Silver Task Force & Community Group -- 03 Mar 2020

CSUN F2F agenda

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/2020_March_F2F_Meeting_at_CSUN#Agenda

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about room sponsor

<CharlesHall> and Adobe just cancelled Summit, so Adobe employees will also likely be affected

<jeanne> SL: I will participate remotely

<jeanne> BB: What about the room?

<CharlesHall> I would still like to participate remotely

<bruce_bailey> ITIC let us and GSA know that Amazon and HP are not traveling

<jeanne> Jeanne: That has been handled. We still have the room

Yes thanks Jeanne

<jeanne> SL: Thanks to everyone who has emailed to let us know who is not attending in person. It helps with ordering food and size of room.

<jeanne> SL: We will have a number of people attending who have not been active in Silver.

<jeanne> ... we will start with an Intro, which will probably be similar to what we will be presenting on Thursday.

<jeanne> ... Then we will start working through the Scoring Example.

<jeanne> ... we will have people who are familiar with the work to answer questions and explain and we will have people to bring fresh ideas.

<bruce_bailey> FWIW, CSUN updated main conference page on Friday and Monday (2/2) that "Conference is taking place as planned."

<jeanne> Chuck: In the past it has been necessary to bring people up to speed, and we need to plan on a lot of explanation

<bruce_bailey> http://www.csun.edu/cod/conference/sessions

<jeanne> SL: I want to make sure we have a structure for the activities, so people know the expected outcome.

<jeanne> SL: Monday afternoon we will look at the line of normative and informative -- where that line should be and why

<jeanne> ... the question of whether we should use RFC2119

<bruce_bailey> @CharlesHall, what is Adobe Summit? URL please?

<jeanne> Jeanne: It fits there because RFC2119 adds more power to Normative definitions: Defined MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT.

<maryjom> I will be there.

<maryjom> IBM has not canceled our trips yet.

<jeanne> JF: We are waiting to hear about travel before I can predict whether Wilco will attend.

Unless and until Oracle mandates no travel, I plan on attending.

<bruce_bailey> GSA cancelled international travel but travel in-country is okay

<jeanne> SL: I think it makes sense to plan for having these discussion that cannot be face to face.

<jeanne> SL: For Tuesday...

<jeanne> ... Review of comments to inform the new content that we will be working on later in the day

<jeanne> ... Identify specific content that folks can work on.

<jeanne> ... migration of existing or creating new

<CharlesHall> @Bruce, Adobe Summit is another major conference (not accessibility) affecting some of the same orgs and people: https://www.adobe.com/summit.html

<jeanne> SL: If we can structure that activity so that people can work in groups of 3 or 4 in room

<jeanne> ... we can have folks on the call split in groups

<jeanne> ... watching IRC for notices of when we get back together

<jeanne> Jeanne: How do you envision working in small groups for scoring example.

<jeanne> SL: Looking at different SC for scoring and trying different websites.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say I would expect that scoring will have to be single group

<bruce_bailey> sounds good

<jeanne> Jeanne: We should start with the group as a whole, but a good idea after that to let people pound on it and get some data about how well it works.

<bruce_bailey> @CharlesHall, thanks for link

<jeanne> SL: We can do a short review of comments, high level. THen work on new content.

<jeanne> SL: We could have the review of comments MOnday morning

<scribe> scribe: Chuck

Shawn: 2nd agenda item....

CSUN presentation

Shawn: <review of schedule>
... For CSUN presentation, we wanted this to be an introduction and overview of where we are. At least the end of the presentation including the comments that we got from wg and what we are working on now...
... would be a good part of that.
... I think it would be good to revisit some of our slides. "Here are the goals of Silver overall...". Also proposed name, to get reactions.

Jeanne: I think if we did an overview of the design and doc we have, and then the themes of the areas of controversy which we are working on, so we can get feedback.

Shawn: Yep.

Jeanne: Volunteers too!
... Designers in the audience can be volunteered. Mary Jo, I talked with one of your colleagues, and I lost contact info. Can you get me info?

Mary Jo: Hope is a visual designer, and I have Alexandra who has joined the group, she's a UXer.

Mary Jo: We've got a couple. I wasn't sure if Alexandra should join these calls, she's on other major projects. Trying to figure out the best way to get involved and not attend everything we attend.

Jeanne: I would be very happy to meet with her on her schedule to review.

Mary Jo: Will send info.

<CharlesHall> it is all intersting to me and i am both

Jeanne: We are fortunate that Charles Hall likes to... do standards work and brings his experience and UX knowledge to these calls.

<Lauriat> +1

Shawn: Making a quick list/outline for the preso. We start off with intro and overview of W3C accessibility guidelines, then goals, then timeline overall and where we currently are...
... Quick review of the requirements, where we've made it so far with the first almost public wd, and then a review of the comments and such from overall wg.
... With what we are doing from here.
... For the preso on Thursday we can also include a quick statement or review of progress made during the CSUN week.

Jeanne: Unless something changes, I'm speaking at the bay area conference on Saturday about WCAG 3. I will probably do this, tweak the slides and use same material.

Shawn: Makes sense.

Jeanne: I'll work on that this week.
... I have a draft already, started last evening.

Shawn: If you send a link, I can try and add to it. I won't get to it until Fri or Mon.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BY9Q_L0GhyfkEqDA-9R6shrXyTgMs88CMfDykvPioGY/edit#slide=id.g51e704e566_0_17

Shawn: I can make an attempt.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BY9Q_L0GhyfkEqDA-9R6shrXyTgMs88CMfDykvPioGY/

Jeanne: In presentations folder (top level of silver work).

Shawn: Anything else we should include in the preso. I expect this will go for 30 minutes.
... if not, we are good on this topic. We could start looking at the list of guidance we can include for the both of the activities for Mon and Tue.

Guidance for activities for MOnday and Tues

Jeanne: Scoring example, lets set some goals of what we want to accomplish.

Shawn: Sounds good.
... You take over that bit.

Jeanne: <reviewing wiki page>
... Review the small group work while I review.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LfzTd_8WgTi0IUOOjUCRfRQ7e7__FRcnZow4w7zLlkY/

Shawn: I'm hoping we get an even split for attendees, experienced and new-ish, so we have a mix of both. I want to avoid a collection of experts and know newbies, and visa versa.
... I don't have the list of attendees, and will probably fluxuate, so we'll have to adjust as we progress.

Jeanne: Anybody whose plans are being decided today, please let me know.

JF: Waiting to hear from my company. Internal discussions in progress.
... I'll also send out an email. I have to make reservation for breakfast and need count.

Shawn: Anything can change up to the last moment.

Jeanne: We can increase food order, we cannot decrease it. That's the challenge.

Shawn: Makes sense.

Jeanne: I feel badly, they face many challenges with cancellations.

Shawn: Hopefully we can get a good mix for small groups. Ideally if we can get a good mix of expertise and background as well, depends on who shows.
... As far as how to split into groups, we can do random assignments and check the groups. Check to see if we have a good mix and swap as necessary.

Chuck: Should we have a floating instructor?

Jeanne: I've got the doc, pasted in IRC.

Shawn: Floating instructor is good idea. We'll play by ear.

Jeanne: We could ... I could be floating instructor in room, Shawn can be floating instructor on phone.
... What we've been asked to do is go through declaring a scope, taking a representative sample, scoring new guidelines, and how we come up with a total score.
... Then we need a discussion on if we want minimums. We've discussed for a year, not sure it still fits. For me that's one I'd like to dig into.
... What kind of goal do we want for declaring a scope?
... There's a lot of misunderstandings. Especially... people working on conformance?

FAQ?

Jeanne: Maybe see where the weak points are, where the places are that people might misapply or misunderstand or game, address some of the concerns that agwg members had.

Chuck: If we've had a series of repeated and frequent questions, maybe address those at the top.

Shawn: I think that's a good idea, including questions for which we don't have a clear answer.

<KimD> +1

Jeanne: I'm going to put the goals on the agenda page.
... Next section...

<AndyS> AndyS present+

Jeanne: Taking representative sample. I walked through one from the WAI website, and went through a non-web. We should go through and see what people think.

Shawn: Especially to show that conformance needs to work beyond the scoping that WCAG has today, that definition of a web site, and web page.
... one of the challenges is that we re-use same terminology even if it means something else. We discuss web sites and web pages even if the current interface has many integration points.
... Going through an example would be very helpful.

Jeanne: That's same thing for scope, how well will it work for non-web...

Shawn: Will get people thinking about it. More perspectives in the room, may get more participation and commentary.

Jeanne: Please chime in if you have other ideas, on what we could test, check or take advantage of the diversity of viewpoints.

<Rachael> prresent+

Jeanne: Next is ... scoring new guidelines.
... We could walk through what I have here, this is one I'd like to have people break into small groups and score other web sites and other non-web. To see how well it works.
... Even if it currently in our scope, we want to make sure we don't pre-clude it if we can expand our scope in the distant future.
... I don't want a structure which precludes like kiosks for example. Do kiosks do html?

Shawn: Many.

Chuck: How do we do contrast tests on non-web? Not use to such tools.

Shawn: Same way I generally do for web based on complexity of non-web rendering, eye droppers.

<jeanne> SL: I use eye dropper tools

Bruce: Not unusual to get that question on how to test on non web like kiosks.

<bruce_bailey> Our advice is not to apply WCAG to kiosks

Andy: The one little problem with eyedroppers is some tools will take into account the display profile and not actually give css numbers that are accurate. Thin fonts that are rendered differently...

<bruce_bailey> Unless you have access to the source code

Andy: Something else I've researched is taking a screenshot and analyzing the screenshot to come up with average values that are a little more useful.

<bruce_bailey> People try taking photos of the screen -- which does not give a valid result

Shawn: I usually use chrome's inspector eyedropper. It does still have that kind of issues around anti-aliasing and translution, but more of a feature than a bug. Just need to be selective on pixel selection.

<bruce_bailey> Agree, if you are a developer, you can use WCAG

JF: Bruce, I'll push back a little bit. There are aspects of section 508 that still have an impact on hardware and software. We have en 301 549 that have functional requirements.

<bruce_bailey> 508 covers kiosks under hardware

JF: I want to make sure that we are not narrowing our scope by saying that things are out of scope. Thinks like kiosk and other interfaces should be in scope.

<Lauriat> +1 to JF

JF: Coga group had experience with "internet of things" type applications. Rather than saying "not in scope", we should think on how we facilitate testing in those different environments.

<CharlesHall> +1 to avoiding ‘out of scope’ language anywhere

Shawn: By doing that, we are setting ourselves up for having a more future proof way of doing conformance, rather than imposing artificial limitations.

JF: Current WCAG 2.0 has POUR. When someone comes to me with a q, if we don't have a specific guideline, I'll still push through POUR. That may be how we should evaluate at a broad level.

<CharlesHall> principles still apply. we had said they would become tags instead of categories

JF: That raises, we haven't talked about those principals much. Are we abandoning those, are we re-enforcing those? Add to those?

Shawn: Current plan is to re-enforce and add to it. In the tagging that we want to add to the guidance, we want to turn the principals from an information architecture structure into tags.
... there are several guidelines we have today that fall into more than one principal. Likely to apply to future guidance.
... Very solid ways of thinking about these things (with POUR).

<CharlesHall> we can also add principles

Jeanne: Also a good idea on how we want to include that in current draft. We don't have tagging yet, or dynamic pages yet. How do we express that?

Shawn: We can just list tags. Even though we don't have an engine, even just listing the tags, completely constrained by principals, will still be helpful and will illustrate how the principals integrate.

Jeanne: That's a good idea, will need to think on that.

Shawn: 5 more minutes on call. Jeanne, anything else quick in prep for next week?

Jeanne: I think we need to take a look at the minimums discussion, and then have a general discussion on totals and levels and how that works. If we get enough samples of people trying this out...
... We can maybe get an idea on where the levels should be, or get more commitments on detailed assessments. We don't want to choose arbitrary. We want data.

Shawn: Definitely.

Jeanne: third thing on scoring, we were just talking about...
... Tagging engine.
... Then minimums. We still need minimums, adds complexity, may not gain what we want.
... also, how do we include task completion scoring?
... That's a gigantic topic.
... If we could get some ideas that would be helpful.

<CharlesHall> we also need a framework for defining a task

Jeanne: total scores and levels.
... Yes we do need a framework for defining a task.
... Maybe less time on the top things on the list and more on task completion.
... Keep that in mind. Don't get bogged down in how well it works or doesn't for non-web.
... And focus on task completion. And minimums.

Shawn: Sounds good. At time.

- DRAFT -

Silver Task Force & Community Group

03 Mar 2020

Attendees

Contents

CSUN F2F agenda

CSUN presentation

Guidance for activities for MOnday and Tues

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output