<jeanne> Janina: We presented the Challenges document at the AGWG meeting today
<scribe> scribe: Chuck
<pkorn> Trying to get onto the audio WebEx. Technology is just not my friend today.
Jeanne: One interesting comment
from Alastair. His suggestion, will we give a categoric
exception, or thinking about giving individual exemption into
individual guidelines. No answer.
... Interesting way to look at the issue. We can put that in
our back pocket.
... Janina gave summary of this morning. We spoke about
publishing the doc. Shawn and Jeanne discussed about publishing
the challenges in Nov, but plates are full, so will not have
time for this doc.
... Lower priority for us. We can reference it, not formally in
a W3C way, but we can link to it from explainer, and that we
are working on it.
PK: What's the mechanical work of publishing. Can someone (Janina) take this on?
Janina: I can take this on, willing to. I've got some sense of this.
Jeanne: It's not preparing the
doc, it's getting it done and agreement with wg so that they
stand behind it, and then getting agwg to stand behind it. Both
groups have to vote for it.
... It will take some effort to get agwg to support the first
draft.
... I expect it to be some work.
PK: I appreciate that it's 3rd in line. If there's anything we can do to do the work to make it simpler and easier to increase the odds, we are eager.
Jeanne: sounds great.
... We can link to it from the explainer, I'd like to.
... You take in the more general comments we got from research
3 years ago, made them much more detailed. I thought that this
was a very positive presentation. Minds were changing.
... I was pleased.
PK: I read through WCAG EM, David suggested that it was substantially duplicated. But I don't see it.
Jeanne: I don't either.
PK: Other than the stronger language that conformance in wcag is only for a page, and a claim is only for a page or a handful. that's much stronger language than what's in conformance challenges.
Jeanne: I will say that one of
the interesting things about WCAG EM, Shetty and I spoke, the
things that he was saying privately that couldn't go into WCAG
EM because it had to be WCAG...
... formed a lot of my thoughts about WCAG conformance. that's
part of my driving force for doing Silver. So we couldn't start
making those changes. I haven't looked at WCAG EM for
years.
... WCAG EM is not a reflection of that, its what he could work
at the time.
Chuck: I scribe everything!
should be diplomatic.
Jeanne: Let's go back to what we
were talking about last week with the minimums.
... I've got some notes from last week.
Jennison: I just joined.
Jeanne: We have some different
proposals last week, and we got another one on the list.
... I'd like to start working this into a proposal we can
include.
... Go through the sc and map to bronze, another one is to take
the non-interference sc's.
... Also a suggestion to use user agent language. A proposal
for easy checks, the way easy checks + non interference + some
from coga
... Easy Check's doesn't include coga.
... Lanny Watson sent a email to the list ...
... Her's was to have no level in Silver.
<janina> s/lanny/leonie/
<jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2019Oct/0031.html
thx
Jeanne: She says "talked with
colleague, had an idea, what if we didn't have levels or point
targets. Good better best is arbitrary. Not legal absolutes.
Cases still argued.
... Incentives could be achieved in other ways. Use a single
scale, 0-100.
... In legal cases score can be used. A single continuous scale
could simplify the scale.
... Thoughts or comments?
... We have to have a minimum anyways. Even if argued in court,
the fact that WCAG AA is widely accepted as minimum, cases are
settled on that as a minimum. We need a minimum for
regulatory.
Jennison: To your point, with no
minimum, conversations in companies would be around what we
have to meet. Ideal state is that everything is met. In some
places that wouldn't cut it.
... Conversations would be easier.
<pkorn> Chuck: not opposed to the idea of sharing these minimums.
<pkorn> Chuck: but if a website were to ignore some area (e.g. Coga), it could still have a score, but would be poor for that ignored area.
<jeanne> Chuck: I'm not opposed, but I can see that if a web site does not cover one area, but could have a score that is poor for one community, like COGA, so that group would not be well served.
<pkorn> ack
ack Chuck.
PK: Concern I have with all of
this discussion about minimums in the context of
<garbled> troubles me.
... Lawsuits I see today are based on WCAG 2.x conformance
model. It's based on a model of perfection. We've been talking
at top of hour about how WCAG wasn't meant to be applied to an
entier website. Just a page or collection in a process.
... Subsetting 2.0 AA doesn't change the fact that if that's
all we do, and we say "trying to be helpful for lawsuits",
doesn't change the fact that folks are going forward,
regardless of WCAG 2.0 A, AA, Silver.
... Still a perfection model.
Jeanne: I haven't been thinking
about it as a check every page model. We are talking about
minimums of ... like a safety bar.
... I haven't talked about it being a model of perfection for
many years.
... Not my intent.
PK: What took me there was
putting this in the context of lawsuits. As I understand them,
that context is a 2.0 check every page context. If all we do in
service of lawsuits...
... is say "doesn't need to be all of 2.0 AA", we aren't
getting at the problem that's behind the lawsuits. If we put
this forward that is in a context that's separate from
lawsuits...
... As we move forward with silver we are trying to find a
starting place, maybe a wood rather than a metal. If that's all
we say, great. If we put this out there as something useful for
lawsuits, we do a disservice.
Jeanne: To push back a little
bit, biggest proponents are lawyers. If I said lawsuits I meant
regulatory. Regulatory has needs we want to address. We don't
have to address with perfection and test every page.
... They know it's not practical. We aren't locked in. We've
got a lot of evidence and stake holders asking for a change. We
don't have to worry about that. We do have to worry about AGWG
approval...
... But other people want to see this change.
PK: If we say "this is one piece of changes", and we note some other things we are working on, that addresses my concern.
Jeanne: I want to do that. There
are drafts that say variations on that.
... I need to pull some of the drafts together, and take some
of the work that's already been done and put that in clear
terms. So that it will ... we can include it in first public
working draft.
... We have to get away from "page", otherwise we will never
get away from websites. Page is too limiting.
... We have to change it.
PK: Agree
Jeanne: Any thoughts about
getting away from levels? Even if we had a minimum?
... Would it make it simpler if it's just a score? Jennison had
a good point that we wouldn't be able to protect certain groups
being left out if it's just a score.
... Any other thoughts?
Angela: Not sure what we already
discussed about the score. I've a thought. We use a similar
system to measure things in my current department. There's no
real value given to some of the scores.
... We wonder if the score is good enough, or if there's a way
to improve. Would the score be indicitave of how well a user
group would be able to access web info?
... Did you discuss already? That's my thought.
Jeanne: We had talked about people taking points from the methods, but having it be an overall score of how well a group with that disability would be able to use the entire site. We've never talked about that.
Angela: Good to know.
Jeanne: Could be hard to test.
But if we allowed cognitive walkthroughs, as a way to
test...
... Or if we had some clear ... if we said "in order to score
points for 'no vision', it has to be programatically
determinable, keyboard accessible'... the things each group
would need, I'm afraid you would need everything.
... Somebody else?
... An idea Angela on what you would say... how you would
figure it out? It's an interesting idea.
Angela: I haven't thought all the way through it.
Jeanne: A few ideas would be good.
Angela: I'll think on that.
Janina: We should ask Leoney to join us, not a good time for UK. She's a creative thinker. She could expand on her email.
Jeanne: She does come sometimes.
Never the Tuesday evening one. But the Friday. I will give her
feedback that we have and invite her to come and talk to
us.
... Any other comments?
... We'll take a look at the idea that we had reached...
consensus around ... take the way easy checks, add no
interference, adapted to a site not individual pages, add some
things important for coga.
... I dropped a note to coga and asked for them to talk a few
minutes about it, but I couldn't attend the meeting. I'll try
and catch this week.
... Find out what the minimum for that... any other thoughts
from last week?
... Who wants to work on turning this into a proposal that we
can review and vote on?
... Everyone is muted.
... Is there something else we should be working on? What would
you like to be talking about?
PK: I don't mind continue working on my docs for november?
Jeanne: Some of the critique we
get is that we haven't made good progress on conformance, and
it's hard. This is an aspect that doesn't have a lot of
interest, then I would rather work on something where the group
is engaged.
... I've some things I think are important...
... Let's call it an evening and we will work some more on
Friday. I encourage thoughts and emails. We need to move this
forward. Any ideas privately are welcome, I could use the
help.
trackbot, end meeting
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) FAILED: s/lanny/leonie/ Succeeded: s/coga walkthoughs/cognitive walkthroughs/ Default Present: jeanne, janina, Chuck, Makoto, pkorn, Jennison, AngelaAccessForAll Present: jeanne janina Chuck Makoto pkorn Jennison AngelaAccessForAll Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck Found Date: 15 Oct 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]