Silver Community Group Teleconference

22 Oct 2019


jeanne, janina, Cyborg, bruce_bailey, Chuck, CharlesHall, Jan, KimD
Shawn, PKorn
jeanne, Shawn


Update from Alt Text content group

<jeanne> Jeanne: To clarify, just because functional needs are grouped together in the Migration document doesn't mean that we have to write a guideline that includes everything in the group.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if my email on alt text was enough

Cyborg: alt-text can share in a week or so after we meet. it is good to hear that migration grouping is flexible

<Chuck> cybele: Haven

<Chuck> cybele: haven't seen the latest email, but more is better. If you (bruce) have thoughts about how things are best represented that would be great. We may have followup questions.

<Chuck> cybele: No pressure, next week or so is fine.

Updates on content groups

<jeanne> Jeanne: Clear words needs to meet this week.

Chuck: update, Cyborg will focus on alt-text. So Andy and I on contrast migration, and I'm tied up for next 2 weeks, so no more progress for next 2 weeks

<Andy> +

Chuck: Cyborg was helpful as 3rd person, but now we need 3rd person, when we start again in two weeks
... or the third person can start right away and start getting engaged.

Jeanne: please send note to AGWG on this.

Andy: breakthroughs on algorithm recently, Cyborg was helpful working on plain language, I am continuing to work on research, tests and guidelines.

Chuck: I'll add that in there, some experience with plain language is helpful, we will miss Cyborg a lot.

Jeanne: we have volunteers as plain language editors, we can send them information and they will edit it. John Rochford and Kim. But they will work offline.

Andy: part that was tripping me up personally was Silver structure and plain language. science behind it is coming together pretty well.

Jeanne: Andy, you and I need to have conversation offline. in general we don't put groundbreaking research into standard until peer-reviewed.

Andy: all research is published in peer-reviewed journals. research i'm talking about is to validate approaches and principles. things to push boundaries, but all the basics are based on peer-reviewed research, building bibliography now
... groundbreaking part is to pull the research into a standard.

Jeanne: thank you.
... keep pushing boundaries, but for standard, should be established research

Andy: it's all based on existing science

Jeanne: your group does not want to be in FPWD in November

Chuck: we don't, haven't made enough progress to include it in a way that is ready for review

SC 1.4.5 Images of Text and SC 2.5.3 Label in Name

<Chuck> cybele: Would be better to wait for the rest of the alt text group to join.

Cyborg: can we please wait for alt text group next week to talk about related migration?

Charles: no updates to share on point of regard
... time limitations, need to read through changes made by rest of group.

<CharlesHall> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D1AczVDgSCgCci4t3sO-QV6VKaKIEyQ6zKgm0ocnFB8/edit?usp=sharing

Charles: editorially, how will we look at user needs statements
... how do we define need
... keep human, contextual factors but better standardize on what need is.
... what is high level task user needs, high level tasks are locating, navigating and understanding
... we need definition of need

Jeanne: loop back around again, a lot of work on user needs, but no place in prototype to put user needs

Charles: so we don't need definition of need in FPWD

Jeanne: what I could do is go to next item on agenda. goals and scope of FPWD

Charles: at least having a document convention in this larger mapping document that calls attention to it where it is TBD
... to be determined

Jeanne: i like what you have and good with going into FPWD with several models and asking which they like better

<Chuck> cybele: I spoke offline with Charles to show him what we've been using more recently as a template. That template you are working from Charles is an earlier itteration. It changed from CSUN, from the work Chuck and I did on contrast.

<CharlesHall> that iteration is still the most recent example at the top of the migration doc

<Chuck> Cybele: It was challenging for people to get into user needs when they were focused on the outcome, during migration especially.

<Chuck> Cybele: From the person center prespective describing the challenges and barriers they have, and experiences with different kinds of disabilities. Within contrast we went down to diabetic neropathy, etc.

<Chuck> Cybele: Depending on the specific piece of guidance. With clear words there was more investigation into cognative disabilities, looking at impacts.

<Chuck> Cybele: The way that we were looking at need from the range and diversity of users, where do they experience barriers in this area? Social model the disability.

<Chuck> Cybele: What are the patterns of those needs that may or may not be associated with a disability (there could be cross-over).

<Chuck> Cybele: That's the way we moved from template you are using (pre-CSUN).

<Chuck> Cybele: The one we use now has been developed over time.

<Chuck> Jeanne: The one Charles uses comes from last November's prototype work.

<Chuck> Charles: There's still some higher level principal discussion to have around this.

<Chuck> Jeanne: Yes, we need to do that.

<Chuck> Cybele back to you.

Jeanne: in 2.1 and 2.0, this process didn't exist at all

scope and goals of the FPWD

Jeanne: according to chairs, goals are to demonstrate the structure of Silver and how it accomplishes some of our goals, where they are similar to WCAG and new objectives of Silver. mostly about exposing the bones. we are not trying to do a minimum viable product, we are trying to do an EAR - executable architectural release
... we are not trying to do a working product, but an architecture and features to show how it will work

<bruce_bailey> Agreed, FPWD will not be a MVP!

Jeanne: chairs want to know what we will get into it. show overall structure and enough details to show how it will work
... what is done enough to go in FPWD as sample SC?

<bruce_bailey> Cybele asking asking about value proposition

<Chuck> cybele: With alt text I want to run by Jen and Mikoto, from the work we've already done, I think we can display the template around user needs and how that gets at aspects of those user needs that are not yet well represented by the current sc.

Bruce: I didn't think we were going to have SC.

Jeanne: we are going to have guidelines
... we are migrating SC to guidelines.
... Charles are you comfortable putting what you have in the FPWD?

Charles: I didn't hear the resolution about how charter issue was affecting date

Jeanne: because of objections, existing charter has been extended to the end of december. goal to have charter approved and negotiations from formal objections by november 20. would like to publish in first week of december. but all this based on charter negotiations being completed by mid november so this could be delayed again
... AGWG needs to approve it first.
... once we publish the FPWD, and some are quite bare bones, once we publish this, we will publish every two months

<Andy> If that's all, then we could place the intro plain text for contrast in ...

Janina: updates every 2 months

Jeanne: headings, if we touched it up, could go in
... headings, language of page too
... November 1, all task forces will look at it first

<Zakim> CharlesHall, you wanted to ask for link to current / appropriate prototype structure for draft

Charles: what is the appropriate template the information needs to be in that needs to go into draft.

Jeanne: you want to look at the plain language prototype and what goes in that. process for developing content linked in Wiki
... if you look at Wiki you will see several process documents for developing content. the goal is to get information for the plain language prototype, or "guideline explainer" (tabbed format)

Test process proposal


<Chuck2> Cybele: <providing link>

<Chuck2> Cybele: Chuck now scribes.

<Chuck2> Cybele: This is the process that Chuck and I worked on and worked through with Andy on Contrast, and will use for Alt Text.

<Chuck2> Cybele: Once we have user needs, we have to figure out how that becomes tests. Especially new tests and new test types that Silver has access to.

<Chuck2> Cybele: What's the link between user needs and tests, and how do we do that, especially considering that WCAG uses true/false. This is a methodology to try and do that. We've done with contrast, and will use for alt text.

<Chuck2> Cybele: Breaking it into a divergent exercise then a convergent exercise. This doc covers how to do that. If you go down to page 3 what you'll see is the gist of it with a diagram. Shared user needs are on the left, test types are on the right.

<Chuck2> Cybele: We create collisions between them, user need 1 with true/false, user need 1 with rubrik, etc.

<Chuck2> Cybele: We brainstormed potential tests to come up with the test question or test idea. We did that over 2 hours.

<Chuck2> Cybele: Took those notes, then reviewed for test types rather than user needs.

<Chuck2> Cybele: That's helpful to do, when trying to create divergent it's helpful to delve into a user need, but at the end of the day you want to review test type.

<Chuck2> Cybele: Then we do convergent exercise... clean the data, and try to identify the test strategies, run a series of filters: effectiveness, risks, priorities. This is a slower process, but each time we went through we gained new insight. It helped us a lot.

<Chuck2> Cybele: For example, one of the insights we realized from the process was the importance of multi-factors. There are many interrelated factors. Existing standards look at contrast in isolation. We found more options from a design perspective and more options for personalizatoin.

<Chuck2> Cybele: Usability tests that link between cognative needs was such that there's an important role for usability tests, for cognition and mental health. You can start developing what could the testing strategy statement look like. By the time you are finished writing the tests

<Chuck2> Cybele: You are trying to identify the key tests. You don't have tests ready to go, but you have a list of new tests that address the needs that haven't been well addressed before. These can be developed and shared, and we have direction.

<Chuck2> Cybele: Any questions?

<Chuck2> Chuck can't scribe and speak.... train wreck.

Cybele can scribe chuck

Jeanne: effectiveness filter - can be specialized to specific technology

<Chuck2> Jeanne: In effectiveness filter I would correct, does it work over a wide range of screen types and technologies, it can be narrow.

<Chuck2> Cybele: It doesn't necessarily mean that if you don't pass any individual filter that the question is excluded. The question is excluded if it's not effective. If there's a test that can achieve a result over multiple technologies, that would be a more effective test.

<Chuck2> Cybele: Or is this really not effective and not worth taking past this stage...

<Chuck2> Jeanne: If there's only one test for something like VR, I would rather it not be excluded.

<Chuck2> Cybele: Add that comment to the doc. I think you are right there needs to be clarity that these questions are not blocks, they help a user think of the effectiveness and how to position the test. It's not intended to exclude a test if it's just for one technology.

<Chuck2> I have a hard stop at the bottom of the hour.

Andy: comment related to different tests, test for readability, a single test could accomplish different features, but designer may also want granular test for different aspects along the way.
... we've been looking at comprehensive tests, but we also need granular tests. you can use these 7 granular tests or these comprehensive tests
... designers need some granularity.

<CharlesHall> +1 for tests to apply for more than conformance against a finished thing.

Jeanne: these tests are for conformance, not to help people develop
... tests to help people is a different part, later.

Andy: CSS things that don't exist, for example. CSS elements

Janina: come to APA call and talk about that.

<jeanne> chair: jeanne

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: 2019/10/22 16:43:40 $

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)

Present: jeanne janina Cyborg bruce_bailey Chuck CharlesHall Jan KimD
Regrets: Shawn PKorn
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Cyborg
Inferring Scribes: Cyborg
Found Date: 22 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]