IRC log of silver-conf on 2021-02-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

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