Silver Community Group Teleconference

12 Jul 2019


Lauriat, jeanne, Makoto, JF, Cyborg, AngelaAccessForAll, Chuck, Rachael, CharlesHall, shari, KimD, Jan, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, L�onie, johnkirkwood, johnkirk_, tink, (L�onie), LuisG
Shawn, Bruce
Jeanne Spellman
cybork, cyborg


<tink> Meeting: Silver TF meeting

<shari> present_

<LuisG> I would, but I may have to go at a moment's notice for baby times

Conformance proposals

<tink> scribe cybork

<JF> scribe: cybork

<Cyborg> scribe: cyborg

Shawn: Charles, Leonie proposals

Charles: sent proposal via the list, in response to severity. Question was can we change severity to be impact as critical vs difficulty of implementation. If so then the baseline point and multiplier makes sense, where it is about impact on people vs impact on authors, i liked pretty much everything else about JF's proposal. a number of people saw bias based on visual, auditory, mobility and cognition, but the bias is in the number of criteria
... number of criteria for each specific need. each SC was written for a functional need. if there are fewer ones that cover mobility, that is the bias, rather than in the points per criteria. so resolving bias by number of guidelines, not which need it maps to.

JF: Charles, i think we're getting close, criticality and complexity, impact on users, we need to think about that as one of metrics, when we think about points calculation, we should be looking at impact on author as well. easy things to do don't get you a lot of points, hard things to do get you a lot of points.
... language of the page, in terms of ease of implementation, providing you a good audio description for video, effort is higher. we need to recognize effort on contributor as well as impact on user. separate, complementary, discrete

Charles: level of effort is not actual level of effort, can buy a template that has that solution already in it, can meet the need without extra work. level of effort isn't fair gauge of how accessible it is

JF: audio description harder than language of page

Charles: so is the impact on people, more critical to people

<shari> - shari, he just answered

Shawn: quick point, one thing we wanted to have in Silver is ability to pass tests and meet guidance, without using method described.
... in google docs, can set alt text on images, but amount of work to make that accessible, was higher than alt attribute on image. was customized. difficulty is not known when assigning points.

<LuisG> I can scribe you

<LuisG> Cyborg: In dealing with the second issue about ease of implementation, I agree with John

<LuisG> .. it should be kept separate. I think of it in terms of social return on investment

<LuisG> .. how do I get my biggest bang for my buck

<LuisG> .. that's why I split it by reach and impact for the user and investment more focused on the organization

<LuisG> .. my 2x2 matrix talked about ease of implementation through lens of both how many people hours to implement and will it require a certain level of expertise to implement it?

<CharlesHall> link to Cyborg proposal doc?

<LuisG> .. I was looking at what we measure, not the points attributed because I still feel we need to make sure our X and Y axis are correct before assigning points

<LuisG> .. separating things can be helpful

Leonie: hard to do ease of implementation, how do we count it? can be complex to create a system that counts the effort of a person with their blog vs a highly complex task

<CharlesHall> +1 to level of effor being immeasurable

JF: not necessarily saying ease of implementation is toward final score, as we think about establishing baseline score, one of the things we think about with baseline score is effort. we are going towards gamification. instead of pass fail, if you do more, your score will increase.
... with cognitive disabilities, less about tech wiring, more about wholistic approach, cognitive walkthroughs, task completion, those kinds of activities are significant investment of human and cash resources
... when we look at scoring matrix, scoring mechanism should reward that investment as well. if you want to go from Bronze to Silver, maybe this is the time to do cognitive walkthroughs, ranking mechanism means greater investment means greater return
... one of the things we can consider as we develop baseline point, that the effort of purchasing template is low effort, but cognitive walkthrough is worth it if you get more points, higher order tests more worth it.
... return on investment is more significant, but inserting effort in calculation change

Shawn: assuming points would be awarded at test or guideline level, maybe more at test level, so different methods can be used to pass a different test. but the different methods will involve different effort. we do have same goal, if you put in more investment to do more things, you should get more points. measurability of effort and complexity and maintainability of that. some things 10 years ago were hard and now are easy.
... we need a maintenance model to adjust score as things get easier.

<LuisG> of course

<LuisG> Cyborg: I have a point of agreement with JF

<LuisG> .. and with what Shawn said. If the goal is to encourage not only things that are hard or time consuming, but also raise the bar in terms of broader accessibility and a deeper understanding

<LuisG> .. the stepped levels match the sloped version of Bronze, Silver, Gold...if we're making those leaps, that's the concern I have about the gradient

<LuisG> .. if we're encouraging leaps then we're getting closer to agreement

<LuisG> .. as for maintainability...how do we do it; how do we measure it, we need to grapple with it

<LuisG> .. in terms of maintenance and what's hard now is easy tomorrow, that needs to get worked in as well. we could do that through reviews that are done regularly

<LuisG> .. but yes, I think we're getting closer to talking on the same page

<CharlesHall> it sounds like we only need to be more specific in the Silver Requirements where part of the flexibility and governance includes adjustments to conformance scoring

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to Shawn

JF: effort level in my model is a multiplyer, gave 3 levels of effort - easy, medium, high - low level is 1, medium is 2, high is 3. the more you invest, the more you get back, create a system where that is what will happen. larger jumps of points

Cyborg speaking here - we are talking an alternative points economy, as incentive for accessibility change

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to include emerging tech

Jeanne: we also need to think about emerging tech in points system and therefore level of effort being part of method, is the right place to have it

Leonie: same as Jeanne, JF is asking if requirement A is more than B, but if we are talking about how much effort into A vs B, at the method level, that is worth it

Leonie ideas

Cyborg speaking here - wanting to separate investment from user need, to measure tehm separately vs multiplyer

Leonie: proposal question re: prioritizing requirements based on number of users, because it would create competition, thought that is not a good way to go. but after talking to John, walked through idea was to start with start with all requirements as being even, not one more or less important as other
... start on flat line, number of user groups benefiting is a multiplyer, many of the SC are written on assumption is that it benefits 1 group, but we know for e.g. that alt text is used by many categories of PWD, including cognitive disabilities
... number of groups vs number of users

<Lauriat> +1 to JF's q comment

<CharlesHall> +1 to number of groups, but I still prefer that to be described by the functional need and not the group

Leonie: that seemed to work until a requirement only benefited one group - e.g. content from flashing for seizures, cognitive disabilities. if user group numbers is multiplyer, that would have a lower multiplyer number. e.g. headings might benefit more user groups.
... one possibility is multiplication numbers, or criticality, important vs necessary
... to get over hump of flashing content, could add another level
... JF and i were talking through user needs in this way, so in this context, user group is type of disability vs user need

<LuisG> of course

<LuisG> Cyborg: I wanted to address the issue of criticality and user group numbers

<LuisG> .. starting with criticality, could we prioritize by it? there's an ongoing bias which is why I'm here. One of my concerns was hearing from members of 2.1 was that needs of blind people were considered more than those of users with cognitive disabilities

<LuisG> .. because blind people couldn't do anything at all, but with cognitive was more like "it was more difficult, but they could still do it"

<LuisG> .. and some people with cognitive disabilities encounter barriers that get categorized in that way

<LuisG> .. and what you have in the population of people with cognitive disabilities is higher rates of unemployment, higher suicide rates, etc. because it's so much harder because it's not made for them

<LuisG> .. it's not fair to have a competition, but if those kinds of things come to human rights tribunals, the bar is set as "undue hardship" and there have been more and more based on people with cognitive disabilities being told "you can still do it, it's just harder"

<LuisG> .. so for criticality, Jeanne Luis and I tried to eliminate that descrimination to those less likely to provoke that

<LuisG> .. but we could only slice that up as "will that cause a barrier" or "is it more on the functionality of the technology rather than the need"

<LuisG> .. among user needs we're not able to come to any conclusion that weren't encouraging descrimination

<LuisG> .. it's about less transparency with the bias because you buried it in math

<AngelaAccessForAll> +1 to Cybele's comments

<KimD> +1 to Cybele's comments also

<LuisG> Cyborg: we wondered if we could define it from the user perspective. it's hard to find consensus even within a user group and find people that have the self knowledge about whether something is easier or harder

<LuisG> .. to be able to do that assessment to fairly represent their user needs...is that really by group? what if they have intersectional needs? what if it's just harder for them because it's harder for them?

<LuisG> tink: we have people used to doing the research, analyzing the data, etc.

<LuisG> .. if WCAG isn't representing a user group enough, we should listen to people in that user group now

<LuisG> Shawn: let's go ahead and move on...we will need to talk through these things, but we want an overview of the proposals we have so far

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to suggest user needs versus user groups

<LuisG> JF: I take offense to something Cyborg said because I personally spent hundreds of hours trying to get cognitives guidelines into 2.1

<LuisG> .. to say that somehow we're ignoring needs of people with cognitives disabilities offensive and inaccurate

<LuisG> .. many people on this call are extremely mindful that up until now we've not done a good job meeting the needs of people with cognitive disabilities, but the reality is that it's a hard group of users to address

<LuisG> .. I agree that "user groups" isn't the best way of saying it...maybe something more like "functional requirements" or "user needs"

<LuisG> .. as you think them through, one of the examples was headings. and right now in WCAG, we're asking for heading usage and we're asking for a hierarchical order

<LuisG> .. so what we can look at is "if you get the hierarchy right, you get more points"

<LuisG> .. and it could also help people with cognitive disabilities, so you get another multiplier there

<LuisG> .. trying to think through user needs and using them as multipliers, we can think of wider range of needs people with cognitive disabilities have

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask how to decide what constitutes a group?

<CharlesHall> I love internet points

<LuisG> jeanne: a quick insight we had when working on heading was that headings that are formatted like headings. there's a visual hierachy would have been an easy thing to include in WCAG 2.0. that would have benefitied users with cognitive disabilities

Jeanne: insight on headings, there is a visual hierarchy would have been an easy thing in 2.0, would have benefited people with cognitive disabilities, but wasn't done

<LuisG> .. what we have is semantic headings in WCAG for screen reader users

<LuisG> .. we realized it was something that could have been done, but wasn't...but I wanted to ask tink if you considered how granular the groups would be

<LuisG> .. and thought on the criticality levels

<LuisG> tink: no, it was just some ideas. I mentioned at the end some of the things we'd want to explore, such as "what are users groups" "how many look like they'd be beneficial to multiple groups"

<LuisG> .. I wouldn't get too hung up on my word usage. I think we have a number of ways we could look at the criticality levels across the people involved, we have representatives from various groups

<LuisG> .. if we went to our contact, we could talk to more, but it might be enough to put forth a proposal

<LuisG> .. and just good old fashioned user research

<LuisG> .. we can use the skills and knowledge we have to put forth a proposal and then user test it

<LuisG> Shawn: Charles is next

<LuisG> Charles: what is the appetite for keeping non-interference involved with that level of criticality

<LuisG> .. what is the actual human impact? if it's highest, should that negate getting points anywhere?

<LuisG> .. if my site is 100% conformant, but I have an animated component that triggers seizures and I kill someone, why would I get any points

<LuisG> excellent point

<LuisG> tink: agreed

<LuisG> Rachael: I have been listening over several calls and I've heard us talk about factors like granularity of groups, number of groups, ease of use, etc.

<LuisG> .. I haven't heard us talk about granularity of requirements as a factor

<LuisG> .. and within the current version, we have rules that we can't modify existing SCs

<LuisG> .. I think there is potential without a rule for how we add content that things could become unbalanced very quickly

<LuisG> Shawn: only a few minutes...we have Cyborg and JF in the queue

<Rachael> We have discussed criticality, granularity/number of groups, and ease of use. I haven't heard us talk about granularity and number of SC as a factor. Regardless of system, I think we will need a set of rules to manage adding SC to avoid discrimination. Not sure we can just add requirements the way we do now.

<LuisG> Cyborg: I want to draw attention to Charle's comment about red lines of potential things that kill your accessibility rating

<LuisG> .. the issue I was trying to get to was the user groups types in JF's proposal...and my concern is that cognitive disabilities is a larger umbrella

<JF> I've expanded that initial list out in the spreadsheet

<JF> it's an idea, not the final list

<LuisG> .. we haven't even put mental health in there...and that makes it even more complicated

<jeanne> hey, that's a "we" expanded out that list.

<KimD> +1 to Cybele - it gets extremely complex very quickly

<LuisG> .. by giving lower points to certain things, we end up creating the same problems

<LuisG> Shawn: we agree granularity is a big topic to look into

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to address Jeanne's headings comment

<LuisG> JF: Visual representation would help people with cognitive disabilities, but considering purpose of input, we're not asking the web authors to do anything different

<LuisG> .. they're going to design the page how they're going to design the page

<jeanne> except for color contrast, that impacts the design of the page

<LuisG> .. we're making sure the semantics are there so that helper apps could step in and fill the gap

<LuisG> .. if they use the semantics correctly, a user stylesheet could help solve the problem

<LuisG> .. the push back would make it a non-starter to requiring visual design stylings for headings

<LuisG> .. it's not supposed to solve all the problems, but facilitate tools to help solve problems

<LuisG> .. we put not alt text so that all pages can read it out loud, but so that screen readers can read it out

I don't agree with JF about the headings issue - visual headings is not a "non-starter"

that kind of language is part of the problem, imo

<LuisG> Shawn: so now we need to figure out how to evaluate the proposals

<JF> @cyborg it iwll be a non-starter at design firms

<LuisG> thanks everyone

<jeanne> @JF, so was color contrast, but they adapted.

<JF> level of effort - everythig is a trade-off

<Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

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: 2019/07/12 19:03:55 $

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)

Default Present: Lauriat, jeanne, Makoto, JF, Cyborg, AngelaAccessForAll, Chuck, Rachael, CharlesHall, shari, KimD, Jan, ChrisLoiselle, bruce_bailey, L�onie, johnkirkwood, johnkirk_, tink, (L�onie), LuisG
Present: Lauriat jeanne Makoto JF Cyborg AngelaAccessForAll Chuck Rachael CharlesHall shari KimD Jan ChrisLoiselle bruce_bailey L�onie johnkirkwood johnkirk_ tink (L�onie) LuisG
Regrets: Shawn Bruce
Found Scribe: cybork
Found Scribe: cyborg
Inferring ScribeNick: Cyborg
Scribes: cybork, cyborg
Found Date: 12 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]