Silver Virtual F2F Tuesday Part 2

10 Mar 2020


KimD, Jennie_Delisi, PeterKorn, CharlesHall, AndySomers, Lauriat, Fazio_, Rachael, sajkaj, JF, jeanne, kirkwood
Shawn, jeanne
kirkwood, Rachael


<jeanne> scribe: kirkwood

Jeanne: befor call starteddavidtalking about a resource

DavidF: usability testing versus accessibility testing posted to slide share

<Fazio> https://www.slideshare.net/DavidFazio1/designing-for-users-with-disabilities-presentation-135931732

DF: slide 14 is where the word document is

Jeanne: i can’t interact with it

SL: downloadable version?

DF: I can email

Jeanne: put in silver folder

JF: put somewhere we can look at it.

DF: silver folder good idea

<jeanne> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j7gY-jwEn4vp2hPCJqEArufqmPXJgGj6

Jeanne: I’ll get you one

LG: what is the main poihnt

SL: How we can set people up to create these tasks for scope
... setting up framework for tsk completion setting


SL: criticality would be part of this conversation
... from getting from point A to Point B rules around heading where diret path may only bring you only through one part of heading struxture
... just part of a complet heading structure
... if overall is a bunch of nonsense may cause issue
... animations you cant stop or flashing at bad rate even though separte still part of envirnoment preventing you from moving forward

JF: underscoredc current concern areound scoping. we can’t do component testing because it is sum of components
... concerned about scoping creating rosier then reality

SL: what do need to take into account

JS: the scope can’t be the tasks
... heres the NYTimes ap for you we are testing
... the scope has to be a logical subsection of the product
... taks are part of scipe

JF: individual components will pass example given

JS: scope is a logical subsection of product

Janina: need to take whole county rich and poor

JF: starts at H3 all H# but skippin H2 all fails

SL: not talking components in isolation

LG: scares me, alternative path is the path of travel. we know by dominoes this doesn’t pass
... can be gamed.

Jeanne: not saying thaty

<Chuck> early regrets. I must go.

SL: for an assessment need to do we need to define what users are trying to do and what outcome is
... how do we create a structure so we can guide, assess, and express results of test
... so we can ensure we aren’t testing compnents in isolation
... rather than real experience

LG: need to have an equal experience not alternative experience

SL: not sure how this applies here

LG: scape to read article not experience

SL: thats exactly what we want form first entry point every path navigate to arrive at it

LG: each path should be equaivlent

SL: something we can talk about diffent paths such as making bold in google docs test ability on all paths to make acce3ssibile such as voice command which might not be accessibile to everyone

<CharlesHall> i think of path to (approach) versus path through (actions). as similar to multiple ways.

LG: not all methods to take paths may exist

SL: not all equivlent
... keyboard shortcut example to select bold versus voice amount of steps

LG: check how applied to see how succeed. not significnatly differnt

SL: i think we are actually agreeing

LG: also need to talk discovery

SL: back to top level discussion
... mulitple paths and steps to completion
... need to be careful about not chaing to technology, device, applicaiton websit

LG: using recognized techniques not a recognizable techniques

Jennie: one challenge, when one has completed a set of tests and vlidadates or retests need to use sme measurement of scope especially with legal. repeatablity is very important
... would be concerned that 3 people testing would have differnet results

LG: use path of travel in scope

Jennie: complaint comes into my office saying this issue is not adddress. where would path exist for those to retest

LG: think need to expand scope

SL: ro add to point of repeatability


SL: waling through decision tree are many ways to accomplish task

DF: WCAG and Silver are diffenernt conformance odels are we moving away from that?

SL: diffent conformandcde model than 2.x yes that is corrent. but repeatability has subjectifvity and get away from attmepts of black and white. through equivalency
... discussed keyboard equivalency

DF: never going to have black and white answers, judgement calls frustrating or complet barrier

SL: we have that doay

<CharlesHall> shawn made my point

SL: we have these types of situations not just pass fali
... this is passing but could do better
... trying to get language for that

JF: I’d be careful about stance, can’t scale for industry
... if we make it hardr to do evaluation
... won’t be adopted

SL: repeatability of tests themselves

<JF> we need 3 things: measurability, testability, repeatability

SL: repeatbility of test results
... hope we can narrow down

LG: gesture to complicated

JF: if we can't repeat test can't sue

<Fazio> +1 JF

LG: the result could have happended. keystroke 3exqample. test was repeatable the results wernt

JF: if you cn’t prove an assertqation after fact don’t have a leg to stand on
... support users and content creators

<KimD> +1

SL: if you produce certian test results, we should have evidence on how to get results, target deviation for differnet results
... structure to provide evidence for results

<KimD> +1 because the different results could be because 1 tester used JAWS and the other NVDA

LG: originally was tested for one group not another

<JF> Exactly Jennie

Jennie: from a content creator, and emplyee with diwsability side. issue gets brought to court has to hear argument being sid from both siedes and make a judgement. to see if testing done is sufficient i’m concerned language isn’t going to support this. need to make it tight for all parties involved.
... for example alt text yes/no
... where we get grey is the quality of alternative test


<CharlesHall> +to thresholds not being grey area

SL: exactly what we are trying to do

JF: if we don’t emerge with a standard that the indudstry cn use they wont pick it up
... need stick not just a bag o carrots
... needs to work for everyone

SL: we absolutely do
... we need to make sure usability of standard is a major consideration
... for strucrture scope and tasks we need to break down to create structrue
... meeting with ACT group is imortant
... to define how to go through testing as well

DM: my understanding one stpe away form ACT theres EM framework is not same crowd
... seven step model of defining scope
... don’t think ACT has been setting up an audit

SL: not what i was saying
... can reuse dstructrue framework to apply at higher level to wlak through process of soing higher level t3est and specifiying ceope


SL: can use at a higher level

DM: can look at process

Jeanne: written proposals are welcome

SL: doesn’t need to be comprehensive
... shoot us an email

Setting up a framework for task completion testing

What feedback would Silver like to ask for from publishing the Challenges document?

Janina: peter on?

PK: yes

<sajkaj> Latest of Challenges is here:

<sajkaj> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-redesign2/conformance-challenges/index.html

PK: thank you. basically we are hoping to soon get review approval to publish first wokring darft of challenges document
... what specific questions would like to see accompany first working draft for ongoing wok

<sajkaj> Here come the questions ...

<sajkaj> 1. Are there additional challenges not described in our document?

<sajkaj> + Are there additional Success Criteria from WCAG 2.x that should be added to the list of challenging SC in Appendix A?

PK: questions are have we found all of challenges what is missing, misstate wrong inaccureate

<sajkaj> + Are there additional considerations that should be noted or corected among the SC described in Appendix A?

<sajkaj> + Are there similarly additional Success Criteria, or additions or corrections to those enumerated in Appendix B that should be noted, or otherwise described when applying WCAG 2.x SC to ICT?

<sajkaj> + Are the enumerated challenges in Appendix A and/or Appendix B suggesting certain patterns that should be called out and described?

<sajkaj> + Are there aspects of our document that are incorrect or insufficiently defined?

<sajkaj> + Have we overlooked some aspect in our analysis that should be addressed?

<sajkaj> 2. What approaches to you believe are most promissing to explore in constructing a more comprehensive conformance model for WCAG 3.0?

<sajkaj> 3. What do you believe are the most promising approaches for WCAG 3.0 conformance to address or ameliorate the challenges described in this document?

PK: what are the approaches

JF: had some concerns in previous format, majority were addressed, what would like to see. concern outlines why doesn’t work.
... wrong hands would make look like can’t meet today
... need to demonstrate solutions are avaialble
... concerned about timing that would live in TR rather than our own wiki for example

<AndySomers> COMMENT: The FAA has a Human Factors resource, I am looking through it here for ideas on the stumbling blocks we are discussing. Here's a link: https://www.hf.faa.gov/webtraining/Intro/Intro1.htm?tabid=349

<sajkaj> Not rec track -- Note Track

<david-macdonad> is this the latest draft?

<david-macdonad> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-redesign2/conformance-challenges/index.html

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

Peter: To be clear, this document isn't saying that WCAG is broken. Its talking about places where the conformance model is difficult to practice.

John: When you get into a court of law, that is a real use case, a real scenario. We all know this. You have collected in one place. In the hands of the uninformed, it could pose a problem.

Peter: I hear you. This is not an indictment of WCAG. It is providing detail of something well known in the community - that perfection isn't achievable. To argue against recognizing the fact is concerning to me.

John: Its the presentation not the content that I have concerns about.

david-macdonad: Is this the latest draft? It seems several versions back.
... I had addressed some of those concerns and I was reasonably satisfied but maybe this version is an earlier version.

Peter: The version that ends in conformance challenges redesign 2?

<JF> For clarity: my (our) concern is not about the content, but a) how it was being "presented" to the uninformed public, and b) the lack of any potential solutions.

Peter: I know this doesn't have the authors list trimming yet.
... but it did change the acknowledgements section and does have what we discussed. When we talked, there was an outstanding question that had been raised. We hadn't heard back but can reopen that question to address those concerns before the next survey. I believe you have the action.

Jeanne: Can I interrupt? We have moved off topic. What feedback can we ask for from this?

Lucy: In academia, when we ask for something that has challenges in it, we ask for a roadmap instead of a challenges document

Peter: I am trying to process that.

Lucy: You've done a good job capturing the challenges but we should reformat it as a roadmap. What are the priorities and how can we research these and address them?

Peter: We have two questions. One focused on model and one focused on content

<CharlesHall> @ Peter / Janina, the C.1 acknowledgement section has an incorrect conflation of attribution, Charles Hall (Oracle). we are Charles Adams (Oracle) or Charles Hall (MRM)

Peter: for example one might be to insist all videos are captioned before we accept them. What are strategies for an author trying to create an accessible website to fix issues outlined?

Lucy: I think we need to look at this as what would a grad student looking for their next thesis be asking?

Jeanne: When we put out a document, we ask for feedback. Peter has come to us asking what questions does Silver have after reviewing this document. I have thought of 2 but can't remember them. Will come back. What Lucy said about priorities. What do you think the priorities are for the challenges?

Peter: Can you expand on that?

Jeanne: Given the challenges we have identified, what is the priority that the reviewers think we should address them in?
... if we can't get to all of them in Silver, what are the most important?
... WCAG 3.0 not Silver.
... We could ask if there are specific success criteria in the appendix that should be significantly revised and what priority?

Peter: That is a great one.

Sean: We are at time.

<KimD> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<AndySomers> Hear hear

<AndySomers> +1

<Jennie_Delisi> +1 for chairs!

Janina: Cheers to our chairs for running this so well



<kirkwood> thanks for taking over scribing Racheal!

<kirkwood> ahem.. Racheal/Rachael

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: 2020/03/11 01:06:36 $

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)

Succeeded: s/ cavid /david/
Succeeded: s/if we can repeat test cant sue/if we can't repeat test can't sue/
FAILED: s/sean/shawn/
Present: KimD Jennie_Delisi PeterKorn CharlesHall AndySomers Lauriat Fazio_ Rachael sajkaj JF jeanne kirkwood
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Scribes: kirkwood, Rachael
ScribeNicks: kirkwood, Rachael

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

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]