Super Scribe is here

<scribe> scribe:ChrisLoiselle

I mean, present+

Subgroup check-in

MichaelC: Functional needs met today, we have thoughts on how it should be organized within W3C and in Silver. CharlesH has done a lot of work on the document. We are looking at a bi weekly meeting.

<JF> URL of that Google doc?

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

CharlesH: Michael's comments capture what happened.

JF: I would like to look at the Google doc. MichaelC: It is off the parent page presented in IRC.

<JF> @Michael Cooper - permissions on that Google Doc? Please and thanks

<Chuck> chris: The visual contrast sub-group did meet and will meet next Thu. Bruce, Andy and I talked about math migration. Main question is confirming with you if main equation is what you want to see or all the detail he's been working on. Andy needs clarification. Our take is main equation, can group confirm?

<Chuck> Bruce: I don't think that there's a reason to do the equation in math ml.

<Chuck> Janina: If it's just text I see no reason, whatever equations are specified should be math ml

Janina: I don't see any reason why text would be translated in MathML, would rather just concentrate on MathML for equations.

Jeanne: Agrees.

BruceB: Just to confirm and agree.

Jeanne: Anyone else on subgroup. Jan on clear language sub group?

<Fazio> \Getting our act together for Maturity Modeling

Jeanne: Also John or Angela can report in. We had some turnover in participation. John Kirkwood and John Rochford joined group. Clear language will be split into 3 guidelines.

John R. had some new clear language resources on functional outcomes.

Jeanne: XR met Tuesday, nothing new there.

DavidF: We are starting a maturity model subgroup. We think we can address scoring concerns with sub group, starting with exploring existing benchmarks.

We'd see how it can fit into Silver / WCAG 3

<CharlesHall> the XR update is a video was distributed to the group on how GitHub Projects is being used.

Sheri has worked on maturity model during level access days and will have insight.

Jeanne: The video for XR update is on how Github projects is being used is available via a youtube link created by Mike Crabb. Jeanne can give permissions to teams through GitHub.
... Github is public, so people will be able to use it. As for editing, that is a permissions setting. DavidF: So for the public group, is github availalbe? Jeanne: One editor on the project, but people can enter issues.

MichaelC: Repository would have certain permissions. The use of github is not a barrier to participation from a reading access standpoint. Community group members would need to reach out for access .

DavidF: I thought you had to be associated with W3C to access. MichaelC: Its a permissions question. DavidF: Ok.

BruceB: Project information is another way to review issues. It looks promising.

Jeanne: Main goal is allow people to contribute how they are able to contribute and what they are comfortable with doing.

Summary of the Conformance Scoring proposal

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l4ETg-VJepvbcINFta3exwX-DM29O4Q14XPpKkA170Y/

Jeanne: Talks to Summary of the Conformance Scoring proposal and shares link.

This could be the outline of what goes in to the TR Document.

<PeterKorn__> Jeanne - I don't have access; others may not either.

No access.

Jeanne: Will move document, hold on. Please refresh page.

The link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l4ETg-VJepvbcINFta3exwX-DM29O4Q14XPpKkA170Y/edit does work now.

<JF> I don't have access

<CharlesHall> had already requested access. so now i can’t see.

<CharlesHall> i can see now

JF and Jeanne: Work on permissions. Jeanne: Should work now if you have the link.

BruceB: This was what Andy was asking about on our meeting.

Jeanne: This does not talk to bench marking aspect that Jake has talked through before. Two viewpoints remain. Technical, does code meet the standard. Then accessibility in use.
... Talks to document at a high level.

<JF> +1 to Shawn

Shawn: I'm not sure we talked to averaging as the correct mechanism for scoring.

<Fazio> +1 JF

JF: I don't see where the different functional needs and requirements are being rolled in to this.

Jeanne: This is the introduction, but we can talk to that later. The chart showcases the functional needs.

JF: Averaging has been discussed, but I don't think we've reached consensus on that, or even had a straw poll

<JF> +1 to DAvid

DavidF: I believe we talked to breaking it down by functional needs. High level then granular was discussed. Seeing the scoring model without detail creates some anxiety. For functional needs, one thing can be a show stopper and another not.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to make a suggestion for this intro around scoring model, to David's point.

Shawn: Removing details about it and state it will be more nuances than pass / fail would be beneficial.

<Fazio> mental fatigue

<JF> +1 to Peter.

<CharlesHall> it is called spoon theory. it applies to pain as well.

PeterK: I've skimmed the document. A little bit of friction vs. a lot of friction. I.e. site visitors with cognitive disabilities. Talks to running out spoons as an example. Someone coming up against multiple barriers, it may become overwhelming.

<Lauriat> Also applies to chronic fatigue and other things, too.

<JF> Spoon theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory

<Lauriat> Thanks, JF!

One of twelve steps had friction vs. all twelve steps having friction to degrees, how does that relate to overall scoring.

<Lauriat> Thatone.

PeterK: If every step is easy, you end up with an easy. If you've hit "X" amount you've hit moderately difficult.

DavidF: COGA Task force worked on redundant entries, which talks to this in the understanding documents and tasks and fatigue. In functional needs group, this is going to be something we could inform the development of this moving forward

<JF> "... level of detail that *MANY* users won't need..."

Jeanne: The user needs will possibly move in to an explainer document, separate from main document.
... I wrote down everything we've talked to in the writing process. Please do read through it and speak up on disagreements or different viewpoints.

We are starting with functional needs.

Jeanne: Talks to Guideline writing process.

Shawn: I thought that was in a secondary document. Is that to live here now or separate?

Jeanne: I had included it , due to everything that we were covering on documents that Jake shared.

Shawn: We can point to that document here, but main goal of scoring document should talk to scoring and conformance.

Jeanne: I've made a note to update the document.
... . Scope can be a task, group of tasks, or group of objects (e.g. pages).

<Fazio> +1

<Fazio> For COGA absolutely

Shawn: They can declare scope the same way they do today. The point about Peter's friction comment. The context of "reading page" would be scope. This happens "X" times because of "X".

<JF> @Shawn - maybe "Function"?

DavidF: On redundant entries SC, perhaps Shawn can talk to this with our group in more detail. I.e. task can be "X". Cohesion would be great.

Shawn: Usability concepts are being reviewed and hope is to align to UX / Usability as much as possible.

PeterK: I see it within Adjectival area, steps in a path , 3 steps or 3 pages. I think identified task completion would benefit most.
... For example, going to library and search for book, and checking out the book. Total of say 9 steps. One step involves a widget.

<Fazio> The brain can only retain a max of 4 items in thought at a time also

<Fazio> Much research on this

The widget is mild , which translate to say "silver" rather than "gold". Mild friction equates to "silver". If you've gone through each step and 8 of 13 are "mild". Summation doesn't make sense in absence of steps and known friction of each step.

If you had a grade, we'd assign a grade to that.

Jeanne: I'm talking to scope. Would you want to be able to just test just "one widget" vs. entire task ?

<JF> "Test" - yes, but how does it integrate into a larger accessibility concern?

Is testing and not associating with a task a valid approach?

<Fazio> Wouldn't that be during development

<JF> WCAG 2.1 Conformance: "For Level AA conformance, the Web page satisfies all the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria, or a Level AA conforming alternate version is provided."

Shawn and Peter : Talk to granular conformance and tasks.

JF: Scoping question to Peter's point. The minimum at WCAG 2.x is at page level. In modern web , mobile web etc. it should be at screen level, i.e. screen's worth of content. If you have 14 widgets and only one spoon worth of friction, but to complete 14 spoons the user is at a loss for overall usability and accessibility.

PeterK: You have to look at the task, does the task touch all 14 widgets or just 2 of the widgets? The unit of conformance is important and needs to be open and have discussion on.

<PeterKorn__> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory

Shawn: Plus one to how new technology would incorporate what we are writing for.

DavidF: Are we scoping for entire page ? Task base testing applies to all of it.

Shawn: Task base testing in important. Talks to friction on one case vs. entire page. The atomic and adjectival tests , this has to roll up to something larger and scope.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to peter

<Fazio> Love it JF

JF: plus one to that. Talks to spaghetti noodles and boiling all of the noodles together. Is it editable at the end? Rolling up to larger holistic view is very important.

Talks to how we define scoping at different labels. Noodle scope vs. entire spaghetti dinner scope.

<Fazio> I'm more interested in the sauce

<Fazio> Feel like WCAG 2 can handle individual elements

Jeanne: Scope of conformance , scope is a group of tasks ?

JF: Granular vs. entire page. Say google.com for example, where only set amount of elements are on page vs. results of a given search.

<Fazio> Tasks

<Fazio> I thought we long agreed to tasks

JF: Are we going talking to what is the task, going through the first landing page or the results, what should be included in the task?

PeterK: I think we don't answer that question right now. I think we revisit in future.

Perhaps we have more than one term, much more WCAG 2.x like and an overall assessment of entire website. The larger view is much more task based , galaxy vs. atomic metaphors

Shawn: I think we'd say we don't have consensus yet.

JF: Until scoping unit is decided , scoring unit is hard to plan out as well.

<Fazio> or chicken and egg

PeterK: Scoring discussion is premature.

Shawn: We can score more atomic things

JF: I think we need to have this discussion.

PeterK: Total of all this up and coming up with end number is what I meant , to clarify. Pages and usability of site.

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/but I don't think that has been voted on straw poll wise at all though./but I don't think we've reached consensus on that, or even had a straw poll/
Present: jeanne Chuck Lauriat JF CharlesHall KimD Francis_Storr sajkaj AngelaAccessForAll Fazio bruce_bailey OmarBonilla PeterKorn__ Rachael Jan crispy
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.)