<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?
<silence>
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>
Bruce: Cybele's example is better than mine.
<bruce_bailey> example of cross walk between technical criteria and fpc
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: 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: 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
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]