Silver Community Group Teleconference

16 Jul 2019


CharlesHall, jeanne, johnkirkwood, Cyborg, Chuck, Makoto, AngelaAccessForAll, Rachael, JF, bruce_bailey, KimD
SHawn, Jan


<Cyborg> i cannot find the agenda email

<Cyborg> to sign in

<scribe> scribe: Chuck

bruce: Discussion about categorizing success criteria?
... I talked about ribbon last week. Just need additional currency. Points are one ribbons are another.

Jeanne: Right. I've got some people texting for link.

<ChrisLoiselle> <ChrisLoiselle> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m205c79e2a4cb3a2a3b2692a86d046a13 [09:30] <ChrisLoiselle> or https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_silver-tue

bruce: I think the whole second thing besides points (ribbons) is compatible with discussion that has gone on this week since.
... Something else that developers are working towards in order to get something above bronze or "wood metal".
... These achievements you can't pay a whole bunch of points to get ribbons. It's non-transferable. A separate track.
... It simplifies.

Jeanne: You are thinking about....

<ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_silver-tue

<ChrisLoiselle> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m205c79e2a4cb3a2a3b2692a86d046a13

Charles: Just to clarify on the second currency of ribbons... this is something that would be comparible to apple activity app...
... Of having and meeting a goal, or passing and meeting a trend? Re-enforcing a behavior around accessibility but not related to conformance.

Bruce: I would disagree that it's not related. It's a second metric, for getting levels higher than bronze.

Charles: OK.

Bruce: Don't know how well it compares to those alternative apps, don't know if they have two separate tracks.

Jeanne: Recap, when we talked last year we talked about a similar thing, but not separate currencies.
... The conformance... we roughly 2 categories of people. People who are doing it because they don't want to be sued.

<bruce_bailey> http://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m205c79e2a4cb3a2a3b2692a86d046a13

Jeanne: They just care if they conform and meet the minimum. Then we have the people who want to make their site fully accessible.

<bruce_bailey> dial in: 617-324-0000

<bruce_bailey> meeting number: 644 037 318

Jeanne: Bronze was for minimum. WCAG AA would not be an on ramp to bronze. They would transfer right into bronze.
... We would get a lot of resistance and pushback otherwise. We want to do more points for people who want to do more.
... Make it easier for them, encourage them. To ramp up higher than the minimum.
... We talked last summer, we didn't worry too much about conformance about silver and gold. Those are people who want to do more than minimum.
... We didn't think of it as a new currency. But we could.
... <someone> felt that we wanted to do it in a manner other than best practice. People don't like to do best practice and avoid it.
... We talked about different ways to encourage people to do more. Which is why I'm interested in 2 currency.

Charles: That's the primary reason I asked the way I did. I want to understand the relationship between second currency and conforming.
... you need 2nd currency to get above minimum conformance.
... You need minimum points to get minimum conformance....

<Cyborg> this sounds super interesting

Charles: Trying to clarify relationship between 2 currencies.
... 2nd currency was directly related to whether we conform to minimum. there are points for meeting the guideline.

<bruce_bailey> anyone have JF link to google spreadsheet from last week?

Charles: There is a second currency for meeting guideline across all functional needs. I couldn't get second currency without meeting all.
... And can't conform without 2nd currency.

Jeanne: What would you see the way that we would measure the functional need?

Charles: Measure it in points or the spectrum. If there are 12 functional needs, I would need to meet all 12 to meet bronze.

Jeanne: I have a pizza shop website. How would I do 8 of the 12, or 12 of 12?

<Cyborg> this is fascinating

Charles: I don't have an answer to that. Just trying to identify the relationship between the two currency.
... There's another model where the second currency is a dependency on meeting minumum.

Jeanne: Which is an interesting problem of how we meet the minimum. We want to make sure that people can't cherry pick easy points
... and not meet minimum. That's an interesting way to address it.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that it might also be the case that, in additional to ribbons, one needs even more points

Bruce: John pasted in his google doc from last week. Go tab that says images.
... I want to get back to Charles. John has a picture of a data table that is exactly what Charles is talking about. I want to speak to that.

Jeanne: That's the data table of the proposal from last October.

Bruce: That's what I'm hearing Charles describe. I would categorize this as 4 categories of currency.
... <recaps> Charles Hall talks about bronze minimum by meeting points in all categories.
... This is one model we might think about having. That's not what I described for ribbons. That ribbons idea is more like a game system.
... You can get points, but there's another form of progress (gems). They are harder to do, but only required above bronze.
... Point system basics if 4 different currencies. That's a system that can work, but I think it's complicated.

Jeanne: That was one of the criticisms. We rejected the proposal that John pasted in the images page. We eventually decided we didn't want to do.
... We were saying that whatever your lowest score is your level. Anybody remember why we didn't want to use this?


Jeanne: That was a proposal that was flawed and we decided (with consensus) that we wouldn't move forward with it).

Cybele: I can't remember exactly, but a combination of what you said with lowest score issue and issue with granularity.
... And any other ways of slicing, and one other thing. Three or four reasons to reject. These are two of the 4 that I remember.

John K: One thing that always comes up from our perspective of actually implementing the criteria...

John K: making things accessible under court of law, 2 words of undue burden. I just think that we have to integrate in our process

John K: The perception of level of effort or gives us an idea of that. I just want to get it into our framework.

<Cyborg> +1 to undue burden, undue hardship

Jeanne: That's a good lead in to the agenda.

JF: Charles, just want to go back into what you are explaining. What you are saying...

<KimD> +1 to John K - "undue burden" is something we need to be mindful of.

JF: Blocks and sheets as in leaves of paper. There's a minimum block that must be met, and then leaves (higher granularity) that can be met.

Charles: No, trying to find a good analogy to what we already have. The idea that I was referencing is just that...
... The second currency is a threshold that must also be met. So to meet bronze I must meet 300 points.
... Assume that I get 301 points. But I don't get those points unless I also meet each functional needs.
... 300 points is a threshold, 12 of 12 is another threshold.

JF: What's the relationship between 300 and 12 of 12?

Charles: One is meeting the guideline and the other is meeting it across all functional needs.
... You would have to meet it for each of the categories.

JF: 300 in each of the 12?

Charles: No. think of it as distinct currencies.

JF: Just trying to understand relationship between both currencies. I must do something to meet 300 points, but I must also...
... Meet each of the 12 categories. If I only get 10 of 12, and if I get 400 points? I'm still not meeting the minimum?

Jeanne: We are talking about doing tests for the existing SC, that's how you accumulate the 300 points. But you also have to prove it works.

JF: Fair enough.

Jeanne: As opposed to just doing a checklist and not meeting points.

JF: I heard the opposite. You must meet the entire checklist.

Charles: The only difference between John described and I discribed is that the 12 is a checkmark. The 300 points are in the good range
... But you don't get those unless the 12 are checkd.

JF: What happens if I get only 10 of 12? That's all or nothing. I thought we wanted to get away from all or nothing and get to "pretty close".
... If I haven't met 2 of the 12, do I get a partial score because I met 10 of 12?
... 92% conformance meaning that 8% is left behind. Can you have some of the 12 and be marching towards some level of conformance?
... I thought we are talking about a cumulative score for the site. Micoto says Japan uses the number of pages.
... trying to understand what happens when I meet only 10 of 12.

Jeanne: Moving on, who is next in queue?

Cybele: Q for Charles. Issue of functional need vs disability vs barrier. How do you Charles dilinaite between the 3? More clarity desired.

<jeanne> Jeanne: We will hold how to address the idea of how we could have partial conformance in functional needs

Cybele: Partial. Partial is important to consider, but that means we are meeting some peoples needs and not others, which relates to undue burden.
... Partial is not the answer to that problem. I like meeting them all. But would like to get Charles perspective on the three.

Charles: I think the first question is something that we would have to take offline, long answer. 2nd question I don't have an answer for.
... I didn't have a proposal, just highlighting that there's a different way to think about a second currency.
... There are criteria written for specific functional needs. So if the guideline is irrelevant to mobility, wouldn't need to check it off.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to chat about matching SC against FPC

Jeanne: I'd like to move on to the next agenda, which is how to evaluate these proposals. What are we going to do with these ideas and best way to move forward?

Bruce: I don't think its... I understand 12 of 12 as second criteria in additon to points. I agree with Cybele's concerns that 10 of 12 fails, and points won't matter.
... I think that trying to come up with 10 or 12 categories of disability related issues is a huge rat hole. Wed last week I sent link
... Where they attempted to do that, they had 10 categories plus privacy, they mapped 2.1 sc...
... We did similar with 508 rule making.
... We did it for other provisions (will provide link).

<Cyborg> +1 to concerns re: rat hole of delineating concerns. there will be increasing granularity etc. this is why i was bringing up disability vs functional need vs barrier. i think we need to spend some more time working on this. +1 to lopsided etc

Bruce: Having done that work, I don't think it's of much utility. It's lop sided. Even if you can check it off, it's not meaningful.
... If we go with second currency, it's for a different purpose. Ribbon achievements are for important for harder to quantify but are important.
... Those would be ribbons not points.

JF: Shot comment - I am very concerned when we have a very binary position of include or exclude.

<Cyborg> Bruce's comments re: second currency, not sure about usability testing, i have an alternative place to count it. but maybe used for maturity model and process improvement?

JF: To say that we are not including a person, we will never be able to include everyone. Notion of good better best means we acknowledge we can't be all things to all people.
... I am concerned with the terms "exclude", and concerned with binary position.

Cybele: Going to say what I put in IRC. I do want to propose that Bruce is suggesting another way for currency.
... <missed some of her comments, but pasted in>

HOw to evaluate proposals

Bruce: Cybele's example is better than mine.

<bruce_bailey> example of cross walk between technical criteria and fpc

<bruce_bailey> http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh/final-regulatory-impact-analysis#_Toc471376909

Jeanne: Several people emailed me with ideas on how we could evalaute these proposals. Find the best ideas of what works for each one.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit#heading=h.4c2v4xktzeh

Jeanne: I'm not sure that this doc is saved, let's see who can see this, and if it's public.
... This doc is 3 different proposals of how to evaluate different conformance ideas. The one that Alistair proposed is first.
... His idea is great but I'm not sure we are ready. We have a test process where we first look at our goals for performance, and turn into measures.
... <reads from doc>
... <read's second, third, fourth>
... This addresses the problem with "what's the minimum". <continues reading>

Charles: Non-interference.

Jeanne: <continues to read from doc>

<JF> How do we measure "For a guideline without methods, it is clear how to meet the individual need represented by that guideline."?

Jeanne: We test some public facing sites.

<Cyborg> can we also please test a retail site or a travel site?

Jeanne: Is Rachel on the call?

Rachel: I am.
... Go ahead and talk about it, I'm not prepared to do so.

Jeanne: What she said is this that a lot of people are passionate about conformance. Everybody should step back, write pros, cons, risks and holes
... Everyone then comes together and discusses this emotionally charged topic. I agree that's a good starting thing to do first.
... Alistair's proposal is time concerning, and we should to some pre-eval. I like doing the pro's and cons.
... I then filled in what we did last year.

<CharlesHall> that sounds like a SWOT analysis

Jeanne: This chould run simultaneously. What we did is very similar to what John did a few weeks ago. We took every single WCAG SC
... We took 4 proposals from low vision and coga, to make sure that silver will work with new material we want to add.
... We asked for 2 from each group so that we would have content to test against.
... What we did as a group... we took one meeting and went through all the WCAG SC and rated them against the various factors we were measuring
... And then evaluated the results.
... I thought the spreadsheet was going to be simple, no brainer, but we learned some very interesting things about scoring all sc.
... Which is why I support that we should not do criticality.
... I'm proposing that each person who has a proposal set up.... assuming we are going to move most...
... Score them all in each of the systems and see if it works.
... We found problems with it last year as we went through all the sc. That's what I'm suggesting.
... What are the optimal pieces we want to put together?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask for link to what (complicated) approach alastair proposed?

Chuck: I like the pros and cons.

Bruce: Alistair had a complicated proposal? Is that written up?

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit#heading=h.4c2v4xktzeh

Jeanne: That's the one I read from the doc we pasted in IRC. Here's the link again.
... Just scroll up.
... I forget that google docs includes headings in url.

Bruce: I want to see Alistair's complicated approach.

Jeanne: Alistair's approach is to pick some current sites. It's a lot of work.

Bruce: I'm only seeing one approach, not 2.

Jeanne: It's all in the same document.
... I'll label them. That will be easier.
... Chuck said let's start with pros and cons.
... Any other ideas on where we start?

Bruce: I think the only one we can do is pro's and cons. Too many other large moving parts.
... We can't to alistair's until we are done.

Jeanne: We can itterate through it. Not use it to test major sites until we are done.
... There are things that we've been talking about, points system, but other things we need to address, partial conformance, accessibility supported, 4 exception issues
... Very large sites. Substantially meets. Example is facebook updates so frequently it can never be measured. But we can say
... It substantially meets.
... We can say we know this feature meets. But the content updates so frequently that it can never be tested.
... We want to address how a very large site claims conformance. A number of things we haven't discussed.
... Alistair is reminding us to remember some of these points and not forget about them as we work on the score.
... I think we should start with Rachel's.
... I know I've been passionate, we did all this testing and it's not been a part of the conversation.

<bruce_bailey> +1 that Alastair's check list is useful to return to in an iterative process

Jeanne: Once we solidify them more. We should start with pros and cons, move into feasibility, hits pro's and cons again, and then do Alistair's.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Jeanne's plan

Cybele: I like your suggestion Jeanne. When we get to the stage of doing Alistair's....
... I would add in retail and travel site to the list of sites to eval.

<JF> How do we measure "For a guideline without methods, it is clear how to meet the individual need represented by that guideline."?

JF: The one thing that I'm concerned with.... Read's from alistair's... How do we measure that. If we don't have a method, what are we measuring
... And how do we measure? In many ways this is intended to be a document that creators will use to guide their work.

Jeanne: You are saying that you have a concern about one of the bullets in Alistair's proposal about....
... I don't understand what you meant about creators using doc to guide their work.

JF: The only way to meet the need is to have a method. If we don't have a method we don't know how to meet the need, we can't meausre success.

Jeanne: This is a proposal that came out of David M work. Really advanced technology that we don't yet know about.
... Very often in google product they don't use HTML. They still provide a way to provide alt text. They don't have a method
... Because they are using something proprietary. They are still meeting user need.
... We don't want to have to write methods for everybody. Someone could be using their own technology, and prove they meet the user need.

JF: I can understand that. An observation: There will probably be multiple user needs, not singular. Again we are coming down to describing
... Functional requirements, that's good. Final piece: If I articulate a functional requirement, does a site get points by meeting it...
... for 9 of 10 users?
... Comes back to the concern of binary (all or nothing).

Jeanne: It doesn't have to be that way.

JF: I'm just proposing a question.

Jeanne: Alistair is saying that there needs to be a plan that includes it, doesn't have to be binary.
... How we do it is up to us.

JF: Agree. He says "it's clear that we meet the individual need". When we say we meet the functional requirement, for who?

Jeanne: This is about how we measure the plan, the different proposal.

<CharlesHall> this proposed first step of a pro/con / SWOT analysis should be in a single shared doc.

Jeanne: Everyone who has a proposal, start writing up pros and cons, risks and holes in your approach. Please be prepared to discuss on Friday.
... If we could get a start on Friday that would be great.

<bruce_bailey> I need more time

Bruce: I won't be on the call Friday. I think we should start after Friday.

Rachel: I think there's a benefit to sending the link and giving us time to think about it.

Jeanne: Do we have a link? There's a lot of ideas floating around here.
... I don't know that all of them have proposals?

Cyborg: Can they send them to you Jeanne and you put them together for all of us?

Jeanne: I will do. I'll send out an email. People had to drop off the call. If you have ideas that you think should be considered,
... Write it up so everyone can look at it. If you already wrote a proposal, you can do the pros, cons, risks and holes.

Cybele: Can we include my spreadsheet?

Jeanne: Yes.

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> +1

<KimD> +1

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: 2019/07/16 14:35:49 $

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/Cybele/Cyborg/
Present: CharlesHall jeanne johnkirkwood Cyborg Chuck Makoto AngelaAccessForAll Rachael JF bruce_bailey KimD
Regrets: SHawn Jan
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Found Date: 16 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]