– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

report from editors on Github Issues

js: Notes Shawn on vacation this week ...

<jennifer_strickland> I wonder, when we use the reactions in Zoom, do screen reader users get any indication?

<Fazio> prsent+

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

js: found this approach instructive; plan to update weekly

js: Note that clicking on link brings up latest from github on that issue

js: Notes some Silver issues predate FPWD and are not closed

js: Some may be quite old

js: Notes that comments on FPWD began before actual publication; Using Nov 1 as a start date

js: reviews stats ...

<Jemma> It is a good idea to link to github url with filters since they will be updated automatically.

js: Requests "action ready for survey" flag on items coming out of subgroups looking for async approval

<Fazio> i like it

df: Nice salient labels in github; clean table -- very nice

js: trying to make it easy for github newbies

report on extended Acknowledgements proposal

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2021/02/09-ag-minutes.html#item02

js: Requesting status update on extended acknowledgements

rm: Checking whether followup email was sent ...

js: Will there be CfC?

rm: That's the email

js: Concerned another CfC after names are attached ...

mc: Suggest now for principles and good to keep it separate from actual names

mc: Notes this is typically chair perogative, not group consensus

rm: don't expect CfC on namess

start discussion on Silver and Gold levels

js: It's a major area not addressed in FPWD; but we've promissed to do so in the next working draft

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/

js: Notes currently 4 options; Are there others?

js: #1 that Bronze is like 2.x A/AA

js: reads out the others ...

js: Notes all are variations on each other--same terms

rm: speaking of A/AA/AAA is a comparative

rm: testing usability is intended across life-cycle

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to clarify some terms when jeanne is done

rm: maturity model will be outpuf of that subgroup

sherie: Notes we'll want to say "maturity model" at a particular level

js: recommendation yet?

<Fazio> +1

sherie: probably 2, but not edetermined yet

ja: concerned re need for AT testing

<Jemma> +1 to Jake's AT testing question

<JF> +1 to Jake: Testable, measurable and repeatable

ja: believe premature which to choose because we don't yet know what the meaning of all of these is yet

ja: isn't too early for silver/gold? shouldn't we trial some of these approaches?

js: Clarifies we're not looking to make a decision today but to start discussing options to help maturity model understand where to go

df: we're actively discussing options

ja: also thinking maturity model might apply in 2.x as well

ja: at testing, usability testing, tech testing are maturity model by definition

ca: Is this doc ready to share?

ca: not ready, but just to get reflection on the concepts -- is it OK to share this not yet ready doc around?

js: all our docs are public

js: It's always an option to discuss W3C around your organization; one should just be clear that the doc is a work in progress

jf: recalling new clients always trip over A vs AA ...

jf: not seeing anything that incentivises striving to go beyond bronze

<kirkwood> please send me the link as well with understanding.

jf: concerned that going above bronze is going to be too hard from a regulatory pov

jf: believe it's especially a problem for medium small orgs

jennifer: clarifying that human testing is still necessary -- manual testing to be compliant?

js: manual is currently in bronze

js: responding to jf that silver can't be used to artificially increase scoring that qualifies bronze

js: one must first achieve bronze

<JF> Bronze = A, AA Silver and Gold = AAA

js: bronze intended to be understood as minimum; remaining metalics are more

js: it's all a work in progress, of course

jema: understand silver requires extra effort

jema: notes a cg working to make AT testing more achievable

js: didn't realize that, very exciting

<Wilco> Yeah, ARIA-AT https://www.w3.org/community/aria-at/

js: would make Silver far more available to small orgs

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to Jeanne

jf: +1 to jema; just concerned about scaling

<jennifer_strickland> +1 to jf

jf: concerned silver/gold become like today's AAA -- basically unused

jf: we need a mechanism that works inside the organizations processes

ja: there are other approaches than our current bronze/silver/gold; higher scoring should increase your metalic

ja: If one improves the product, shouldn't it get better than bronze? If the site is really really a11y?

ja: a prefect website -- but without the specific AT/usability testing; and without maturity model; still only bronze? Doesn't seem right

<JF> +1 to returning to score

ja: Seems we're defining ways to test; not the quality of the web product

rm: tried to capture jake's proposal in option #5; please fix if I got it wrong

wilco: agree with Jake

<JF> +1 to Wilco

wilco: find it peculiar that one metalic is about the product; but others about how one tests against the product

wilco: it's OK to give guidance about how to organize the processes of achieving higher quality product; but we shouldn't mix the two

wilco: else we're setting the bar too low

js: all this came of current pass/fail not getting desired results

js: we needed to do more for inclusive design

js: assisting regulators on doing more without requiring it

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about Jake's observations of no change

ca: agree that meeting bronze MAY indicate already achieved Silver -- but doing the testing is the validation

ca: the validation step advances the bar

ja: yes, that advances the maturity of the processes

ja: it's helpful for additional product testing, but doesn't improve the product

js: let's not be saying "perfectly" ...

jf: where's the scoring?

js: already part of bronze

jf: If inuderstand the discussion; we have two different things and we need to recognize that we're measuring two different things

js: believe we have

js: notes the base remains bronze before you can even consider silver; then again before can consider gold

df: Notes EU moving toward a maturity model kind of approach

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask that this document is a "space station view" of the proposals

ca: Notes doc is intended to trigger discussion -- and it's doing that!

ca: obviously much more to add to the doc; but far enough along for good considerations to come out

jennifer: still concerned about manual testing esp if requires AT

js: Lots that doesn't need AT; eg. useful alt; even today

js: but asking whether products work with AT is a different level

jennifer: we need to make sure the barest minimum works for everyone; and the higher metalics build on the experience toward a great experience

jennifer: maybe not every screen reader; but should test with a screen reader

js: Chair hat off -- there are many situations where AT is malbehaved

js: some will work, and others not even when product built to spec

js: the AT may not follow standards and can cause problems

js: We don't want companies coding to support specific AT

<JF> A technical standard is an established norm or requirement for a repeatable technical task. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes, and practices. (source: wikipedia)

js: Was a very important issue i18n, because related AT could behave so differently

<Wilco> A very substantial part of AT work has no standardisation for it.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say standards

jennifer: perhaps we need be more explicit about this

jennifer: considering one AT that doesn't currently handle dl correctly

<JF> HTML5's design principle was users over authors, authors over implementers, implementers over code purity

js: to be continued!