Silver Community Group Teleconference

01 Oct 2019


jeanne, janina, Makoto, Peter_Korn, AngelaAccessForAll


Continue discussion of WCAG 2.x equivalence to Silver

Challenges document comments and discussion

<Peter_Korn> Now?

<scribe> scribe: jeanne

jeanne: I saw there were comments in the Challenges document

Peter: Silver meeting with AGWG to talk about the challenges meeting. I set a deadline of the 10 October, assuming the AGWG meeting would be 15 October.
... review it with Silver Friday meeting on 11 October.
... there are edits from people with W3C accessibility experience who are experiencing similar challenges
... we are trying to also talk aobut challenges with WCAG success criteria
... adding a 4th challenge about applying conformance to software (mobile) applications
... we won't be done done, but it will be a much richer document

Continue discussion of WCAG 2.x equivalence to Silver

Explainer proposal


jeanne walks through the explainer proposal

Peter: I recommend changing the name of the conformance - user to conformance - evaluator and conformance - backend to better describe it.

[discussion of where to put the Issues]

Jeanne: I think we should put the Issues in the Design Decisions

Janina: The most important thing this Explainer needs to do is justify why we are moving away from the WCAG Conformance

Peter: We need to be clear that WCAG has challenges

Janina: After 20 years experience with the WCAG spec, we want to bring accessibility standards closer to the reality of what people with disabilties experience when things work.

Angela: I think that will resonate with people with work to put the standards into practice. Silver will help people get to where they need to go.

editors draft from the charter https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

editor's draft from the prototype work https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/EdDraftPrototype/

Continue discussion of WCAG 2.x equivalence to Silver

Peter: I think I would consider a different work equivalence. I would recommend grandfathering
... whatever SIlver conformance is, someone who meets WCAG 2.1 could get credit, the way that people who transfer from a Community College or Junior college get credit for their previous classes, but they aren't equivalent.
... I think we need to feel comfortable with the point scoring system. It doesn't address the challenges we are capturing in the challenges document.

Discussion outside the meeting: Moving away from 100% compliance 100% of the time. One of the proposals is to have statistical sampling of sites, the way that Japan requires. Makoto sent out an email with details. It's an interesting starting place. Another is to not require 100% for the guidance (success criteria) that don't have a big impact on the user experience. An unlabeled

image of a logo in the footer has a very different user impact than an unlabeled image link in the navigation. It's hard to set it up so that everyone isn't blatantly cheating, but I don't want to try to make it cheat-proof. I personally think it is more important to get it right for the organizations that are trying to improve accessibility than to prevent cheaters. It's impossible

to absolutely prevent cheating, anyway.

<Peter_Korn> Sigh. My audio output has died again.

<Peter_Korn> Need to have a timer that reminds me to reconnect 45 min into each meeting.

<Peter_Korn> One more time with feeling!

Janina: I heard a recommendatation at TPAC that recommends writing a summary email

Peter: I heard Jeanne say that you want to leverage the testing that people are already doing to do user testing. Comparing task completion rates with people without disabilities and disabilities. I would call that Functional Accessibility Testing.

Jeanne: We need to move away from an assumption of checkpoint testing of every item on every page. We won't get rid of that, because that works for small organizations. But we need a different model for organizations that are large organization or are doing a lot of accessibility testing already and want to be able to leverage that testing to claim conformance.

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: 2019/10/02 00:03:48 $

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/ bring accessibility closer/ bring accessibility standards closer/
Succeeded: s/ disabilties experience./ disabilties experience when things work./
Present: jeanne janina Makoto Peter_Korn AngelaAccessForAll
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Date: 01 Oct 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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]