Silver Task Force & Community Group

03 Nov 2020


Lauriat, jeanne, Makoto, Sheri_B-H, CharlesHall, SuzanneTaylor, bruce_bailey, Francis_Storr, Rachael, MichaelC, JakeAbma, Wilco, q+, Fazio, KimD, sarahhorton, Andy
Shawn, jeanne


Feedback Questions for FPWD

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1byd7_w4xYigfpj_XUp4o60ExXv5of3CjQEhw6TDWBP4/

<scribe> scribe: Francis_Storr

a lot of back and forth about the question list

js: there should a short list of questions

<bruce_bailey> From doc, short list:

<bruce_bailey> In the Silver Requirements document, are there additional Design Principles and Requirements that should be included in the WCAG3 project?

<bruce_bailey> How well will this proposal of conformance based on a site or product model instead of the page model work in your organization? Do you have suggestions on better naming?

<bruce_bailey> The proposed conformance model changes to a scoring system that focuses on accessibility bugs that impact users. This

<bruce_bailey> We have changed the informative (not required) information to include more information for beginners and by activity. Are there usability improvements that would make it easier to use and find information?

sl: we're not moving away from a page-level conformance model, we're greating building blocks to allow people to build conformance.
... we're looking to see how the conformance model work with different types of web sites.

<Rachael> We have a cfc approved on October 5th for moving the requirements to a note. Not one on specifically publishing them.

sl: hoping to get feedback on who is giving feedback so it's not just "I don't like this" without knowing the kind of organization that is commenting.

<Lauriat> +1 to removing that question on naming

js: we need to work out how to tease out the information on who is commenting.

mc: we should leave out the first sentence of the forth question as everyone's finding it confusing.

<CharlesHall> note: consistent use of language is also part of usability

js: I think the point of the question is to get feedback on the new organization of material. This is a very different-looking WCAG from 1 and 2. The question is: is this more functional, helpful, and does it work better? Is there some way we could still make this content more usable?

kd: should these be open-ended questions?

df: can pair closed-questions with open-ended ones in the same sentence: "is this helpful? Why or why not"?

js: we need to urgently work out which questions from the long list into the short list.

mc: hoping to close the CFC soon, then have to send a transition request along with the questions.
... the CFC closes soon, then have to send a transition request along with the questions. Hoping to publish soon.

js: should we make the suggestion that there's more than one conformance approach and would people find that useful?

df: what qualifies a question to be in the short vs the long list?

js: depends on how generic and how important the question is.

df: including a question on the new conformance model is super important and should be in the shortlist.
... as much information we can get on the new conformance model will be really important.

js: what about "how readily will you move from WCAG 2 to 3 in your organization"?
... wcag 2 will be around for a long while. WCAG 1 has only been agreed to be deprecated this year.

Sub-group check-in: what do you want to have in the next working draft?

<Andy> https://www.myndex.com/SAPC/PreRelease97j?BG=ffcb3e&TXT=0061ff

<bruce_bailey> seeing this for first time

as: posted a link to a new version of the visual contrast conformance tool.

<bruce_bailey> looks very good!

<Fazio> cool looks like a web 1.o video game

<Fazio> loving it

as: demos changing color contrast with the new beta version of the tool.

<Fazio> who's opinion?

as: contrast levels are 1, 2, 3, 4. There's also a new, non-normative, "preferred" level that exceeds the standards and makes text more readable for everyone.

<Fazio> that's what I was hoping for... WCAG 2 as a baseline

as: for visual contrast, score level 1 is intended to be the bridge/stepping stone from WCAG 2.
... this is a pass/fail. If you go below score 1 you fail.

wf: does this use CSS units font weight and font size?

<bruce_bailey> FWIW, default color/bgcolor was a better starting point for me:

<bruce_bailey> https://www.myndex.com/SAPC/PreRelease97j

as: thinner fonts are a big issue with contrast.
... font sizes in the contrast tool are described in px.
... contrast numbers are based on fluent reading of blocks of text.

<bruce_bailey> @andy i don't think "n/a" is a good label if score 1 or score 1 is automatic

<Fazio> I would love that

<bruce_bailey> bronze is 3.7 ???

<bruce_bailey> i thought it was like 2.0

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to the praise for this

<bruce_bailey> yes, +1 looking great !

<Lauriat> +1!

df: this is a wonderful-looking tool and the building block from WCAG 2 is useful.

<jeanne> Bruce, the overall for Bronze is 3.5 which doesn't realate to this well

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask about where the algorithm is published so other tool makers can start making tools?

js: the overall score for bronze is 3.5, but that's for everything and not one guideline.
... where is the tool published so others can start to build tools?

as: there are links in the tool to the tool's github repo.

mc: at some point we'll need human-readable description of the algorithm. We need something to add to a Method page or a white paper. It should be something people can implement without having to read code.

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

as: has that already and shows link to document.

<Fazio> great tool

wf: any thoughts on dealing with text on different background colors, text on gradients and background images?

as: has a separate color model that's in development. Needs more work before it's published.
... three-way and four-way color coming later. wants to concentrate on introducing the new tool and model first.

<Fazio> nothing for maturity modeling

<sarahhorton> https://public.3.basecamp.com/p/HKFpAQqzE577n3ZUqRRUVLF9

sh: errors subgroup is working on an Error Flows Inventory that they'd like feedback on.

<Andy> To Francis: I am working on a specified colorspace for this known as S-LUV

sh: within the next week or so, the subgroup will start building up the content of the framework.

Andy: thanks

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

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

sh: if people want to provide input to the document, people can use the list, or use the public Basecamp document.

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: 2020/11/03 15:30:21 $

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)

Present: Lauriat jeanne Makoto Sheri_B-H CharlesHall SuzanneTaylor bruce_bailey Francis_Storr Rachael MichaelC JakeAbma Wilco q+ Fazio KimD sarahhorton Andy
Found Scribe: Francis_Storr
Inferring ScribeNick: Francis_Storr

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]