Silver Conformance Model Naming -- 06 Dec 2020

<sajkaj> Meeting Silver Conformance Model Naming

<sajkaj> Scribe: sajkaj

<PeterKorn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs

[Intro off history from the Thursday conversations, and background of why we're here with this need]

jb: We have two Shawns, can we include last initial for clarity?
... Thanks Michael for record time meeting arrangements; and Purple for helping with captioning!

pk: Group started Thursday calls because some items were not yet in the draft FPWD, and were likely to come after FPWD of Silver, not that draft
... We have a note to develop an additional conformance related concept
... These are things not necessarily addressed by current scoring based model
... Please note items #5, 6 & 7 in the Google Doc

jb: Also happy to review my concerns -- at some point

sh: Have read the Google Doc, the FPWD, much of the background
... It's a lot!
... So, how to present this to others, eg. EO
... What's the elevator pitch here?

pk: Describes key distinction from WCAG 2.x conformance; the no failures difference
... Assuring zero defects may not be possible
... Trying to define something that can fit into Silver Conformance current model; or a separate second accepted conformance model
... Trying to work from principles with prejudging whether a second conformance model is necessary.

sh: So, the base model may address the issues
... Or there's a X thing that might be broad to apply to WCAG 2 & 3??

pk: If some number of sites can't be 100% certain that there's a way to still meet WCAG
... That meets the principles we're defining
... Ideally, we find a solution that can fit in

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to say that the testing structure we've drafted so far seems to cover these aspects in terms of scoping what to test based on the task/workflow under test. Does

sl: Notes testing structure in FPWD addresses some of this
... Notes that a flow is part of the model and notes provision for noninterference
... Perhaps also some kind of updated EM might help

<Lauriat> Bit in WCAG-EM in particular: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3

jb: Want to say a bit about my concern with the placeholder term "substantial conformance."
... Concerned how the term could be interpreted when heard without context, especially by pwds
... Second reason because it sounds to me like the kind of terminology used ina policy setting, eg. "undue burden"
... Haven't seen anything yet to allay that concern
... Critical Path Scoring; or Critical Paths and Tasks
... Would like to hear discussion in that direction which doesn't invoke a high or low bar

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

JSa: It is difficult to talk about alternatives without a handle to name it by. We have a name for Bronze, SIlver, Gold, we don't have a name for alternatives.
... in order to make conversation meaningful, we need to have a placeholder name that doesn't challenge anybody.

<sajkaj> mc: I'm seeing this as "subst conf" is outside the definition of conformance

JSa: to Judy's concern, it doesn't meet the definitions -- I have looked for synonyms. If you have a "substantial" breakfast, you won't be hungry until lunch.

<sajkaj> mc: Full conformance should be defined in a such a way that everything needed is included

<scribe> scribe: sajkaj

mc: Something like 90% of your tests -- we have concept in 2.x of "partial conf"

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say define conformance in a manner that can be reached, rather than define that conformance needn't be fully reached and to say conformance could include

mc: Suggest would be realistic to claim critical paths
... Not that all paths; but here are our procedures to ensure they do and what to do if found lacking

pk: 2 quick items -- re EM, etc ...
... We've seemingly not fully understood of the problem being raised
... that's why I wanted us to start with key principles
... Also, think there are tow names -- what's the group is called; but also what do we call whatever the solution looks like
... Until we know we have something different from bronze/silver/gold, we should worry overmuch about the final name
... Suggest we focus now on what we're doing now

sh: The Google Doc is very helpful ...
... Suggests looking at "what's new" in 2.2

<Judy> ...actually in 2.1

sh: People love it -- we want to end up with a few use cases to explain in the Google Doc; happy to help

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/new-in-21/

pk: Strongly suggest you come with a name other than substantial conformance

sh: Note how established the placeholder "Silver" has become
... Agree having handles for discussion is good; saomething light might do
... Sounds like good work, though
... Trying to simplify for the intro page has been a challenge with the FPWD

<Judy> [JB: The "What's New in WCAG 2.1" uses a different approach from many of our education and implementation support documents, but has been extremely well received.]

sh: Agree the ideal is that the main conformance model ends up addressing all concerns

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say what not about "partial". AND to say sounds like first best approach is integrated into Silver Main conformance +1 Michael. then also maybe good to change

pk: Notes we used to call it "Fred" -- totally meaningless but a useful handle

<shawn> draft wcag 3 intro page (not yet published) https://deploy-preview-65--wai-intro-wcag.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/wcag/wcag3-intro/

mc: Offering some names for subgroup ...

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest "complex conformance", or "large site conformance", or "dynamic site conformance" subgroup

<shawn> [ /me suggests we come up with a fun acronym that includes them all :-]

sh: As someone who's been involved in this, I also have concerns about the "subst conf" name ...
... Also believe it's more policy related
... Believe much of what we're struggling with is a scoping problem

<Judy> [JB: My two straw naming suggestions from earlier on the call were "Critical Path Scoring" or "Critical Paths and Tasks Scoring" -- not elegant at all, but trying to emphasize technical functionality of a scoring system that relies on "critical" in its concept.]

sh: We currently need to define a scope; but can we define conformance without scope?
... What can we say about this digital thing that we've tested against the standard?

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to note I've started talking about the group as "Conformance Options"

df: I have no particular problem with "subst conf" if explained in more detail; and also OK for now
... It does seem to capture that there may be some issues, but nothing substantial
... So could be met on a technical level
... Critical failures would seemingly be excluded

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that WCAG3 addresses most of these issues in testing for individual guidelines, not in the Conformance section

js: My concern that working on subst conf may distract from the area of problem with large dynamic sites on a guideline by guideline basis

mc: Outcomes, yes?

js: Yes
... So, guideline by guideline could enumerate conformance
... Wherever we can quantify a reasonable not 100%, we're doing that
... If we say it's a conformance issue, than it says it applies everywhere, including all guidelines

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask about the use of "critical" in the sample guidelines in WCAG 3.0

js: We certainly haven't discussed 3rd party yet, though ... also manual testing

jb: Invites people to speakup up just to get everyone's baseline sense
... Calling on myself ...
... Notes I tried to read background including embedded links
... Impressed by guideline by guideline attention
... They all seemed reasonable in their own way
... My attempts with "critical" name was to try and leverage something useful in the conformance model as defined so far

wf: I like Peter's approach to start from the broad view
... It opens us up to exploring more approaches
... Believe we have a lot more work to do on conformance; we should be able to look at from multiple directions

df: From small atomic units to massive websites

wf: The broader perspective is useful for that; meanwhile holding off on naming makes sense
... Meanwhile a generic name is fine

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say think everyone thinks best case is that Silver/3 includes this integrated. therefore, no need for naming possible alterntiave option yet. so now need

sh: Believe we're getting to the notion that WCAG 3 should incorporate all these issues
... We don't name the alternatives yet, because might not happen
... But we do need to name the group
... Believe we have good shared understanding of the goal

<PeterKorn> +1

sh: So, do we like Fred? Solmething else?

pk: two thoughts on group:
... Exploring (or Addressing) Conformance Challenges
... Just group names, no hint of eventual outcome

jb: Recalling suggestion of needing an updated EM
... Testing TF has been doing critical work on making testing more precise
... Thanks Mary Jo and Wilco
... I'm picturing WCAG 3 Conformance Model is what this subgroup has been tackling the edge of

<jeanne> JSa: We are making progress on a group name, but we need handles for options

sh: for handles maybe "integrated" and "separate"

jb: Wanted to ask about the "Static" Principle

<shawn> SLH: integrated conformance model va. separate conformance models

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask a question about the static

jb: Mutlple models is harder for people to understand. Will there always be clear separation between static and dynamic

pk: Notes we're only to #6, so haven't gotten to static yet
... Review Principles 6 & 7

<MelinaMoehnle> captions are a bit slow and small on my screen.. how about: "constant" principle?

pk: which is as far as the subgroup has gotten
... Static not yet discussed--a strawman

jb: Suggests we have to address what's the role of automated and the role of manual?
... We need to plan for that

mm: Wondering why not constant? rather than static.

jb: Do I recall you have background in AI, Melina?

mm: Yes

jb: Invites Shawn to talk about next steps in the discussion ...
... Otherwise, I've expected we'll need more than one meeting ...

sh: Suggest looking at "What's New" in 2.x and think about adding mini use case(s)to the Google Doc
... Work is good, need nonproblematic name
... Would want to avoid "Challenges"

<Lauriat> /me I need to drop, will follow up with folks as needed from here.

jb: Please advise if you don't want to continue this conversation, else we'll plan another meeting soon ...

<jeanne> I would prefer to avoid the term "Conformance" in the name, because it forces the solutions into Conformance, when many of the solutions are not in Conformance.

pk: Fine not using "Challenges" but should be disambiguable from other related work
... We need a name that

jb: Thanks all around!

- DRAFT -

Silver Conformance Model Naming

06 Dec 2020

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output