Meeting minutes
Updates from the leadership team (new standing agenda item to keep the group up to date with the stuff the leadership team works through)
<sajkaj> +1 of appreciation to that sentiment!
Shawn: We want to start giving updates as we do with the subgroup check ins to talk about what is going on, where are we going. We coordinate things and keep up with the publication process, etc. We thought it would be helpful to keep you up to date with what is going on.
Chuck: We are crafting original ideas on the advanced acknowledgements. We agreed to work on this as part of the objection process for the FPWD. We wanted a framework to bring to the group for discussion.
… we are looking at tools and workflows so that we can better take advantage of the time outside the meetings. We discussed MS teams last time but thought we'd step back and look at the use cases before getting into tools.
… We are thinking about strategies for handling Github issues. We are looking at the requirements status. The transition request has been made.
… it was filed with objections. The director needs to decide on 1) the objections themselves and 2) the transition. That is being actively worked this week.
… we are actively reviewing the project management requirements. We need to get a project manager to help with the work on Silver. We've had some individuals who are willing to step into that role. We are looking at the requirements and work that role would take on.
Jeanne: That was a lot of information.
<jeanne> https://
Jeanne: coming from the Friday meeting, I was tasked to create a survey on moving the Friday meeting. I am opening up the survey. Its a complicated survey. Please take a look at it.
If you already clicked on it, refresh the page.
… it should be open now. If you have questions about how to answer it or what I mean by something, please ask. I may not have done this in an easy to follow manner and it uses different question types than many may be used to.
… I provided a summary of the meeting, the minutes of the meeting, and then the options that were discussed. Then I did a straw poll type. Options of Yes, Yes and prefer, and No
… The second one is the picking times style. I deliberately picked a very narrow window becuase that came out of the meeting and again there are options such as can, can and prefer, cannot
If needed, I can make modifications
sajkaj: Sounds like a typical WBS
Chuck: I did give a lot of information. If anyone has questions, please reach out. There is a lot of activity. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about the things we are doing. We are happy to answer them.
sarahhorton: I have a question about the questionairre. There were suggestions about things other than what we are voting on such as more shorter meetings and a rotating meeting time so people who didn't weigh in can do so.
Jeanne: I didn't becuase enough people said no I don't like that, but I can easily add that to make it more parralel with the suggestions. Thank you Sarah.
Shawn: No other queue so unless there are other questions, we can move on.
Requirements update
<Chuck> rachael: Requirements are being published with WCAG 3 when that moves forward.
<Chuck> rachael: We took action to have a meeting and rework some of the requierements per request from Coga. Coga has provided some suggestions.
<Chuck> rachael: Do we want to discuss here or in email?
<Chuck> Jeanne: We want to show people what the changes were.
<Chuck> Rachael: Don't have queued, will find.
<Chuck> Jeanne: Don't have queued either <team now queueing). Here is the proposed rewording.
Proposed rewording: All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular attention to accessibility for
individuals with low vision, cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broader testing approach.
<Chuck> Rachael: Back from Coga. Current is....
<Chuck> Jeanne: For multiple ways to measure, correct?
<Chuck> Rachael: yes. Reworked to be broader. Wording is close. Second sentence... still looking for current wording.
<Chuck> Jeanne: <looking>
<Chuck> Jeanne: I've found it.
<Chuck> Rachael: I want to show the one that went from Silver back to Coga.
<Chuck> Rachael: Let's come back to this when we are ready to show a comparison.
Subgroup check-in
<Chuck> Shawn: Sub-group checkin. Do we have any participants with updates from last week?
<Lauriat> https://
<Chuck> Jeanne: Chris... want to report on email from Andy?
<Chuck> Chris: I haven't had opportunity to review yet.
<Chuck> Jeanne: I meant one from last Thu.
<Chuck> Chris: From previous meeting, talked to a variety of different subjects.
<Chuck> Jeanne: Is there anybody that wants to give an update regarding their sub-group?
<Chuck> Sheri: Maturity Modeling. Took a poll on meeting time, changed meeting one hour earlier. 8am pt wed. We have timeline through June.
<Chuck> Sheri: We are moving material from spreadsheet to word doc. Writing narrative that goes around it. Intro, notes, etc.
<Chuck> Sheri: We've linked to stake-holders doc. That was work that was done a couple of years ago (Thanks Jeanne).
<Chuck> Jeanne: Any q? for Sheri?
<Chuck> Jeanne: To follow up on something Sheri talked about, from a long time ago very few people still active in the group that knows this exists...
<jeanne> Stakeholder Roles and Activities
<Chuck> Jeanne: There is a stake-holder roles and activities spreadsheet. here's link:
<Chuck> Jeanne: Francis got me thinking about an old english word, two ways to describe meetings. Ramfeasils. 18th century word.
<Chuck> Jeanne: Any q for Sheri?
<Chuck> Sheri: Going well, on track, people are doing homework. I'm pleased with progress, hoping we'll be able to publish in a heartbeat update.
<Chuck> Jeanne: Great!
<Chuck> Jeanne: Any other updates?
<Chuck> Michael Crabb: Back at work just this week, more lockdowns in our part of the world. We'll be back up and working over next couple of weeks.
<Chuck> Michael Crabb: Working on mixed reality sub-titles.
<Chuck> Michael Crabb: Times of meetings should be as usual.
<Chuck> Michael Crabb: I'll be sending out meeting requests later this week.
<chrisloiselle> https://
Jeanne: Thank you. Any questions?
<chrisloiselle> With that said, non text contrast is being looked at in the beta release of tool , which is not public facing yet.
Jeanne: I see Chris posted a link to the current scope of the visual contrast group. (reads 9:55 post from chrisloiselle )
Chris: Last meeting we reviewed Andy's beta version for non-text contrast and how that would be populated and then the table aspect of how it would interact with the different levels. Progress has been made. We've talked to various disabilities as far as color, contrast and how that affects different color combinations such as white on red. A lot of activity on the tool itself. As far as partipation Todd L and Sam W have joined us so the
group has expanded.
… I see that as positive movement on the group that more people are interested and contributing.
Jeanne: One question I had, has Andy kept the public facing view of hte tool at the same URL? Has the URL changed? If he's doing updates, is the link that we have in the FPWD still working?
chrisloiselle: : My understanding is that is the current public link and he's working in a private link. I will double check though.
Jeanne: I want to make sure we are protecting our FPWD.
Jeanne: Anyone else?
Jan: We have two scope statements. One is broad and one is narrow. The actual clear language work we are doing. We have a clear language doucment that should be done. The current group will disband then. I met with Rachael last week. We set something up where we will have a rotating team to address different points from Content Usable. The current team is working on 1.3.1 but they will be wrapping up. We also hope to engage Wilco more to
work out testable approaches for COGA guidelines.
Jeanne: Thank you. That is a Lot. Do you expect that you will refill the team with people from COGA with different expertise?
Jan: Yes. COGA is finishing up Content Usable but Lisa, Rachael and I will met in February to after that is done to work out how to engage them.
Jeanne: Please let us know how that works. That is something we could use for other groups. To switch out people based on expertise is an interesting model we should see how it works.
Jan: OK.
<Lauriat> +1, definitely!
Jeanne: COGA is an example of working with a different task force. That is something we could replicate with Low Vision, Mobile, and others.
Sarah: I can do an errors update.
<sarahhorton> https://
Sarah: Last Friday Susanne shared the scope document (link above). That is the scope document. We will be adding it to the Wiki. Is that a good place to work on this next?
Jeanne: Use the tools tha twork for you but link to it from the wiki.
sarahhorton: we meet every week as a group at noon eastern on Wednesdays. We then have a working session at 9 on Wednesdays. We're still working on the inventory of the user needs. Our plan is to have a summary of the user needs at the end of January to share with Silver and get feedback.
… longer term, we are working from the user need summary to an outline of the guidelines. We hope to have that ready for review in March.
Jeanne: Thank you Sarah. Any questions?
Makoto: The alt text team does not have an update this week but hope to next week.
Jeanne: Thank you. Always hard to start back up after holidays.
Jeanne: Michael, anything from functional needs banner?
Michael: I need to regather the group. Josh and I have been talking about the FAST which is a framework for accessible technologies which we expect to integrate with the functional needs. I've been thinking about structure. There are pieces everywhere. Once I get a handle on that we will be ready to engage the subgroup again.
<sajkaj> https://
Jeanne: Janina? Anything on conformance?
Janina: There is set of bullets for what is in scope and out of scope as well as a timeline on the wiki (link above).
… finishing that was the bulk of the week last week. We have finished the first pass of principles. We do need wordsmithing but not sure if that is the next task. Another option is working on use cases. We also identified several questions that need to be addressed before moving forward and that is another candidate.
Jeanne: We discussed this yesterday in the leadership meeting yesterday. We are very interested in the Silver group reviewing the use cases.
Janina: Even before we get to what is covered and what is not?
Jeanne: Yes.
… Francis, any updates on conformance testing?
Francis_Storr: Jeanne and I have been working on getting a document together that describes what has been done on conformance testing. We are getting together information on the slightly altereted accessible escape room site we've been using. Also the other site for scoring the simple language criteria. I will drop a line about a pull request next week and then this will be available for anyone who wants to try out scoring on their own
sites.
Jeanne: Any questions?
Jeanne: That is it for the subgroups. Can we return to item 2 on requirements?
https://
<Chuck> Rachael: This has all 3 versions.
Requirements update
All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.
<Chuck> Rachael: Version 1 is multiple ways <reads>
<jeanne> https://
4.1 Broader disability support. All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular attention to
accessibility for individuals with low vision, cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broader testing approach.
<Chuck> Rachael: This is the version that's going with FPWD. step 2 is silver had conversation internally to reword, they shifted based on Coga input <reads>
All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance may use other ways of measuring (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular attention to accessibility for individuals with
low vision, limited vision, and cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broader testing approach.
<Chuck> Rachael: Coga sent the following revision in response <reads>
<Chuck> Rachael: Difference is second sentence.
<Chuck> Rachael: It's a subtle difference, but wants to add some clarification. They also added limited vision.
<Chuck> Janina: My gut check response is that all of the sudden, true/false is being heightened in expectation. I don't know we want to suggest that to the wider world.
<Chuck> Janina: I can elaborate on it if I think on it, but that's my gut response.
<Chuck> Janina: Also concerned about the world results. When we verify results, the results need to be available to be verified. That means someone is testing, and we'd have raw data. Is that what we mean?
<Jemma> +1 to second question
<Chuck> Jeanne: I think that's a good catch. I think we want to say "results need to be available to be verified".
<Chuck> Janina: I think we are worried about conformance assertions.
<Chuck> Jeanne: When I look back to what we originally had.. "results can be verified". Maybe go back to "it's possible to verify the results".
<Chuck> Janina: To validate assertions of conformance.
<Jemma> +1 sajkaj re: confirmation statement
<kirkwood> +1 to Janina
<Chuck> JF: I think to Janina's point, I've used short phrase "testable, measurable, repeatable". That's key. Whatever we have can do those 3.
<Chuck> JF: Whether or it's any of the other methods... I'm concerned about scoring, but boils down to those 3 words. I'm wondering if we can bring that in as formal language.
<chrisloiselle> +1 to JF
<Jemma> +1
<Chuck> Jeanne: Do you have a proposal?
<Chuck> JF: Seems wordsmithing. I can try. The concern we have is that results are available to be verified. That seems to be another way of saying same thing. Repeatable is key.
<Chuck> JF: If Makoto makes claim in JP, I can repeat test and get same results.
<Chuck> Jeanne: I'm asking for proposal, the 3 have been consistently voted down. And it's a significant change in my opinion to the purpose of this requirement. I'd like to see a proposal with wording. I don't consider it wordsmithing. Willing to re-examine if other people agree.
<Lauriat> -1 to repeatable results, only repeatable tests with structure to support resolution of differences.
<Chuck> JF: I'm not sure if it's been universally accepted. From conformance piece, we know... when 508 was worked on, that was a key consideration there.
<jeanne> -1 we are using different metrics that are supported by research
<Jemma> my +1 for applicability to another countries
<Jemma> my +1 was
<kirkwood> presnt+
<Chuck> JF: If we walk away fine, but I'm concerned by ramification of decision. I think this issue will come back.
<Chuck> Jeanne: Anybody else that wanted to respond to Janina?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if this is conformance or measuring.
<Chuck> Rachael: Looking at requirements doc, I didn't think this is the conformance requirement. This sentence hasn't changed across the various versions.
<Chuck> Rachael: This was focused on tests and procedures, not conformance. 4.6 is regulatory, I interpreted it to be the more conformance centered requirements. I hear the concerns Janina raises.
<Chuck> Rachael: It's a different way to think about this that might help conversation.
<Chuck> Janina: What do we mean by results? Public? Internal procedures?
<JF> Question: how can results be verified?
<Chuck> Janina: Not sure what "results" are.
<Chuck> Jeanne: That's my concerns. Makes it seems like results are publicly available. I don't think we want to say that yet.
<Jemma> +1 to sajkaj's questoin
<Chuck> Jeanne: Rachael has a good proposal. Maybe we can drop "verified". We do cover that in regulatory environment.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest "broad" instead of "broader"
<Jemma> cover for regulatory environemt?
<Chuck> Jeanne: Can you reword that answers yours? Maybe we use "broad" instead of "broader", and don't compare to WCAG 2.
<Chuck> Jemma: I have a bit of knowledge gap. I agree with Janina's point. JF in terms of applicability in terms of other countries, Korea is interested in adopting.
Proposed rewording: All Silver guidance includes tests or procedures. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance may use other ways of measuring (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular attention to accessibility for individuals with low vision,
limited vision, and cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broad testing approach.
<Chuck> Jemma: They use this for legal compliance. Jeanne mentioned regulatory environment, how will we cover in WCAG 3?
<Chuck> Jeanne: I don't have queued up, but let me grab it.
Current Silver Requirements at: https://
<Chuck> Jemma: My point is will this be effective enough for conformance compliance and regulatory enviornment.
<jeanne> 4.6 Regulatory Environment
<jeanne> The Guidelines provide broad support, including
<jeanne> Structure, methodology, and content that facilitates adoption into law, regulation, or policy, and
<jeanne> clear intent and transparency as to purpose and goals, to assist when there are questions or controversy.
<Chuck> Jeanne: That's in our requirements. <reads requirement>
<Chuck> Jemma: Thanks!
<Chuck> Jeanne: Not the one we are currently working on. To raise John's issue, that's where we covered the regulatory issue. going back to revision of multiple ways to measure...
<Chuck> Jeanne: Rachael, do you have any suggestions?
<Chuck> Rachael: I pasted in a try. I don't have anything to the regulatory question.
<Chuck> Jeanne: We won't address that today.
<jeanne> All Silver guidance includes tests or procedures. Some guidance may use true/false verification but other guidance may use other ways of measuring (for example: rubrics, sliding scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular attention to accessibility for
<jeanne> individuals with low vision,
<Chuck> Jeanne: <repasting>
<Chuck> Jeanne: <reads>
<Chuck> Jeanne: Taking out validation of results as that's a distraction from the point for this paragraph.
<jeanne> limited vision, and cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broad testing approach.
<Chuck> Jeanne: Are people ok with new version?
<Chuck> Jemma: I have a q.
<Chuck> Jemma: This was our intent. To have multiple ways to measure and evaluate. Just trying to demonstrate the extreme case.
<Chuck> Jemma: ...easy to use in legal cases... when we use multiple ways to measure in court, compliment each other? Quantitative or qualitative?
<kirkwood> “broad testing approach” doesn’t ring right to me.
<Chuck> Jeanne: Each guideline will have the type of test that is most appropriate to it. Some guidance will still have true/false, some will have alternatives like sliding scale.
<Chuck> Jeanne: But the question will still be if it meets the standard or fails the standard.
<Chuck> Jeanne: Do we need a formal vote and resolution?
<Chuck> +1 on formal vote.
<Chuck> +1 on vote in Silver.
<Jemma> +1 on formal vote
<Jemma> +1 on vote in silbet
<Jemma> s/sibet/silver
<jeanne> Please complete the survey when I send an email out to the group
Jeanne: We will send out an email of the proposed wording and discuss it at the next meeting.