Silver Community Group Teleconference

10 Dec 2019


jeanne, Makoto, AngelaAccessForAll, LuisG, janina


<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y_HOyuMKltOQoZr0Gk7hMQXi3Jd8Mc5fyr-XkH7kZQY/edit#heading=h.j07liyrhk7zr

Challenges update

<jeanne> Janina: we are getting there. We have talked with AGWG chairs and the AGWG to go to survey.

<jeanne> ... we are closing issues

<jeanne> ... we have covered as much as is practical now

<jeanne> ... we want to make sure that we are responding to comments received

<jeanne> ... we want to make sure the document is approaching the consensus of the group

<jeanne> ... there are technical glitches getting the github document approved

<jeanne> ... Need list of active participants in Silver

<jeanne> ... Design pattern change, to remove the links in the headings to put them into text to make it consistent with other pattern

<jeanne> Peter: The high level, we are moving through issues.

<jeanne> ... those that are solutions, we are keeping open to address after the FPWD.

<jeanne> ... make sure that you look at it and enter any issues

<jeanne> Jeanne: How do you want people that don't use Github to include their comments?

<jeanne> Peter: Drop a note to Janina or follow a link to the specific issue

<janina> Editor's Draft is here:

<jeanne> Jeanne: In the proposed solutions, are there any that we should be thinking about?

<jeanne> Peter: Templates is a good idea

<jeanne> Janina: Sampling, which we are working on

<janina> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/Open issues are retrieved here:

<janina> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Challenges+with+Conformance%22

<jeanne> Peter: Wikis or higher level interfaces can restrict the author from making inaccessible content

<jeanne> ... there is no technique that is 100%, but they all can move the ball forward.

<jeanne> ... I think a lot of the comments will contain solutions

sampling proposal

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y_HOyuMKltOQoZr0Gk7hMQXi3Jd8Mc5fyr-XkH7kZQY/edit#heading=h.j07liyrhk7zr

joecron: for components or templates, it's hard to set a baseline. navigation is pretty universal
... maybe search, but that might be part of navigation
... there's probably a list of things that large sites will have
... after that, content provided by companies and organizations prioritized by internal metrics
... the assumption is that large organizations are collecting metrics on the use of their components
... and similarly for pages or groups of page, but likely harder to track

jeanne: I'm trying to pull together what we agree about
... are you suggesting that people identify their components by traffic or maybe identifying by the task

joecrong: task seems more relevant and user focused, so a good starting point, but if you have multiple components, maybe base it on usage

joecron: maybe people don't use it because it doesn't work well...probably safer to base it on what the company says their primary flows are

PeterKorn: you're putting this under "Proposal" I'm wondering what you're looking for

jeanne: the stuff about here are things I pulled out of papers or issues we've been discussing. If you scroll up to Proposal for Sampling, you'll see different sample sizes which is a discussion we want to get concensus about
... another on selecting sample, and I think where we are now is picking out the things we agree on in those three sections
... I called it "Proposal" because that's what this will be eventually

PeterKorn: This is a proposal for conformance at a medal level? or is this a proposal for "how do have confidence the site works well for more people most of the time in most places?"

jeanne: this is not for the scoring and bronze/silver/gold classifications
... technically, WCAG doesn't allow sampling, WCAG-EM starts to allow it
... this seems like a small piece of the larger conformance picture we're trying to solve
... trying to find one little piece we can agree on
... "how do you know you did this correctly?" or "how do you know your site conforms?"

janina: we're trying to figure out some stuff that will go in first public working draft, right?
... one thing we could agree on is that some components are going to be far more important to make sure are accessible than others
... for example, login (if you have it)
... we might be able to categorize into types of services and make somewhat related but different suggestions for different components
... but login needs to be bullet-proof

jeanne: maybe we should make a list of generally common components that need to be tested and then from there test based on primary workflows

PeterKorn: I think every site will have a number of things that are important to work and as janina said, if login is important, then it is important. it falls to the designer of the site to identify these
... we can have an appendix of ones that are typically important

jeanne: that's a problem with deciding the important of other peoples' work. they're best able to decide. but if you use it, it's important. like navigation, search, login. there may be a list and we don't have to say that you have to test them
... not sure there is much cost in saying "if you use it make sure it works"

PeterKorn: my hesitation in being that prescriptive is if they use something we say is important not being used as much
... on a particular site

AngelaAccessForAll: sometimes allowing people the choice of what's important to be accessible, it could block them from completing the flow...we might want to ensure or require there isn't a block

joecron: like if someone is trying to login they couldn't get to the login form?

AngelaAccessForAll: right

joecron: I would consider getting to it as part of the flow. maybe we should include that in the definition

PeterKorn: we might even find it useful to reference CVAA essential functions the FCC identified as an example

jennison: and especially if Silver is going to include not websites/eCommerce, etc. we wouldn't want to prescribe as much

PeterKorn: maybe we'd also agree that there will be technical violations that don't create barriers
... getting back to components or templates. the more the page relies on templates, the less surface area you have. the more "bang to your buck" you get from your testing

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3

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: 2019/12/11 01:01:28 $

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 Makoto AngelaAccessForAll LuisG janina
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: LuisG
Inferring Scribes: LuisG
Found Date: 10 Dec 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]