<scribe> Scribe:ChrisLoiselle
Me!
<Lauriat> Thanks, Chris!
Janina: We were going to talk to captioning in XR vs. 360 view points
We will review approaches and things to look out for and try to pull that into methods and guidelines
Josh: That sounds like a great recap.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say seems ambitious !
BruceB: I think first call public working draft may be too early...Jeanne: We are looking to what can pass for first public working draft. AG wanted to have Silver review emerging technology as a possible area of interest.
I.e captioning on XR for methods / guidelines
<CharlesHall> somehow missed this meeting actually being scheduled. bummed.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to echo excitement and elaborate on my own reservations.
<Fazio> Disclaimer?
<CharlesHall> seems like XR would simply be a series of methods within captioning guidance
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to talk about identifying low hanging fruit for XR and RTC
Shawn: Including one thing about XR vs. many may open us up why did we include only XR on captions?
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/xaur/
Josh: I think based on existing framework, we can build on that in the XR space. Problem is with the unknown, i.e. do we need new architecture forXR and Accessibility?
<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/raur/
building off of user needs can add to guidelines...
Janina: I agree that it will be iterative process
DavidF: Perhaps we add a disclaimer on evolution of technology to set expectations on whether we implement on a large scale in silver
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about setting the precedent of bringing in experts
<KimD> +1 to bringing in others!
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about AD plus keyboard exploration of VR
<Lauriat> +1 to Jeanne, definitely.
BruceB: Audio Description and keyboard being interactive in XR is ambitious and how we develop guidance on that. Janina: Having experts help within community group is needed.
Jeanne: Expertise is key to us moving forward on this topic.
<Lauriat> Raises process questions, but we can move on for today.
<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Virtual_F2F_May_2020
Wednesday 10:00 - 12:00 (UTC 14:00) Task Based Assessment
Wednesday 2:00 - 4:00 (UTC 18:00) Fleshing out the scoring system
Thursday 11:00am - 1:00pm (UTC 15:00) Functional Needs or Functional Outcomes
Thursday 2:00pm - 4:00pm (UTC 18:00) How to implement it into a proposal for conformance
Conference Call Info is heading level , link to zoom is off of main page.
<bruce_bailey> Regrets for most of Wednesday, i am sorry to say
Jeanne: I did work that was based off of Jake's work. Jake, could you talk to your documents?
Jake: Pass fail testing for low,
medium and high scoring may be useful and reviewing functional
needs.
... Most of our tests would be in ACT files and add new tests
to this structure.
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18saMLdtaVlwuVodpZX2-AcIQ8fCvDRxYdZw4VpB2qKo/
A task completion is a scope of the test. Most of time you still come across tests in the pass / fail conclusion.
Jeanne's document is titled Proposal for Combining Adjectival and Task Completion Scoring
Jeanne: Headings may be critical in a web app but not in an XR experience.
Conformance is how to declare scope, to declare a representative sample, how the overall score is calculated, and then how the overall score is communicated simply.
For Process: The owner / author or evaluator defines the scope...
Task to complete must be specifically defined
The Task Completion Scope cannot be used to claim conformance for tasks that are not part of the Task Completion Scope.
<Lauriat> +1, thank you for writing this up!
Shawn: For web app, building blocks may be different than a web page. I.e. Google docs, for example.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about scope building blocks
For Google forms, screens may make more sense in regard to terminology used to describe the evaluation.
<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to ask about subtasks that are common
Janina: Sub tasks could be used in task flows.
E-commerce for example, at some point you have to pay or checkout. I.e. checking out is part of a task flow, but we already tested this component.
I.e. shipping information.
Shawn: Lots of converging ideas on this concept.
Janina: E-commerce, you are purchasing something, we would want that process in entirety to be accessible.
<CharlesHall> in order for some authors to be transparent about a task / flow, they may have to disclose things intended as proprietary
<Fazio> didn't we say we didn't want to label essential necessary etc?
Jake: can we look at atomic and composite tests within ACT?
https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#expectations for task based testing?
https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#expectations-atomic and https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#expectations-composite were mentioned by Jake
<Lauriat> Chris: exactly what I want to try building out
DavidF: Does this paper talk to not including / defining things as critical , high, low etc.?
<bruce_bailey> Task Based Assessment is first item on agenda tomorrow.
<bruce_bailey> TBA is entire first call tomorrow. Scoping TBA is 1st agenda item.
<CharlesHall> regrets for at least the first half of FTF 3 (thurs morn) which is the one I most want to participate in.
DavidF and Shawn and Jeanne: Talk to how "useful" something is , is an ongoing topic , can things be deemed essential vs. non-essential?
Jeanne: Let people test the way they are used to OR can define task completion flow. I.e. WCAG EM is followed on representative sample methodology. OR a defined flow, progression, branching can be looked at .
I.e. essential, log in, navigation, help...
Representative sample and define flow / task completion are separate evaluations, but can be merged at some point for a total score.
If a Task Completion Flow is used, then there is an additional step: the Task Completion Flow is used to determine the (criticality or severity?) of the individual test result. This equates to a factor that is multiplied against the score.
Essential to task would boost the end score
<Lauriat> -1 to broad weighting rules
failed scores would impact end scoring number. I.e. headings in footer fail.
Jake: Circumstances matter on how bad a given failure is, i.e. heading level and semantic use on a given page.
criticality of task and severity ranking and proper examples are needed to showcase these examples on how scoring would work
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/do we new architecture for /do we need new architecture for/ Present: jeanne ChrisLoiselle Chuck CharlesHall Lauriat Fazio KimD bruce_bailey OmarBonilla Rachael Joshue108 MichaelC kirkwood JakeAbma Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]