meet a "bronze" overall grade
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i think adding additional “currency” addresses concern Leonie raises
<bruce_bailey> i think we do need distinct categories of points
<bruce_bailey> i do not recall categories of points being discussed before
JF: we want to move from good to excellent, and show progress. How do we distill points ?
<bruce_bailey> @jf i am not hearing anything about my concern about points for hard stuff overwhelming points for easy stuff (like alt tags)
<jeanne> Bruce, that model was developed at TPAC last year from an idea by Alastair.
Bruce: We need points and categories that don't convert to other areas / things.
Charles: I'm unable to cover my topic with time remaining.
<bruce_bailey> I regard Alastair's points towards bronze/silver/gold as what I am saying about the need for an additional currency.
Cybil: I'm not going to address
what I did previous week.
... step levels , there are many ways to look at this. Good,
better and best. If compliance is not end goal, what is being
rewarded? maturity models , program implementations, etc.
<bruce_bailey> I see Alastairs model as saying that a site does not earn points towards Silver without meeting Bronze.
<jeanne> Measurement alternative proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMesy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0/edit?ts=5d2419e7#heading=h.8v4ivoroyy0s
Process development, what does the org have to do to become an accessible company?
<KimD> +1 to Cyborg
Gold: Not everyone achieves, but companies that are moving toward that goal...
<jeanne> 'chair: Shawn, jeanne
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: bruce_bailey L�onie johnkirkwood KimD Lauriat Cyborg Makoto Rachael CharlesHall jeanne johnkirk_ Regrets: Angela Denis Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 09 Jul 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]