Conformance Options

14 Jan 2021


Bryan, Detlev_, jeanne, Jemma, JohnNorthup, MichaelC, PeterKorn, Rachael, sajkaj, sarahhorton

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

<JohnNorthup> Peter: need to discuss use cases on the mailing list

Principles 1-8 Redux

Next Steps

<JohnNorthup> Janina: sees 3 ways to go for next steps: (a) email, (b) questions in google doc, (c) wordsmith principles

<JohnNorthup> Peter: votes to work on use cases. Where we don't have use cases, go through past feed

<JohnNorthup> Jeanne: clarifying where the next steps are

Use Cases

<JohnNorthup> Janina: inserting topic: Use Cases

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

<JohnNorthup> Peter: 3 use case examples. One for Principle 3, one for Principle 5, one for "software of any size and complexity has bugs"

<PeterKorn> Proposed Use Case example [for discussion 14Jan21]: The City of Whoville’s website includes a calendar of upcoming events, so that citizens of Whoville can learn about what will be

<PeterKorn> happening in the future, and decide whether they want to participate in any given event. As a few Whoville citizens travel, and some events take place virtually, as a convenience there is

<PeterKorn> also a tool on the calendar site for converting event times into different timezones. Generalized timezone conversion isn’t a primary use of the site, and an assessment of the

<Detlev_> Thanks Jeanne!

<PeterKorn> accessibility of the Whoville calendar might assess the accessibility of the primary calendar information (what the events are, and when they take place in the timezone that Whoville is

<PeterKorn> situated in) to be at a different, and higher, priority than the accessibility of the timezone conversion convenience feature (which in any case is commonly available elsewhere).

<jeanne> +1 to the use case for #3

<jeanne> I like a more nuanced example than the footer.

<JohnNorthup> Bryan: Likes the use case. Similar challenge is a date input with both a text field and a date picker.

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Difference is whether we are providing two mechanisms for doing the same thing, one more accessible than the other, or two different things that would be prioritized differently.

<JohnNorthup> Bryan: Is this a significant difference?

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Sees parallel in previous Google to ICT work.

<JohnNorthup> Jemma: Challenges using ARIA in creating a calendar widget. Point of the use case is the most important task at hand.

<jeanne> Jeanne sketched the use case that Bryan suggested for #7

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Sees a subtle difference--ranking importance. Main purpose of calendar is for citizens of Whoville to find events; time zone is assumed. Secondary purpose is a convenience of translating time zones. Assessments of accessibility should recognize that different elements have different priorities.

<JohnNorthup> Detlev: How would this be described in a conformance statement--that some things may not have been tested or may have accessibility failures. Who decides what is included and what is not?

<Jemma> Detlve's point is about subjectivity of deciding importance of use case?

<JohnNorthup> Jeanne: Likes this example; more nuanced. Like's Bryan's example for Principle 7.

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Agrees with Detlev. WCAG 2 or WCAG 3 -style conformance statement?

<JohnNorthup> Sarah: When auditing a large site, have created key tasks for the site. What is the user trying to accomplish? Event details in order to attend the event. Time conversion is secondary; no one will use the Whoville site just to do time conversions.

<JohnNorthup> Janina: One argument is, yes, it's an add-on so not so important. Other argument is that it's not difficult to fix.

<Jemma> jemma: 1) First, this usecase gave me the impression that calendar widget accessiblity is more important that what visitor's priority task 2) second, it seems that this use case is more about learning about event itself, not the time zone.

<Jemma> my question is that how this related to the pointing system.

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Yes, this is a key question that goes to the heart of scoring and levels. Most users with disabilities can do most things on the site with minimal difficulty, while score could be less than perfect.

<Jemma> if the event information turns out to be accessible, does it get more points?

<JohnNorthup> Sarah: Wants to ensure that the principles account for the concept of key user flows/tasks.

<Jemma> second question, how each sub domain impact the priority of the task, city tax pay vs city event announcement?

<JohnNorthup> Jeanne: The point system refers to processes rather than "tasks". As part of a point system for a particular guideline, we identify critical errors. The point system has flexibility to rank errors by the type of guideline.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask if the critical errors apply to what Sarah is saying

<JohnNorthup> Jemma: RE: Detlev's comment - how to prioritize user flows/processes. Example, paying taxes on a city website is more important than looking up civic events?

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Would be great to have multiple use cases per principle. Some use cases will apply to multiple principles. Priorities also depend on how heavily different tools/pages are used. Also wanted to discuss impact of a keyboard trap on an information-only page. User could reload the page and get out of the trap.

<JohnNorthup> Bryan: Likes what Jeanne and Peter said. Primary vs. secondary processes. Some failures have higher user impact and this impacts scoring.

<JohnNorthup> Jemma: Agrees with Bryan.

<JohnNorthup> Detlev: Scoring entire page while one page can contain more- and less-accessible elements.

<jeanne> Asking Detlev to think of a use case for his example and flesh it out a little more.

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Solution should let users complete a process with minimal difficulty. Would be great if we didn't need to carve out what is/isn't included in the conformance claim. Conformance claim is about the user goal (which may not include the time zone conversion). Prefers a system that does not include carve-outs.

<JohnNorthup> Peter: To clarify, a system that prioritizes some content over others is preferable to a system that encourages some content to be simply excluded.

<JohnNorthup> Janina: We challenge webmasters to have a reason for everything they put on a page. Is the time zone calcualtor necessary? Maybe we should simplify the page.

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Overlap with cognitive impairments/simplification.

<JohnNorthup> Rachael: "Continuum of good": Do we test everything, or prioritize certain content, or exclude content...

<JohnNorthup> Janina: Has to be about more than just whether something is machine-testable.

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Time to think about second use case?

<PeterKorn> Proposed Use Case example [for discussion 14Jan21]: A very popular and active website that connects frequent travelers with each other for discussing their travel, and contains pages that

<JohnNorthup> Janina: Time enough to present it.

<PeterKorn> intermix professional reviews of destinations developed by the site itself, with professional reviews licensed from 3rd party reviewers, all alongside contributions and comments from the

<PeterKorn> traveler/members. Content from all three sources includes text, photos, videos, audioscapes, and even 3D models of destinations. Licensed content is owned and under copyright of the

<PeterKorn> owner, with the site acting as a reseller of that content. Traveler/user content often includes first person travelogues, which may make reference to sensory information (“Down the street

<PeterKorn> you can find the entrance to Benny’s tavern, clearly identifiable by its distinctive red awning”). Thanks to the popularity and enthusiasm of the site, over 1 million page updates take place

<PeterKorn> each and every day.

<JohnNorthup> Jeanne: Likes it for the number of issues embraced by the use case.

<JohnNorthup> Jemma: Focus is third-party content?

<JohnNorthup> Janina: Yes, and need to define "third party"

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Since we completed the discussion of the first use case, will drop "proposed" from it.

<JohnNorthup> Peter: Will document issues raised by second use case and beyond.

<JohnNorthup> Jeanne: Can use various websites for testing--those with known errors, copies that we can 'break', etc.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).


Succeeded: s/deciding/deciding importance of