Silver Community Group Teleconference

29 Oct 2019


jeanne, PeterKorn, jeanne2, Fazio, janina, Jennison, AngelaAccessForAll


<PeterKorn> +present

<PeterKorn> (whichever is the right way to do that)

<scribe> scribe: janina

<jeanne2> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

<jeanne2> azakim, take up item 1

What do we want to put in the FPWD Conformance section?

js: Looking at the May editor's draft, please ignore most of it ...
... Please look Sec 3
... Yes, things to be changed ...
... Much editing before it can be part of the FPWD

<jeanne2> Conformance is a complex topic with many parts that work together. Scoring is more easily understood. Scoring is "how well did I do?" These Guidelines use a more flexible structure that rewards organizations for doing more to make their products accessible to people with disabilities.

<PeterKorn> "recognizes"

js: Any edits beside "rewards"?

pk: recognizes?

js: Good

df: Highlights?

js: Inclined to "recognizes"

<Fazio> +1 to recognizes

js: Notes the Goals section is old, likely January 2018
... Also much to update here
... Suggests taking lists from Issues Doc

pk: Much of this is in the Explainer, which is a well written doc

<PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/explainer.html

<PeterKorn> Janina, did we loose you?

<PeterKorn> Develop a more flexible conformance model that addresses the challenges in applying the 2.x conformance model to large, complex, and dynamic websites and web applications

pk: I failed to send earlier, sorry!

janina: Maybe a hyperlink from the Explainer to the Challenges doc?

jeanne: Can we change to large, complex OR dynamic
... more inclusive

<Fazio> LOL

jeanne: Goals--In Explainer or Guidelines?

jennison: Why not both

janina: Raises version maintanance concern
... Suggest cross referencing to the Explainer

df: Supports sticking to standard approaches

jeanne: Reason I'd like in the draft is so that people see where we're going
... I see a lot of commentary on why is conformance taking so long? They don't see the scope we're trying to address
... I'd like to show people the goals that need to be met to build better understanding about that
... Can always move it later

<jeanne2> Develop a more flexible conformance model that addresses the challenges in applying the 2.x conformance model to large, complex, and dynamic websites and web applications

<jeanne2> Product or project-wide conformance instead of page-based so it can be extended beyond web.

<jeanne2> Address “substantially meets” so:

<jeanne2> Organizations are not excessively penalized for bugs that may not have a large impact on the experience of people with disabilities.

<jeanne2> Rapidly updating products can conform

<jeanne2> Remove “accessibility supported” as an author responsibility and provide guidance to authoring tools, browsers and assistive technology developers of the expected behaviors of their products.

<jeanne2> Develop a more flexible method of claiming conformance that is better suited to accommodate dynamic or more regularly updated content.

<jeanne2> Improve tests so that repeated tests get more consistent results.

<jeanne2> Increase potential for automation of tests

<jeanne2> Remove “accessibility supported” as an author responsibility and provide guidance to authoring tools, browsers and assistive technology developers of the expected behaviors of their products.

jeanne: Move that one to the Explainer
... Discusses possibility of better testing via the TF's output

janina: Suggests we want to maximize what testing can give us and looks to Joe ...

jc: Agrees

df: Suggests using ICT rather than "go beyond web"

jc: 3.3 scoring ...

pk: Is project the right term there? What's "project" in the web context?

jeanne: We were using it as a 4-corners definition of what someone might claim conformance in, not the whole site, but this portion

pk: So, it would be helpful to first define what that is: "logical subset?" Something that explains itself better
... Make it clear that it allows a site to carve out a logical subset

df: We don't have an official term?

pk: Yes. We need something

df: Agrees

jeanne: I'll work on fixing that

pk: But then it's not extending beyond the web

jeanne: I'm going to drop that entire line
... 3.2 -- how it fits -- think it all goes to the Explainer
... Doesn't relate to conformance directly
... plain language; tech neutral; not sc oriented; testing will be part of the methods which will not be normative, but will be tech specific
... proposing an api
... also tagging
... Current SC 4, Robust, will become methods

pk: How do you mean API?

jeanne: hooks to this data so that people can extract it
... db driven
... give me the methods related to hearing loss ...
... We learned through research than many use wcag for particular purposes and have trouble finding their stuff
... If that's not a correct use of "API," would appreciate the correct term

jenison: Glossary?

jeanne: Not by FPWD, but if someone volunteers!

<jeanne2> Methods can provide guidance for:

<jeanne2> User agents

<jeanne2> Authoring tools

<jeanne2> Assistive technology

<jeanne2> Emerging technologies

jeanne: Questions? Comments? Any of this?
... Next part one of the hardest ...
... Not sure what to go forward with ...

<jeanne2> Point Scoring systems is divided into categories by functional user need. A product or project must score minimum points in each category Under discussion

jeanne: Probably needs an intro about point scoring
... And about the requirement for a minimum score

<Fazio> They dIrrespective of points there needs to be critical and non critical barriers

pk: Thinking to address not pages but work flows

<Fazio> points will work for non critical but not critical

pk: So thinking about how scoring fits with a task or work flow approach

<PeterKorn> Perfect timing. We hit my 45 minute audio limit.

<PeterKorn> Dialing back in in a moment.

jeanne: Agree that needs discussion, we need to work on that
... Think we may end up with two models
... task by task completion we may not care about minimum scoring

<PeterKorn> I think I'm back now.

jeanne: Because they won't be able to test with just one disability group
... Then the small scale deployments can use that approach to increase their score

pk: Two track makes me wonder whether we should also go two terms
... term of art term
... Conformance has meant page or a few pages;
... Maybe we need another word, another term that speaks to the usability of the site, user flows, etc., etc.
... Sort of like the strong and weak atomic forces
... Gravity at a distance for the large; conformance close up for smaller scale
... We could recognize a site is "substantially accessible" or something like that?
... Does that resonate?

jeanne: Yes
... I think we will need to have "conformance" for W3C
... "Conformance" is no longer required in normative specs; but it may still be politic to have it

<Fazio> perhaq+

jeanne: We could try dropping the term; may not get past AGWG, but i'M WILLING TO EXPLORE

pk: Thinking conformance applies to a page, and will continue to; but we also need to describe and make reliable claimes for a site or a major section of a site
... So not so much get rid of it as redefine it
... Perhaps applying to a large site is undefined, as it has always been undefined
... meanwhile, here's the new term and how to apply it
... we don't call it conformance, we call it FRED

jeanne: What do others think

df: Agree a new term is desparately needed, what it would be I don't know
... Whether you do or don't do it could be critical whether a person can use
... Concerned whether people can really types of accessibility for types of sites

pk: The information may be on page, just not with the particular image -- discussion example is shoes
... Or maybe this other FRED thing; I'm able to do it, even though there are tech violations

jenison: makes sense; agree we need to delineate
... Amazon, one kinds of transactions; Netflicks something else;

jeanne: We want to give people guidelines about how to go about it; not so much specific requirements by content types
... We want to give people the ability to use and follow our guidance for their purposes

pk: Sounds like the usage scenarios from product development these days

jeanne: Exactly, large and medium do; but small don't
... The small need the checklists and will get others to create the checklists if we don't provide them, even if the checklists aren't that thorough

jc: Always tasks that need to be completed, any way to provide?

jeanne: The small will not do usability testing; too expensive

jenison: Some of the large won't do it either

jeanne: The first time they get an audit and get 25K bugs ...

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: 2019/10/30 00:01:35 $

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)

Default Present: jeanne, present, PeterKorn, Fazio, janina, Jennison, AngelaAccessForAll
Present: jeanne PeterKorn jeanne2 Fazio janina Jennison AngelaAccessForAll
Found Scribe: janina
Inferring ScribeNick: janina
Found Date: 29 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]