Conformance model working calls

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

Shawn: The conformance calls will start up next week. This week we will focus on what to measure for the conformance model proposals.

Jeanne: Will send out a link with more information. Tuesday night at 7pm Eastern to include Asia timezone
... we now have one call that works for Europe, one for Asia and one for US west coast

<jeanne> queue:

What to measure for the conformance model proposals

<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/

Lauriat: Building on alastair's work on measuring against the requirements document.

<Lauriat> Silver conformance testing measures: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit

Lauriat: we had gone through the design principles. Going through requirements. There is a blank section on the working document
... 3.1 Multiple Ways to Measure relates since it is all about measuring.
... 3.2 Flexible maintenance and extensibility likely relates.

JF: Is it a moving target?

Lauriat: We have a goal of not moving the goalposts for someone already conforming to WCAG.

JF: Its a goal, but is it in our requirements?

Lauriat: I don't think so but we should note it. It is a moving target at the moment. When we started Silver it was very unclear if there would be a WCAG 2.2 for instance.

JF: Didn't we say as a requirement that a conforming site for WCAG 2.2 will pass Silver?

Lauriat: That is not in our requirements since we wanted to include SC that didn't make it into the 2.x line.

JF: So a conformant site today would not meet bronze?

Lauriat: Correct.

Bruce: +1. This document should say WCAG 2.0. WCAG 2.2 is a moving target. WCAG 2.0 is the basis of legal requirements in US.

JF: It is the basis for most legal options. We should have a path that if you are WCAG 2.0 compliant today, then you are bronze.

Lauriat: I would prefer to leave that as an open question.

<johnkirkwood> sorry got kicked out of irc. could link again of doc being discussed?

<CharlesHall> “maps to” could simply mean moving the line on the map along the way.

<bruce_bailey> i agree we are talking goal/objective not a *requirement*

Jeanne: I suggest we keep a spreadsheet of what is covered and what is not. That way we can leave the question open. Every proposal does not need to meet every goal but we should include it so we can see which do and which do not.
... we can then avoid the complex question today.

<KimD> I'm not ready to exclude everything beyond WCAG 2.0 (AA) - I think Jeanne is right, we need more conversation.

Bruce: Are you concerned about making the decision today or about the approach as a whole.

Lauriat: Today we are just ironing out what we want to measure. Determining 2.0 today rather than 2.1 seems a different discussion.

<KimD> +1 - it's a future conversation

<bruce_bailey> i still think *this* doc should say “Bronze maps to WCAG 2.0 Level AA” and not “Bronze maps to WCAG 2.x”

Jeanne: That is a much broader discussion that needs input from the AG and the public.

<Lauriat> Silver conformance testing measures: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit

<johnkirkwood> gr8

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that this doc could say 2.0 level AA and not 2.x

Rachael: What is the decision about how to include this?

Lauriat: I have included a reference to bronze conformance to WCAG 2.0 on the spreadsheet. We will then bring it back to the larger group after evaluation.
... I don't think Multiple Ways to Display relates to the conformance model. Does anyone else think it does?

+1 to not including it.

Lauriat: Readability/Usability

<Lauriat> 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.

<shari> +1

+1

<AngelaAccessForAll> +`

<AngelaAccessForAll> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Makoto> +1

lauriat: I lean towards including this.

<KimD> +1

<Lauriat> https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/

<jeanne> +1

Lauriat: Technology Neutral should be included.
... Regulatory Environment is a no brainer. There are two aspects:

<Lauriat> 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.

Lauriat: I think its vital we measure against both aspects of the environment.

Jeanne: Do you think we should break this up into 2 goals?

<CharlesHall> intent may be difficult to account for in the conformance model itself

Lauriat: Yes. To make sure we measure each aspect of those
... this is also where we should discuss 2.0 mapping.

Chuck: Legalize can be problematic. Would we be using some expertise to help with this evaluation. We will use several apects to help. One is including Bruce, Makoto and others. We will also work with people to make sure they understand.

Jeanne: We would be interested in lawyer's evaluation as well.

<CharlesHall> suggestion: the pro / con review covers if it is seemingly possible to form regulation. if the model advances to testing, then we include a legal review.

<KimD> +1

Lauriat: once we've worked out the measures, I think we should send it out for feedback to key stakeholders such as them.

<Lauriat> 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.

<jeanne> jeanne: We worked with regulators and lawyers as part of the Silver Research project and the Silver Design Sprint. We should loop back with them to get their input.

Lauriat: 3.7 Motivation applies to the conformance model

<KimD> (that was a +1 to Shawn's 'get feedback')

Lauriat: the last one is also related. Scope.

<Lauriat> 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.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wklZRJAIPzdp2RmRKZcVsyRdXpgFbqFF6i7gzCRqldc/edit#heading=h.gxganob56hxr

Jeanne: I'd like to add looking at the exceptions that we identified during the requirements work. I have them documented in the conformance proposal from May.
... there is substantially conforms: where companies had a generally accessible site, but it was so large or updated so quickly that it wasn't possible to guarantee that it was 100% conformant

"Tolerance" is a different concept of a less-than-ideal implementation but no serious barriers

"Accessibility Supported" where organizations code to the standard, but it doesn't work because of some bug or lack of implementation in the assistive technology

Where something conforms, but the users are still not able to go through the task or get the information they need

Being dependent on an external vendor and you can't fix it until the vendor fixes it.

scribe: we want to address those exceptions as part of conformance.

Lauriat: Some of these we have included. It isn't explicit but its included in Scope.
... the first item for substantially conforms sounds like two different things to me. The first is where a company mostly conforms. The second is where the site is so large it is difficult to keep it conformant.

Jeanne: Maybe we want to adjust names for these.
... I think we need to address these though they can be split up.

JF: Shaun, you said that something could be partially conformant but didn't dramatically effect users. We went through an exercise where we went through all the standards and we determined that each impacts some user.

Shaun: I can give you an example. An iframe which is aria-hidden with no language attribute.
... they are for tracking and logging. The user never interacts with them. The point you make is very valid. The SC are all vital but it does depend on context. There is no SC we can say is not vital.

JF: So it is more a scenario than a specific requirement.

Lauriat: That is what we wanted to explore with substantially conforms. How to express that. The facebook example is one we want to work out. Pages are updated every second. We want to write something that a site like that can be substantially conformant.

JF: That example applies many places.

Lauriat: What I am getting is that these should be included.

Jeanne: We did this earlier but if you have examples that should be in this list please add them.

JF: I often think of the VPAT model.

Lauriat: That comes to mind for me too. Its the only way I've seen it expressed.

JF: It isn't law but its the US Gov approves way of reporting this type of thing.

Lauriat: Yes
... I started a new sublisting and linked to the exceptions document. Also linking the requirements document.
... the next one is Tolerance.
... less than ideal implementation but no serious barriers.

<bruce_bailey> just to be clear, an industry trade group started the vpat approach

<bruce_bailey> i concur that vpats have reasonable uptake in goverment

Lauriat: Is this a menu with 50 items all of which are accessible but the number makes it difficult?

Chuck: I'm not sure its an example but positioning a label next to a form element?

JF: There is a best practice to left align the labels to support mobile.

chuck: I thought there was research on the label being above the field.

ack: Rachael

https://www.usability.gov/get-involved/blog/2008/04/usable-online-forms.html

The link above is a reference to some of the research you are talking about.

<Lauriat> "Accessibility Supported" is another slice of this problem, where organizations code to the standard, but it doesn't work because of some bug or lack of implementation in the assistive technology. We have discussed noting the problem in the Method, and then tagging the Method for the assistive technology vendors to know they have a problem, or make it easy for SME's to file bugs against the AT (or user agents, or platforms, etc.)

Lauriat: We are looking for something that is accessible but not ideal.
... Someone codes to the standard but something in the AT breaks it. Should we have some evaulation on this point when looking at conformance models?

<KimD> I like having it

Lauriat: It doesn't mean we have to have it but we would look at it.

JF: I've always said code to the standard. At some point it can't be my problem.

<KimD> Current example: "clickable" gets announced by screen readers when it really shouldn't.

<bruce_bailey> Can we add testing with SOME current version of AT?

If I've coded to conform to WCAG and validator, then it shouldn't matter if certain AT doesn't work with it.

Lauriat: I think the intent is when someone uses something bleeding edge that isn't fully supporte.d

JF: This may be too granular at this time. W3C says 2 independent implementations. That may work

<KimD> +1 to include

Bruce: I think we could say a recent version of AT worked.

Lauriat: I hear that we should include this.

+1

<Chuck> +1 to include

Jeanne: Its currently included so we shouldn't ignore it.

<Lauriat> Where something conforms, but the users are still not able to go through the task or get the information they need.

<Detlev> there is 1.3.1

<Lauriat> 1.3.1: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#info-and-relationships

Rachael: Potential example is content with aria-hidden="true"

Detlev: Fails 1.3.1

JF: Potential subtlety is a panel that is hidden

Lauriat: I don't think something that conforms would guarantees usability.
... I'm not sure we need examples.

Chuck: I am struggling to come up with a concrete example but usability is key.

<CharlesHall> usability = qualitative measure of: effectiveness; efficiency; and satisfaction. none of these can be measured unless also accessible.

Lauriat: If someone was looking at WCAG before 2.1 and the requirements for text spacing wasn't included. Once you apply the text spacing , it is unusable.
... I think some of what we've talked about gets into this territory but I'm not sure if we want to have this as part of the evaluation.

JF: I don't know either but I'm struggling to understand

Detlev: I think it can be useful to expand what we currently have by task based procedures in cases where that really helps to understand where something is. Example is a long, layered menu. I think that would be a good example for a task based criteria or method.
... bypass blocks is a critical thing for certain users. You can meet 2.4.1 by landmarks or structure. Task based procedure can be verified by other methods that are not task based.
... you don't have the issue of different users getting to different results.
... because there is a way to measure it.

rrsa make minutes

rrsa, make 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/Usabilitt/Usability/
Succeeded: s/Shaun/Lauriat/
Succeeded: s/that it has/that vpats have/
Present: Lauriat Makoto Chuck bruce_bailey CharlesHall Rachael shari JF Ashley_C KimD AngelaAccessForAll johnkirkwood Detlev
Found Scribe: Chuck
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Scribes: Chuck, Rachael

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

Found Date: 23 Jul 2019
People with action items: 

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.)