Silver Task Force & Community Group

14 Jul 2020


jeanne, SBH, Chuck_, Fazio, JakeAbma, sajkaj, JF, Rachael, MichaelC, CharlesHall, Francis_Storr, Crispy, Detlev, KimD, bruce_bailey, Lauriat
Shawn, jeanne


I'll do it

Sub-group check-in

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

MC: XR Update: captioning group looked at moving from user needs to functional outcomes

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

MC: pointed captions meta data amount of time displayed, multi-screen etc>

<michaelcrabb> 1) Auditory information, including speech and key sound effects, are translated into alternative formats (e.g. captions) so media can be consumed when sound is unavailable or limited

MC: seeking input from plain language

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to voice concern over scope creep

CH: JF: concerned about scope creep. Any testable statements for XR?

JF: SL: 1st XR guideline will be proof oof multi-tech scalability of WCAG 3
... feels testable statements are role of AGWG

M Coopeer: XR guideline was requirement set by AGWG

<CharlesHall> testable statement ≠ tests for methods. it was simply a description of the current editorial style of a functional outcome.

Jake: different methods for same functional outcomes is problematic

<MichaelC2> https://www.w3.org/2020/07/09-silver-functional-minutes.html

MCooper Functional Needs will meet weekly gonna work on traanslating Jakaes work

<JakeAbma> draft of the contrast experiment: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yTpbJFsaadIbCigV15YK6bWB4xk_MoOgREjGMHHMVgQ/edit#gid=1983238719

<Lauriat> Fazio: Maturity model meeting to set out goals next week.

Rachael's proposal on Scoring

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IceTYOyGitApczya4vat4gPk9_I-7hIwpqTtXGusEZk/edit#slide=id.g8208eb709f_0_0

Rachael presentation discussing the multiple concepts of scoring incorporated into her proposal, see link above

Racahael: conformance defined by paths tied to tasks, path defined as single view or complete series of views needed to complete task

<Chuck_> DF: Wondering if... ISO has defined process...

<Chuck_> DF: path is not defined anywhere. Do we want to lean towards existing definitions?

<CharlesHall> upon a wordsmithing stage, perhaps ‘presentation’ instead of ‘view’?

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about components and Design systems / Component libraries

JF: components- appear to be set aside for scope. Libraries existed for long time, used to assemble content, often built in silo
... sees large orgs wanting to evaluate components pre-assembly. Concerned not enough attention

<CharlesHall> assembly > parts. components break with content and context.

Rachael: conformance hasn't previously been at component level

Jake: declaring scope - path, processes, view, etc. what is difference between webpage, processes? WCAG beginners may not understand

<Chuck_> +1 with JF that we should review/re-visit component level conformance. Oracle creates and sells development systems, and reviews at component level.

<Lauriat> +1 to having a conversation around components. Google has Material Design and we have/use many frameworks.

<Chuck_> DF: I see Jake's point. goes back to processes. Back to redundent entry, and went with process, a series of tasks. We chose process because it was defined and settled.

<Chuck_> DF: It's supported. The term is important, and should be something used before. Let's not re-invent the wheel.

<JF> +1 to David. Q: is "process" and "path" synonomous?

<Chuck_> DF: I prefer process.

<Julia> Is path / process referring to user journey / user flow?

Jake: Not sure why 2a testing isn't apart of WCAG 2 structure. Usability testing doesn't seem mentioned yet. AT testing not a goal but means to use if procedure is true/false. Doesn't see how this proposal differs from WCAG 2

Rachael: Certain Testing methods can't integrate into WCAG 2, Level 2a is meant to address that. 2b is intended to bee true usability testing context

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask how to apply this to a WordPress theme

JF: How would this apply to a Word Press theme? layout, design elements, tasks, but no real content?

Rachael: Consider Wordpress to be a component
... WP theme is a separate approach broken out in method level

<jeanne> Wordpress "Accessible themes" meet ATAG 2.0, which includes WCAG.

JF: difference between XR and pdf a1y, one, method should apply to both

Jeanne: WP themes are ATAG compliant not WCAG

Rachael Proposal : Guidelines scored on % in path, average of 3 means move on to higher level tests, calculate functional category scores.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask how we differentiate blockers from inconveniences

MCooper: Is there way of differentiating critical failures from annoying failures?

Rachael: If tests tied to essential, but barriers not on path that is minor is not addressed in proposal

<JF> +1 to Jake, and also where do ACT Rules fit in here?

Jake: This seems like high level scoring process with gaps. Needs to be more granular. Silver group leaning to less guidelines with more functional outcomes. Need more realistic worked examples too see if matches

<jeanne> +1 to Rachael that we need the details of how the scoring works to test the overall structure and we need the overall structure to test the scoring. We need to push both areas of work forward together because they are intertwined.

Rachael: we need a structure to work from. This is a starting point. Passing isn't a single number, relates to functional categories.

<jeanne> +1 to the Conformance slide

lDetlev: scoring algorithm is confusing

<Lauriat> Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IceTYOyGitApczya4vat4gPk9_I-7hIwpqTtXGusEZk/edit

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/07/14 14:46:15 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/JF/with JF/
Succeeded: s/oath/path/
Present: jeanne SBH Chuck_ Fazio JakeAbma sajkaj JF Rachael MichaelC CharlesHall Francis_Storr Crispy Detlev KimD bruce_bailey Lauriat
Regrets: Jan
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Fazio
Inferring Scribes: Fazio

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]