I'm camped in the zoom right now, but seeing nobody

k, leaving and rejoining.

<scribe> scribe: Chuck

Virtual F2F May 2020 <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Virtual_F2F_May_2020>

Shawn: Bring up the tentative schedule and timings and topics of virtual f2f

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Virtual_F2F_May_2020

Shawn: This has dates and times as well as when we are planning to cover what topics.
... Wednesday we have 2 calls, 2 different aspects of conformance. Task based assessments.
... This prompted me to write up the email on my thoughts, there's been great discussion.
... And scoring system. Thursday functional needs and outcomes, and later proposal for ...

<Lauriat> How to implement it into a proposal for conformance

Shawn: "it" is first results of meeting on Thursday.

Janina: I have to write up a notion on declaring dependencies, what the chain and path is.
... One piece might be ordering the pizza, totally different from.... <murky audio>

Jake: I'm not sure, I didn't know that there were calls on Thursday.

Shawn: These are the virtual F2F-ish session.
... Next Wednesday and Thu we will have 2 calls each day.

Jake: Thx.

Shawn: We'll send out to the list, people can review and raise issues or flags. We tried to make times workable as possible for everyone.

Check in with sub-groups

Shawn: equally painful for all.
... Do we have folks on the call that are working on subgroups?

Chuck: My sub-group meets tomorrow to ramp up.

<ChrisLoiselle> Visual Contrast will be meeting tomorrow.

<ChrisLoiselle> Chuck, said it first!

Chuck: I hand off to Chris.

<bbailey> I have not done any more with multi-media requirements

Bruce: I didn't get final date and didn't see email from Andy.

Chuck: I've heard nothing from Andy, I will be sure to send Bruce details on invite.

Updating how to write content with functional outcomes

Shawn: Jeanne, can you speak to this one?

Jeanne: We were working last week on updating the content instructions, how to write content.
... We started about functional outcomes and went down a rat hole. I'd like to show people
... What we have, if there is any changes that we should make, particularly in how to integrate functional outcomes in the testing.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfYAiV2Z-FA_kEHYlLV32J8ClNEGPxRgSIohu3gUHEA/edit

Jeanne: In the first section of define user needs we put functional outcomes as step 3.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Smly4XDxfzfXHa7AoUxoLXLy_3PdOXMkh0ZwtgksSPk/

Jeanne: in the template, I'm not doing a lot at this point, working on instructions, I'll update template later.
... We stopped at, we added last week multiple outcomes, each one should be concise, plain language...
... ...<read from doc> Then move to section 2 which is develop tests.
... We have a lot of stuff of how to deal with current test and how to write new things, needs to be updated based on functional outcomes.
... I'm trying to get an idea of where the functional outcomes go in this.
... The more I look at it, the more I think it needs to be rewritten. Right now kind of hard to find the information, and we changed examples.
... Is there anybody who would like to work on this?

<JakeAbma> write me up

Jeanne: Should we look at it now, or should we move on the agenda?

Shawn: Jake volunteered.

Jeanne: Thanks Jake!

Defining conformance scope

Shawn: This and the agenda item after this (task based testing) are kind of related. I'd like to split out the topics so that we talk through them separately.
... First is defining conformance scope. Currently in WCAG conformance claims are options, in terms of web pages or collection of web pages.
... Gives authors the means of defining scope. Allowing people to set scope of conformance. JF raised concerns.
... For the scope of conformance, we've been thinking about collection of things people are trying to do. What should we talk through about scope?

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to suggest declaring dependency chain as a conformance requirement

Janina: We haven't talked about the global side of it, that we should add to it. The notion that we should turn on computer, get to browser, log in, whatever the task...
... In a localized view.. If you are buying a pizza, you need to pay for it, hand out delivery address. There needs to be a mechanism to define dependency chain, point to where the accessibility testing scope are in the pieces of the chain.
... Starting the process to completing the process successfully. Or for buying something online. There are typical chains we can define, payment, shipping data, other patterns.

Shawn: Full user journey.

Janina: We need to define both.

Shawn: We've been talking through....

JF: <muted?>

<JF> http://www.picturesofwalls.com

JF: The issue, I have a bunch, one is that not every website has tasks or has a real purpose. I pasted in one, pictures of walls.
... Funny grafity.
... What is the task? Look at the pictures?

<many> Yes

JF: How do you look at a picture?
... The point is, I appreciate that some websites will have tasks, we will want to measure those and include in score.
... To suggest our scoring mechanism is based on tasks is problematic. Not all sites are task based.
... In gallery, you walk in, view and walk out. On a website, you just go and look at pictures.

Shawn: I disagree, there doesn't have to be a prescribed step 1..3

<KimD> +1

Shawn: I'm definitely not fully committed to term of "task", not great. We need to get away from conformance based on arbitrary granularity of technology.
... I'm trying to propose declaring in terms of what you can do and measuring how successful those are.

<sajkaj> Suggest John's example would not allow an art gallery site to ever meet WCAG 2.x

JF: There is an active thread on list, one of the things that was proposed was that in a conformance claim or scoping that...

<CharlesHall> perhaps we still need a definition of task

JF: Sites could leave content out as not germane. Like pizza site with a game. The other was new york times, scope the crossword puzzle different from editorial page.
... "just dragging my score down". That's a problem. It can be gamed. The moment that sites find complex issues, they scope it out.

Shawn: They can do that today.

JF: The w3c conformance model is at a page level. I can give you a list of all pages and tell you if it passes and fails. Been imposed by legislatores.
... Amazon.com can't report score on every page, too many dynamic pages. We need a better way of expressing a global accessibility picture.
... If we allow cherry picking, you will have an inaccurate report.

Janina: You are raising good points. I think you are right that there are limits of what we can make accesssible. We should exemplify what you can scope in and out.
... Downloading an mp3 of a symphony rather than trying to make the symphony accessible. There are limits of what you can do.
... You can make equivalent access, but not the same access. Declaring up front and showing examples would be helpfull.

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to discuss limits of making alternative media accessible

Janina: That pizza game may be in scope, because maybe the game gets you a dollar off. Rather than a game that distracts you.

JF: One of the things you said, graffity of image, long description... there may be blind people who want to know more.

Janina: Is our job to satisfy everybody?

JF: I'm not arguing about that, I'm saying we have a technology for providing longer descriptions, we have guidance to use it.

Janina: Include a long desc of all Rembrants?
... Is it a requirement?

JF: It depends on the individual.

Janina: It can't depend on the individual, the author provides. Does the author provide for each individual discreetely?

JF: If I saw a complex graphic, doesn't matter what it is, if it doesn't have a longer textual descrption, it doesn't meet 2.x, it fails.
... What we are saying going forward is we want to measure the whole museum site.

Jeanne: From earlier, but the danger of trying to design something so that it can't be gamed by anyone, no one can cheat, we start to lose what we wanted to do for the majority who don't want to cheat.

<KimD> +1

<bbailey> +1 to what Jeanne is saying that we cannot design for the cheaters

<Lauriat> +1

<sajkaj> +1 to Jeanne

Jeanne: We want to design for the people who want to do this, not design for the cheaters.

<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say that 2x only requires Descriptive Identification

Bruce: I want to endorce task based testing. You are in a colaborative environment, not trying to fail someone. You go through a typical process. You expect to be steered to the problem areas that need to be evaluated.
... If you are trying to rule out the cheaters, it won't work. You have to assume there's some good faith.
... If nytimes wants to work with a tester, I'm comfortable. WCAG is a low bar.
... there's lot's of situtation where wcag asks for descriptive identification not full description.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to distinguish between pages and elements for conformance.

<KimD> +1 to BB

<jeanne> +1 BB

Shawn: For pages and elements in conformance scope, there are 2 different types of scope and I didn't want to confuse them.
... For conformance on a per page level, WCAG are optional and up to content owners. For a page that has a rembrant on it, the author and owner can make the call that they won't include that page.
... Separately from that, we have scope within the page. If somebody says "this particular work flow" is what I'm including in my conformance, we have a separate question as to what to include from each page.
... Just because some guidelines are element specific, some are environmental, some can't have blanket statements.
... link at bottom may have nothing to do with task, but maybe link in middle would throw them off track.
... I want to discuss page level vs what the user is trying to do conformance.
... To JF point, if that's a gallery site, and they have a bad description, I agree with JF and I think it would fail. That's core to the functionality of the site.
... But for site itself, dependent on content and purpose, there is no blanket statement we can offer that will work well. Has to be done by those who understand content and purpose.

Janina: Could be different teams or development gruop.

Shawn: They may have intertwining dependencies. If there are six other teams with other parts, it all must be included.

Janina: Which is what I'm trying to get at. We need to get in writing even if we don't know how to do specifics yet.

Shawn: JF I want to loop back to you, as a result of this conversation, where are you standing on same scope for performance.
... I think you are wanting something we define as conformance model itself, as opposed to the content creators defining scope.

JF: It is complex, only the content owners and authors understand the purpose of the website. Never-the-less, if we are going to move away from per-page...
... If we want to move to site wide statement, we need boundaries. One would be that you can't exclude content to improve score.

Shawn: What would you set as the boundaries? How would you define a full site?

JF: that's a task in front of us. One approach for what is and isn't out of scope, go to site owner's home page, every site has home page, top level.
... Whatever that is, there is usually navigation mechanism. In the example site I posted, it takes you into the gallery.
... Anything liked from home page would be in scope.

Shawn: For instance, I have gmail open, I have a bunch of emails and labels. It also links to managing my google account, adding another account, more links. Links to other apps.
... All of those apps would be in same conformance statement?

JF: Maybe one of the other condition is that they reside under tld, with exception of 3rd party content. If it's linking to another domain, then excluded.

Shawn: ... Docs.google.com, is the domain for docs, sheets, and slides. Different sub-directories. Different apps.
... Janina's example of workflow, in order to log in, you are directed to separate tld to log in, but I think should be included.

JF: I'm not opposed to including tasks. We want to design a system that works for honest and not cheaters.
... We aren't admiting to the element in the room. If it can't be referred to by regulators, will never get used.

Shawn: I'm trying to work with you how we define this so that we include task based things, and removes risks.
... I want to work with you on better understanding of this.

JF: I don't claim to have the answer. In the use cases you gave, there was a higher level order of steps necessary. It's edge case for web page. For Silver, we are thinking about xr/vr.
... I accept that web apps are different. When you go to those higher level pages, there's not a lot of info, just do the task. You can't exclude that stuff. It's critical to functioning.
... I'm concerned that where you get past the primary happy path, what of those web sites that have secondary paths?

Shawn: Docs/sheets/slides example....
... Trying to define boundaries. TLD, plus any task necessary, that would still require 3 separate apps be combined in conformance scope.
... Completely separate apps, with some dependencies.

JF: Those are individual tasks. To make an edit, or share a doc, you need to be able to log in.
... Maybe tld is not the right word. Under the description you gave, I can do docs, sheets, and slides.

<jeanne> Can we resolve that TLD is not the scope?

Shawn: I'm proposing that. Based on the concept of whatever it is... 3 separate apps. Now define what you are trying to do.
... ...also something that is a separate dependency. No dependency that you must use google docs for slides. Just logical chunks of things you can do.
... I come back to tasks, I don't see a way for us to declare scope.

JF: I'm looking at a google sheet. It's a very utilitarian app. There is no crossword puzzle, no pizza game. When I go to Amazon.com.
... When I go to yahoo.com, it's to find something to read. At some point we have to look at the nature of the content as well.
... All I'm saying is if google had off of sheets a link to "create your own picture of the day", if that was linked right off of sheets...
... That could be excluded from scope. But it should be in scope. You put it there for users. If its there for users, it has to be there for all users.

Shawn: I agree that if you put something out there it should be available for all users. We have no way of defining "there".
... What are the boundaries? Sheets, there's a side bar of exploration that brings up 5 other apps that you can load up in the interface, there's an explore tab that takes you to random places.
... The boundaries of sheets for conformance has to have some boundary, even if you can load them in the same window.
... The only people who understand those boundaries are the people that create those integrations.
... I'm trying to create a conformance model that instead of defining boundaries of scope, defines transparency of claim.

<jeanne> +1 to defining the transparency of the claim

<KimD> +1 to same

Shawn: For regularatory examples, if someone needs to look at things, the transparency helps to make that happen, not us defining scope for them.
... That's the only way I can see that this works, but willing to discuss other ideas. Doesn't seem like we have a way to do that.

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to say that sounds like wcag 2.x binary expanded to a full site

Janina: I want to talk to that point, but you did so well.
... I think what we are talking about is can we make it realistic. If you say anything from top level page has to be accessible, that sounds like we are keeping pass/fail, and will be more discouraging.

<OmarBonilla> +1 to potential discouragement

Janina: How many will walk away and say we are making too difficult. If we give people an approach to where you can start with pieces that you understand and define full chain, then you can itterate through that.
... And approach the list of things. I doubt you get there completely.
... I'll jump back to paintings. Every time we talk about describing art, we don't try to describe Bethoven string quartet. There are limits there, and we need to be honest.

JF: Nobody's tackled that. there are gaps that we know exist that haven't been closed yet. We are each on tf to close those gaps.
... If we currently lack a mechanism, I accept that. I don't have answers on how to solve.

Janina: One of the pieces I know a lot about.
... I can say a lot of useful stuff to a deaf person, but I wonder about how much it will really matter <gets detailed beyond my understanding>

Shawn: We have 5 moments left.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say how scope is commonly used today

5 minutes

Jeanne: How do people use scope today... anytime I worked with a client.
... Unless the site was very small, it was always a logical subset of the whole site. Companies understand logical subsets. usually defined by tasks.
... I don't think that this is unreasonable. Very common in the work world, will be responded to positively.

<KimD> +1 to Jeanne - task/workflow is understood

<OmarBonilla> +1 to same

Shawn: I would like to encourage people to think about it more. I'm trying to understand how we manage scope in a way that better reflects the experience of real world users.
... If we do have a way to say "no you need to include", or even supporting docs that say here is how you work through it, that would be helpful.
... I start with purpose of app, we will have people who don't come from that background.
... I want to make sure we support them. The pizza place example.
... I want to continue talking, we have a bunch of time set up next week. Looking forward to working it more.

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

Shawn: Any final thoughts?

<bbailey> +1 to Shawns point that defining scope is probably very hard for people new to accessibility

JF: Not in the timeframe.

Jeanne: Look at wcag em, they have step by step on how to define scope.

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/accessibiliyt/accessibility/
Present: jeanne Chuck Lauriat bbailey CharlesHall JF sajkaj OmarBonilla KimD Makoto
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck

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: 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.)