Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

25 Feb 2021


Bruce, Janina, jeanne, Jemma, JF, John_Northup, JohnNorthup, PeterKorn, sajkaj, sarahhorton, Wilco, Wilco_

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

JS: new item - silver has begun to assign comments. many have come in

some have come to this sub-group for our feedback. 2 in particular

we also have several new use-cases to review

JN: I added some new use-cases - or at least partials

JS: we also have another use-case from Wilco. He hopes to join our call shortly

zaakim, next item

<sajkaj> https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options

Assigned github issues

link https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options

JS: wonder if we should read through these?

JS: yes, especially with the first one(s)

JS: reads out first comment "On Scoring"

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.

JF: believe not all reqs are 'equal' yet they are scored on a flat scale

JS: may not be a violation, but impact on "minimum difficulty"

see this often in Adnroid apps

if you take the time and examine the buttons, you can label them, but they aren't labeled natively

Jeanne: red this as a burden on the content creator/site owner and not the user

SH: I read it that way too

this is adding another layer - 'complexity' (?)... resources to fix

JS: to the example: can we specify the example of alt="button",alt="button",alt="button"

SH: figure that would score low on complexity - low burden on author

<jeanne> +1 to Sarah

JS: seems to indicate controls, as opposed to an informative image

JF: notes the different types of images

JF: asks if actionable images are more critical than informative images

JF: what question are we attempting to answer? What JF and JS heard, or what Jeanne and SHG heard?

JS: Maybe we go back and ask for mor specificity/clarity. We see perspectives, maybe ask for examples?

JF: +1 to returning for more details\

SH: we could adopt the idea that conformance approach will support orgs that need to make determinations and add use-case

we know ultimately that orgs will need to be making those kinds of decisions - examples would be beneficial

Jeanne: it would be helpful to have some ideas written up

if we had examples, we could show them to other stakeholders for feedback

Jeanne: found this interesting as something we never considered

what are the pros and cons of this? we don't know
… so we should ask for examples

JS: Will respond on our behalf and request more examples/illustrations

JF: URLs or usecases

Jeanne: and why that is important to them

Jeanne: this comes out of the presentation to Access Board/Trusted Tester

[Jeanne reads second issue]

<PeterKorn> I'm so sorry I'm coming in so late. Wasn't a great night...

JF notes that bug trackers like JIRA have 5 levels of severity: Blocker, Critical, Major, Moderate, Minimal

also notes that tools like axe-core uses 5 levels of severity as well

JS: the only thing that troubles me is that it adds complexity to the scoring mechanism
… we're no longer an itemized list, but instead a table
… like the idea of making it part of the normal bug-tracking process

PK: hars the concern about adding the complexity, but like how this dove-tails into principles
… perhaps we take this on as a 'test' - try applying it to our test examples
… but move to levels of severity

But there is also the idea of the "spoons" concept... adding up 'criticals' ... exceeding your "spoons" limit

+1 to enumeration of "how many issues"

contrasts 40 major bugs versus 100 minor bugs [sic]
… may be a good way of capturing the cumulative friction issues

PK: we had the prior example of a 200 page document that lacks headers: lacking one page versus lacking all pages

<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

Jeanne: the example provided worries me because it seems to perpetuate the structural bias problem

where people with sensory disabilities are generally considered higher priority because there is a workaround

Jeanne: get lots of questions on this - how?

and we're not sure

<PeterKorn> When do we need to respond to these GitHub Issues?

SH: thinks this is an interesting perspective to explore more deeply
… think one of the things that is interesting so far is notion of critical errors apply to outcome, and also apply the across functional categories
… its a coarse measure, and i'm in favor of breaking things down, along with functional categories and user needs

JS: thinking in terms of follow-up, respond to issue that this is interesting and we're still working on it

PK: until we have better edit control, want to avoid pointing folks to Google docs (fear of over-writing content)

JS: OK, will respond, but want to move to next item before end of call

Use Cases Discussion (Continued)

JS: would like to ask Wilco to expand on his contribution

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

WF: added 2 - one I mentioned last week plus a new one

WF: first one is component library, and want to express the a11y of that

and division of roles between author of library and content creator using the library

JF: notes that design systems are 'higher order' than juust component libraries

PK: this is interesting - how would this pan out in the real world

any author can create inaccessible content, even when using accessible components

PK: does there need to be an explicit GUI library/component, or might this be like WCAG 2 Optional conformance claim

:PK how does that feel/sund?

WF: not sure
… feels meaningless then to say "I have an accessible component library"

can we say something about accessible pieces used to build larger content?
… is there a way to avoid that?

PK: see where you are going
… notes the difference between unit testing and integration testing

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
… we might have a large class of components. Is there a level where only components need to pass

JF: believes that use-cases like CMSes and 'templates' taht will want to be able to make claims

PK: thinking about this - wikis

<jeanne> I believe that WCAG3 FPWD has included the "not applicable" and should be able to handle components.

PK: the way to achieve is to pair it to a level that doesn't require human asasessment

JS: wonder if we can pause here?

JN: added some ideas involving 3rd party content - one was a LMS associated to a college.

with multiple authors adding content

wonder if there is some kind of algorithm - similar to flesh-kincaid or similar - but feedback in real time

JN: other examples is "virtual tours" on real estate site

may add some sparse text that describes apartment

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about 3D

Jeanne: XR sub-group have been discussing a similar concern: text equiv in VR/AR (XR)

WR Subgroup are talking about tying it to components in XR

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


Succeeded: s/low on complexity - low burden on user/low on complexity - low burden on author

Succeeded: s/the cross-functional categories/the across functional categories

Succeeded: s/SCAG/WCAG

Maybe present: JN, JS, PK, SH, WF