Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

11 Mar 2021


Azlan, jeanne, JF, John_Northup, PeterKorn, sajkaj, sarahhorton, ToddLibby

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items; Seasonal Time Shift

<sajkaj> resent+

Janina: Promised Silver deliverables, two calls left this month, look at what we promised to deliver
… what use cases are already covered in the FPWD
… reminder, North America on daylight time early Sunday, Europe end of month, two weeks call will be 1 hour earlier
… advise if problem

Review and Plan for March Deliverable -- Report on Use Cases

Janina: Wiki and Google doc say, agree on principles and use cases and report out in March on what use cases are covered
… only one, Whoville, might be covered by scoping
… others? Think about and be prepared to report out next week

Peter: Does text of FPWD, does the design and structure of the FPWD have means to address use case
… e.g., discussion of alternative text, would not bring score down to bring out of Bronze
… don't know Guidelines that aren't yet written
… if Guideline is written in certain way, would not go out of Bronze
… e.g., fixed-width viewport that doesn't quite scale without clipping, might report out that this use case could be handled in existing structure if guideline on font increase is scored to address it

John: How define when use case is covered?

Peter: How we feel it's covered, how we feel it could be easily covered
… e.g., use case covered because alternative text is scored as non-critical missing alternative text
… or straightforwardly coverable, will be covered if Guideline is written to cover it

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say I appreciate the nuanced evaluation

Jeanne: Appreciate nuanced evaluation esp with subtle aspects of model
… also good to have feedback from different perspectives
… use cases are awesome, good to test what we're doing
… could also bring in use cases, our opinion, what do you think?

Janina: Would cover hidden iframe that triggers failure but checker finds it

Jeanne: Will add to to-do list

JohnF: Ongoing concern that scoring is not scalable

Janina: First report is to give overview, suggestion to be generous about where we think FPWD covers things
… in May will report on what is still missing

JohnF: Goal to focus on positive, okay, want to make sure response is tempered

Peter: Any use case you can write to address scoring would be welcome

Janina: New use cases, hoping to get to them today
… link to GitHub issues in wiki

Jeanne: Adding to Google doc

<PeterKorn> ?

Assigned github issues

Janina: Review of status of issues
… accessibility bugs issue, asked for additional guidance, no additional comment on #281

<PeterKorn> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/281

<jeanne> Issues

<PeterKorn> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/219

<PeterKorn> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/277

Peter: For each issue, if fit in principle, add link to principle to note also addressing Github issue
… adds links to Google doc

Jeanne: Would be good to include use case for disproportionate burden

<PeterKorn> Sarah:In the case of disproportionate burden (GitHubt issue Scoring #281), believes this is about "undue burden" from the perspective of the author, NOT the website visitor

Peter: Asking for something close but different
… if the working group can define thresholds, use those it its analysis
… imagine agency saying, we will decide based on guidance from WCAG

JohnF: Understands use case, concern will introduce fracturing, alternative example
… CA based on WCAG, if allow different thresholds, what does tech company do
… anything that encourages would be counter-productive
… shifting burden on agencies, where do they sit on exceptions

Peter: Request for something we are doing, which is have levels of goodness that sites can use to drive what they do
… bronze for little guy, silver for the big guy, they are asking for levels

JohnF: Didn't read that way, but can see it

Janina: Asked for more information about how it's important

Peter: Assigned some to principles, not sure where to assign others
… flexibility in conformance and scoring less obvious

Janina: Read comments before next meeting, come back to them

<PeterKorn> To come back next meeting to look at https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/362 and https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/281

Agenda Review & Administrative Items; Seasonal Time Shift

Use Cases Discussion (Continued)

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

Janina: Educational use case, plain language, let's talk about that one

JohnN: Reads use case

Janina: similar to journal, jargon in language
… not plain language

Peter: Two related but different things, site wants to use 3rd-party tool (LMS) to do things it doesn't support, also how to help content contributors do something without skills and knowledge

JohnN: Yes, some things they can control with learning, some things they can't control

JohnF: Instances when producers are using framework, affordances in tool for accessible product, but user/purchaser doesn't use those affordances
… e.g., prompt for alternative text in Wordpress
… concerned we are not recognizing middle pieces

Jeanne: Where is it not possible with what we have proposed, can't see exclusion

JohnF: All discussions are for final website, how does WordPress ensure plain language?
… publishing platform, not applicable?

Janina: Need to factor use of accessibility-supporting platforms?

JohnF: Platforms can make NA claims, then are we comparing apples to apples, don't know

Janina: Comment from Mike Gower, need to think more holistically, encourage people for making good choices in tech adopted

JohnF: Scoring based on subtraction, start perfect and lose points, other way around, here's the max number of points, here's where you are

Peter: Is something not covered in use case or something added into use case

Janina: One school chooses accessibility supported, another one chooses tool that doesn't address accessibility

JohnF: New or existing use case, not clear, issue of platforms, need to be able to report level of conformance based on what they can and cannot do
… at some level have to break things into unit tests
… category of product, things can achieve or break accessibility
… additional of editorial content changes things

Janina: What tool can provide is what we can test for in automated testing, could define more cleanly, this is what you must have
… threshold, insufficient to get to bronze but you need to address it to get to bronze

Azlan: With WordPress example, as site owner set up WP, use it out of box, default theme, run tests on output, baseline
… anything beyond is on website owner, manager

Jeanne: Scoring is not subtractive, each org declares what is NA, also have authoring tool guidelines as methods
… WP example in alternative text, would need to meet method, have addressed some, more to do

Janina: Pick up discussion from there

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


Succeeded: s/ask pe/

Succeeded: s/ask pet/

Maybe present: Janina, John, JohnF, JohnN, Peter