<sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj
<CharlesHall> the tribe acknowledges mutual admiration
ca: Reminder of AGWG sessions on
Silver conformance model alternatives
... Next Tuesday 28 August is Rachael
... Tuesday 4 August is John Foliot
<Fazio> so be on best behavior :p
ca: This will be the standard
AGWG teleconference at 11:00 Boston
... Presentations will be first agendum, and may not take
entire meeting on the 28th and 4th
... Tuesday 11 August will be daylong deep dive
... Page under construction--so be kind!
<chuck_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/Silver_Deep_Dive_2020-08
ca: We do expect to follow AGWG
published decision policy on testing for consensus on a model
to move forward
... However, no timeline yet
... Rachael will recuse herself as she's presenting one of the
options
<CharlesHall> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/edit#heading=h.4jiwp8jpc143
<MichaelC> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-a11y-functional-needs/2020Jul/0012.html
ch: and summary link ...
... discussed how there may be conflation of concepts as no
agreed definition of funct outcomes yet
... also re order of operations
... it's rather hard to come up with mappings as we don't yuet
have written guidelines
... easier to relate to methods
<Fazio> +1
<bruce_bailey> list in doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/edit#heading=h.4jiwp8jpc143
<bruce_bailey> list in slides
<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zUqVZnSKEmQuRpd7aTLvVeI_A-IV0ly3qt3glqqpNBc/edit#slide=id.g8dc9f88081_23_6
jf: compares process to 2.x ...
ch: sure, my context is Silver
and not any WCAG legacy
... Yes, we have a lot of known knowns ... all our existing
guidelines are there to satisfy a need
... in 2.x we can start from guidelines, and that's easier, but
not in Silver
... Trying to use content creation as our reference point --
pulled captions as an example
<Lauriat_> WCAG to Silver Outline Map Charles mentioned: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say that I so appreciate that the functional needs listings are consistent between two documents cited for this meeting
bb: Wanted to appreciate having these two lists so well made
<bruce_bailey> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#guidelines
<ChrisLoiselle_> +1 to JF's point on multimedia vs. captions / user needs / functional outcomes.
bb: Notes draft only has 3
guidelines so far
... suggest we might want to work from broader perspective
<ChrisLoiselle_> +1 to Bruce's recommendation on organization aspect
bb: Believe the google doc had only 3 categories, and that's easier
ch: will respond as we go through the list
mc: we'll be going for functional
needs that apply across all of WAI work
... suggest we not over-worry this level definitions just
yet
df: believe maturity model should help exactly on this -- to tie the pieces all together
ch: responding to mc and bb -- re
length of the list might be outside our scope/ability -- we
believe not best perspective
... volume of work/guidelines based on how we expect our funct
needs will map
... there may be a single method that accomodates perhaps 30
needs
... begins working through the collated list per above URI
<Peter_Korn> Rats.
<Peter_Korn> Working on it...
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask about Deaf vs deaf
<Peter_Korn> Keep going without me. My intent was to speak when the recitation was completed.
js: In sensory do you distinguish between "deaf" and "Deaf"?
ch: Absolutely
<Peter_Korn> OK, I think my mic has returned to the living.
<Peter_Korn> (as much as any microphone can be alive [vs. live])
<Fazio> thighs can be how we award bonuses talked about last year, set gold silver bronze levels even etc
pk: Asks whether we expect all of these funct needs to be covered by one or more guidelines and an "accessible" site would need to meet them?
ch: don't know yet
<Fazio> Think of a way granular version of POUR
ch: Any guidelines we come up wich don't apply, would not map to a particular one
mc: we expect our funct needs to apply across all W3C specs
pk: Notes we have key exceptions
in 2.x; and wonder how some essentialness should come
along
... e.g. it's hard to make the function of creating a movie
caption track accessible to a deaf person
ch: the mapping ex3ercise plus how prioritization might apply is not something we've taken up yet
pk: not disagreeing, just want to note we should do that -- and not just push it off on the guidelines
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if I am missing one under language and literacy "Use with limited ability to comprehend spoken language"
<Fazio> Could be part of the Maturity work
rm: have cross mapped these
against ACT tests
... under lang/lit don't see COGA for written lang -- need to
followup
ch: part of the purpose of bringing this draft to the group
df: think COGA should be able to help with that
<Fazio> AgainThe list isn't final yet
jf: notes lack of "use with impaired comprehension;" and notes APA's Personalization TF is trying to address that
ch: Notes one about comprehension of written lang and a couple about understanding; phps a comment in doc for now?
<Fazio> It's in content usable
jf: points to symbols and notes Personalization TF is attempting to provide for that
ch: Invites comment now, or in doc, or on list
<Fazio> word
<Lauriat_> Direct link to slide 12: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zUqVZnSKEmQuRpd7aTLvVeI_A-IV0ly3qt3glqqpNBc/edit#slide=id.g8dc9f88081_11_128
mc: /me I'm back, am I still scribing?
<ChrisLoiselle_> sajkaj , I'll do last 15 minutes
<ChrisLoiselle_> Scribe:ChrisLoiselle
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say (after presentation) guidelines have both 1:many and 1:1 relationships
<ChrisLoiselle_> Rachael: Mapping against functional outcomes and differences are what we are looking at in diagram
mc: concerned from db experience that a one to many plus a many to many is a recipie for trouble
<ChrisLoiselle_> MichaelC: If one to many and many to many , things may get confusing. Many to many guidelines would be difficult to map
rm: agree, and it's what makes
this hard
... asks whether I've captured the relationship correctly?
pk: don't understand def of
"atomic"
... distinction between atomic and contextual
rm: atomic intended to be a test comparable to 2.x
<bruce_bailey> i agree that slides 14 and 15 convey the conudrum
rm: something testable based on an item within whatever we're testing; e.g. about a web link which can be tested regardless of anything else on a page
<Fazio> More subjective tests?
rm: we've tried affordances in
2.x; e.g. plain lang; where there's a reference outside the
environment; that's what contextual is trying to do
... still working on defining that well
pk: not seeing any notion of
friction?
... e.g. is the missing alt (atomic) actually impeding someone
travcersing a particular path
<Fazio> criticality of barriers?
rm: all done with scoring
... points to slide #28
<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zUqVZnSKEmQuRpd7aTLvVeI_A-IV0ly3qt3glqqpNBc/edit#slide=id.g8dc9f88081_11_146
rm: Oops, try #36
pk: yes, i was looking there
<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zUqVZnSKEmQuRpd7aTLvVeI_A-IV0ly3qt3glqqpNBc/edit#slide=id.g8dc9f88081_11_164
<bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zUqVZnSKEmQuRpd7aTLvVeI_A-IV0ly3qt3glqqpNBc/edit#slide=id.g8dc9f88081_11_164
pk: there's no determination whether the missing alt text is actually necessary
rm: if it's unnecessary, it
wouldn't be scoped within the path
... a missing alt in a footer
pk: coming back to contextual
...
... if the body text addresses needed info, is that a
failure?
rm: content test still
potentially in the atomic area, but still to be ironed
out
... but needs to be assessed on a quality basis
pk: would be helpful to try to
capture some of this nuance
... phps also some made up examples
rm: yes, I have in various spread
sheets -- coming soon!
... hope to have those out by Monday
... notes coming tests including failures small and large on
and off path
<Rachael> Tests I think we need: 1 critical failure on path, 1 big failure off path, 1 flashing off path, many small errors off path
rm: moving to slide #16
... and the hierarchy ...
<bruce_bailey> @rachael maybe add several small error ON path
rm: my concepts of how this prioritizes
<jeanne> 16
rm: for this proposed model to
work we need functional outcomes groups correctly against
tests
... notes some of the nuances vis a vis function need
categories
rm: notes she put mental health under essential ... all my understanding so far
df: wonders how we update in the future based on use and experience?
rm: not sure how much the
categories would change; but certainly the guidelines/tests
etc
... asks people to look through this to figure where outcomes
fit
<Rachael> particularly slide 21
Ciao!
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) Present: jeanne sajkaj JF ChrisLoiselle_ Francis_Storr bruce_bailey CharlesHall OmarBonilla Fazio Caryn-Pagel chuck_ KimD W244C Julia Crispy Lauriat_ Peter_Korn Regrets: Angela Jake Found Scribe: sajkaj Inferring ScribeNick: sajkaj Found Scribe: ChrisLoiselle Scribes: sajkaj, 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]