16:46:08 RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf 16:46:08 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/02/25-silver-conf-irc 16:46:27 Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup 16:46:35 Date: 25 Feb 2021 16:46:41 Chair: sajkaj 16:46:48 rrsagent, make logs public 16:46:53 agenda? 16:47:03 zakim, clear agenda 16:47:03 agenda cleared 16:47:11 Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items 16:47:11 agenda+ Assigned github issues 16:47:11 agenda+ Use Cases Discussion (Continued) 16:47:11 agenda+ Other Business 16:47:11 agenda+ Be Done 16:53:46 rrsagent, make minutes 16:53:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/02/25-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 16:53:51 present+ 17:01:13 JF has joined #silver-conf 17:01:18 Present+ 17:01:24 agenda? 17:05:08 sarahhorton has joined #silver-conf 17:06:08 scribe: JF 17:06:17 zakim, take up item 1 17:06:17 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj] 17:06:30 jeanne has joined #silver-conf 17:06:46 rrsagent, make minutes public 17:06:46 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', JF. Try /msg RRSAgent help 17:07:16 JS: new item - silver has begun to assign comments. many have come in 17:07:17 Jemma has joined #silver-conf 17:07:29 some have come to this sub-group for our feedback. 2 in particular 17:07:41 we also have several new use-cases to review 17:08:05 JN: I added some new use-cases - or at least partials 17:08:31 JS: we also have another use-case from Wilco. He hopes to join our call shortly 17:08:35 zaakim, next item 17:08:40 zakim, next item 17:08:40 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JF 17:08:41 https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options 17:08:45 Q? 17:08:50 ack j 17:08:53 ack p 17:08:58 zakim, next item 17:08:58 agendum 2 -- Assigned github issues -- taken up [from sajkaj] 17:09:12 link https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options 17:09:40 JS: wonder if we should read through these? 17:10:00 regret+ 17:10:00 JS: yes, especially with the first one(s) 17:10:10 present+ 17:10:23 present+ 17:10:26 JS: reads out first comment "On Scoring" 17:12:12 q? 17:12:31 Wilco has joined #silver-conf 17:12:35 TRiaged this for this sub-group based on final paragraph: However, we hope the WG will clarify whether the different thresholds or other classifications are meant to indicate that some outcomes are more important than others. Such indications, if there are any, might be valuable for authorities when evaluating exceptions due to a disproportionate burden. 17:13:28 q+ 17:14:32 JohnNorthup has joined #silver-conf 17:14:46 Present+ 17:15:02 JF: believe not all reqs are 'equal' yet they are scored on a flat scale 17:15:42 JS: may not be a violation, but impact on "minimum difficulty" 17:15:49 see this often in Adnroid apps 17:16:11 if you take the time and examine the buttons, you can label them, but they aren't labeled natively 17:17:23 Jeanne: red this as a burden on the content creator/site owner and not the user 17:17:24 q- 17:17:31 SH: I read it that way too 17:17:57 this is adding another layer - 'complexity' (?)... resources to fix 17:18:33 JS: to the example: can we specify the example of alt="button",alt="button",alt="button" 17:18:55 SH: figure that would score low on complexity - low burden on user 17:18:56 +1 to Sarah 17:19:26 JS: seems to indicate controls, as opposed to an informative image 17:20:02 JF: notes the different types of images 17:20:34 JF: asks if actionable images are more critical than informative images 17:21:22 JF: what question are we attempting to answer? What JF and JS heard, or what Jeanne and SHG heard? 17:21:43 JS: Maybe we go back and ask for mor specificity/clarity. We see perspectives, maybe ask for examples? 17:22:17 JF: +1 to returning for more details\ 17:22:56 SH: we could adopt the idea that conformance approach will support orgs that need to make determinations and add use-case 17:23:15 we know ultimately that orgs will need to be making those kinds of decisions - examples would be beneficial 17:23:35 Jeanne: it would be helpful to have some ideas written up 17:23:57 if we had examples, we could show them to other stakeholders for feedback 17:24:10 Jeanne: found this interesting as something we never considered 17:24:22 what are the pros and cons of this? we don't know 17:24:30 ... so we should ask for examples 17:24:53 JS: Will respond on our behalf and request more examples/illustrations 17:25:37 JF: URLs or usecases 17:25:45 Jeanne: and why that is important to them 17:27:27 Jeanne: this comes out of the presentation to Access Board/Trusted Tester 17:27:38 [Jeanne reads second issue] 17:28:02 PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf 17:28:05 Present+ 17:28:16 I'm so sorry I'm coming in so late. Wasn't a great night... 17:29:43 Q+ 17:30:27 q? 17:30:32 JF notes that bug trackers like JIRA have 5 levels of severity: Blocker, Critical, Major, Moderate, Minimal 17:30:34 ack jf 17:30:50 also notes that tools like axe-core uses 5 levels of severity as well 17:31:35 q+ 17:32:12 q+ to say that there is a serious structural problem with criticality as in the example because it penalizes cognitive disaiblities more than sensory disabilities 17:32:20 JS: the only thing that troubles me is that it adds complexity to the scoring mechanism 17:32:36 q+ 17:32:46 ...we're no longer an itemized list, but instead a table 17:32:58 ...like the idea of making it part of the normal bug-tracking process 17:33:55 PK: hars the concern about adding the complexity, but like how this dove-tails into principles 17:34:13 ...perhaps we take this on as a 'test' - try applying it to our test examples 17:34:19 ...but move to levels of severity 17:35:05 q? 17:35:05 But there is also the idea of the "spoons" concept... adding up 'criticals' ... exceeding your "spoons" limit 17:35:08 ack pet 17:35:16 +1 to enumeration of "how many issues" 17:35:36 contrasts 40 major bugs versus 100 minor bugs [sic] 17:35:50 ...may be a good way of capturing the cumulative friction issues 17:36:24 PK: we had the prior example of a 200 page document that lacks headers: lacking one page versus lacking all pages 17:36:32 ack jea 17:36:32 jeanne, you wanted to say that there is a serious structural problem with criticality as in the example because it penalizes cognitive disaiblities more than sensory disabilities 17:37:06 Jeanne: the example provided worries me because it seems to perpetuate the structural bias problem 17:37:37 where people with sensory disabilities are generally considered higher priority because there is a workaround 17:37:44 q? 17:37:58 Q+ 17:38:45 Jeanne: get lots of questions on this - how? 17:38:51 and we're not sure 17:39:13 ack s 17:39:37 When do we need to respond to these GitHub Issues? 17:39:41 SH: thinks this is an interesting perspective to explore more deeply 17:40:31 q? 17:40:33 ... think one of the things that is interesting so far is notion of critical errors apply to outcome, and also apply the cross-functional categories 17:41:06 present+ 17:41:11 ...its a coarse measure, and i'm in favor of breaking things down, along with functional categories and user needs 17:42:59 q? 17:43:03 ack jf 17:43:08 s/low on complexity - low burden on user/low on complexity - low burden on author 17:44:04 JS: thinking in terms of follow-up, respond to issue that this is interesting and we're still working on it 17:44:31 PK: until we have better edit control, want to avoid pointing folks to Google docs (fear of over-writing content) 17:44:58 JS: OK, will respond, but want to move to next item before end of call 17:45:21 zakim, next item 17:45:21 agendum 3 -- Use Cases Discussion (Continued) -- taken up [from sajkaj] 17:45:35 JS: would like to ask Wilco to expand on his contribution 17:45:57 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit# 17:46:02 s/the cross-functional categories/the across functional categories 17:46:16 WF: added 2 - one I mentioned last week plus a new one 17:46:40 WF: first one is component library, and want to express the a11y of that 17:47:03 q+ 17:47:16 and division of roles between author of library and content creator using the library 17:47:32 q? 17:48:12 ack pet 17:48:22 JF: notes that design systems are 'higher order' than juust component libraries 17:48:37 PK: this is interesting - how would this pan out in the real world 17:49:03 any author can create inaccessible content, even when using accessible components 17:49:12 Q+ 17:50:00 PK: does there need to be an explicit GUI library/component, or might this be like SCAG 2 Optional conformance claim 17:50:09 s/SCAG/WCAG 17:50:25 :PK how does that feel/sund? 17:50:29 WF: not sure 17:50:49 ...feels meaningless then to say "I have an accessible component library" 17:51:03 can we say something about accessible pieces used to build larger content? 17:51:14 q? 17:51:21 ...is there a way to avoid that? 17:51:29 PK: see where you are going 17:51:55 ...notes the difference between unit testing and integration testing 17:52:53 PK: talks about all of the issues related to an accessible button - there is a class of requirements, but the 'text' in the button may be a massive fail 17:53:04 q? 17:53:34 ...we might have a large class of components. Is there a level where only components need to pass 17:55:44 JF: believes that use-cases like CMSes and 'templates' taht will want to be able to make claims 17:56:00 PK: thinking about this - wikis 17:56:11 I believe that WCAG3 FPWD has included the "not applicable" and should be able to handle components. 17:56:21 ...the way to achieve is to pair it to a level that doesn't require human asasessment 17:56:43 JS: wonder if we can pause here? 17:57:08 JN: added some ideas involving 3rd party content - one was a LMS associated to a college. 17:57:17 with multiple authors adding content 17:57:48 wonder if there is some kind of algorithm - similar to flesh-kincaid or similar - but feedback in real time 17:58:01 JN: other examples is "virtual tours" on real estate site 17:58:11 q? 17:58:35 may add some sparse text that describes apartment 17:58:40 ack me 17:58:54 q+ to talk about 3D 17:59:06 ack J 17:59:06 jeanne, you wanted to talk about 3D 17:59:10 ack jea 17:59:34 Jeanne: XR sub-group have been discussing a similar concern: text equiv in VR/AR (XR) 18:00:18 WR Subgroup are talking about tying it to components in XR 18:16:22 rrsagent, make minutes 18:16:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/02/25-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 18:16:32 zakim, bye 18:16:32 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, sarahhorton, PeterKorn, Bruce, jeanne, Wilco_, JF, John_Northup, Jemma, Janina, JohnNorthup, Wilco 18:16:32 Zakim has left #silver-conf 18:16:41 rrsagent, make minutes 18:16:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/02/25-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 18:16:59 rrsagent, bye 18:16:59 I see no action items