17:44:39 RRSAgent has joined #silver 17:44:39 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/09-silver-irc 17:44:41 RRSAgent, make logs Public 17:44:42 Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group 17:45:06 Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group 17:45:06 present: 17:45:06 chair: Shawn, jeanne 17:45:06 present+ 17:45:07 zakim, clear agenda 17:45:07 rrsagent, make minutes 17:45:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/09-silver-minutes.html jeanne 17:45:07 q? 17:45:07 agenda cleared 17:45:16 ack jo 17:47:05 agenda+ reminder of meeting with AGWG on 29 April 2021 17:47:06 agenda+ updates to the Style Guide for people interested in participating 17:47:06 agenda+ Bronze Silver Gold options 17:47:06 agenda+ Narrowing down the options 17:49:20 regrets+ Sarah, Todd, Charles, Francis 17:56:51 Fazio has joined #silver 17:58:35 Wilco has joined #silver 17:59:51 sajkaj has joined #silver 17:59:58 present+ 18:00:22 Chuck has joined #silver 18:01:09 KimD has joined #silver 18:01:21 jennifer_strickland has joined #silver 18:01:30 Lauriat has joined #silver 18:01:34 present+ 18:02:17 Present+ 18:02:17 agenda? 18:02:31 scribe: sajkaj 18:02:46 Present+ 18:02:51 present+ 18:02:53 zakim, next item 18:02:53 agendum 1 -- reminder of meeting with AGWG on 29 April 2021 -- taken up [from jeanne] 18:03:16 laura has joined #silver 18:03:30 jeanne: Rachael sending out a "save the date" email with three identified 2-hour blocks for telecon on conformance 18:03:31 Azlan has joined #silver 18:03:31 laura_ has joined #silver 18:03:43 present+ 18:03:46 present+ Laura_Carlson 18:03:51 jeanne: We will meet with AGWG and work out path forward; incl Bronze/Silver/Gold 18:04:12 present+ 18:04:18 jeanne: Asks whether anyone has the actual time of the 2-hour blocks-- 18:04:22 [crickets] 18:04:26 AngelaAccessForAll has joined #silver 18:04:28 jeanne: Look for email from Rachael 18:04:30 present+ 18:04:36 Jemma has joined #silver 18:04:48 present+ 18:04:52 sh9-11; 1pm-3pm; 5-7 All Boston Time 18:05:46 sajkaj: Notes not optimal for many; California, Europe ... 18:05:48 zakim, next item 18:05:48 agendum 2 -- updates to the Style Guide for people interested in participating -- taken up [from jeanne] 18:05:55 ChrisLoiselle has joined #silver 18:06:23 WCAG3 Style Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sInhvjkvq5WASlOrEMfshAZSVQB8kM1clRWfGXfVEFI/ 18:06:25 jeanne: Believe we have updates to the style guide to guide many more authoring volunteers 18:06:33 jeanne: Angela has been working on those updates 18:06:52 jeanne: Comments have been requested; Please contact Angela 18:07:00 q+ 18:07:18 ack me 18:07:22 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Silver_Style_Guide 18:07:40 MichaelC: The guide I know of is at the URI I posted; If incorrect, need to checkin 18:08:02 jeanne: At the moment a Google Doc for ease of working and includes Michael's sections; can go back into W3 space 18:08:05 q+ 18:08:32 MichaelC: Suggests should always be a known location 18:08:34 q- 18:08:41 jeanne: We will move it back into the wiki 18:09:06 jeanne: Current draft is a merge of all the docs 18:09:11 MichaelC: OK 18:09:32 present+ 18:09:37 jeanne: Wanted it on the agenda to make everyone aware and get clarity of what we're doing 18:09:40 zakim, next item 18:09:40 agendum 3 -- Bronze Silver Gold options -- taken up [from jeanne] 18:10:05 jeanne: Asks Shawn to facilitate this discussion 18:10:27 zakim, who's here? 18:10:27 Present: jeanne, sajkaj, jennifer_strickland, Lauriat, KimD, SuzanneTaylor, Azlan, Laura_Carlson, Fazio, AngelaAccessForAll, Jemma, ChrisLoiselle 18:10:29 On IRC I see ChrisLoiselle, Jemma, AngelaAccessForAll, laura_, Azlan, laura, Lauriat, jennifer_strickland, KimD, Chuck, sajkaj, Wilco, Fazio, RRSAgent, jeanne, johnkirkwood, 18:10:29 ... SuzanneTaylor, MichaelC, Zakim, alastairc, jcraig, Rachael, joconnor, AWK 18:11:17 Lauriat: Notes this is a continuing conversation; we've been through option 8 previously 18:11:21 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.piv827yj658b 18:11:48 Lauriat: Notes that it works with option 7, really annotates 7 18:12:15 Lauriat: Bronze ... 18:12:35 Bronze 18:12:47 Guidelines that are not subjective with a margin of error provided through scoring (If a site with 500K pages can’t guarantee they won’t be missing heading markup on a few headings, or there is a lag in their cycle of checking user-added content, they still get officially credit; whereas, in WCAG this still existed but is handled more loosely and may encourage documentation/VPAT inaccuracies.) 18:13:01 Guidelines of the nature that previously were not included because of concerns about subjectivity with: 18:13:15 Required basic evidence, by guideline, of compliance that an individual could be expected to put together on their own 18:13:30 For example, for plain language: You might have a series of 3 drafts. You might have a statement as to why your plain language summary is sufficient 18:13:49 Additional care in the guideline design 18:13:52 q? 18:14:01 Comparison during guideline design to existing Adjectivenal standards or requirements that are in legislation (I believe Bruce B mentioned he has some examples of this?) to ensure that these guidelines have the best chance possible 18:14:12 The WCAG 3 initiative should keep a record of the precedents used in helping to fine-tune these guidelines. 18:14:34 It is possible there should be a companion document that houses concerns and responses, so that anyone presenting on this down-the-road has the information on-hand (Presenter’s Companion to WCAG 3.0) 18:14:35 q? 18:14:46 Would include plain language description of the Adjectivenal precedents used in helping to fine-tune these guidelines. 18:15:05 JF has joined #silver 18:15:11 Present+ 18:15:18 Jemma: Based on U.S. examples noted by Bruce 18:15:25 Would include plain language chart of likely arguments against subjective standards, and how to address these arguments 18:15:53 The WCAG 3 initiative should get permission now to publish quotations from representatives (particularly those less likely to support accessibility) who have advocated for better representation of the following: Low vision, Coga, Deaf/Blind 18:15:55 Jemma: Compare with what may already be in regs and subjective, but considered enforcable 18:16:17 zakim, who's here? 18:16:17 Present: jeanne, sajkaj, jennifer_strickland, Lauriat, KimD, SuzanneTaylor, Azlan, Laura_Carlson, Fazio, AngelaAccessForAll, Jemma, ChrisLoiselle, JF 18:16:19 On IRC I see JF, ChrisLoiselle, Jemma, AngelaAccessForAll, laura_, Azlan, laura, Lauriat, jennifer_strickland, KimD, Chuck, sajkaj, Wilco, Fazio, RRSAgent, jeanne, johnkirkwood, 18:16:19 ... SuzanneTaylor, MichaelC, Zakim, alastairc, jcraig, Rachael, joconnor, AWK 18:16:29 s/jemma/suzanne 18:16:33 present+ 18:16:50 s/jemma/Suzanne/ 18:16:59 present+ 18:17:12 Bruce: Two examples not regulatory; relate to procurement review ratings 18:17:36 Bruce: the ratings tend to be adjectival 18:17:48 bruce: Also every Federal employee's annual review 18:18:12 bruce: note these are highly customized to the situation; unsure how to generalize from them 18:18:34 bruce: dhs (with Trusted Tester) is working on this 18:18:47 bruce: DHS is aspirational 18:19:39 Lauriat: Silver level ... 18:19:43 Silver 18:19:55 For Guidelines that are not subjective 18:20:13 Lower margins of error compared with Bronze [Limited to Specific Widgets, etc] Additional Testing is required but is limited to particular guidelines and particular content types (such as a JavaScript-based widgets) 18:20:30 User testing that shows efficacy* OR AT testing that shows efficacy* (unlike when WCAG 2 was finalized there is enough free AT and AT provided by operating systems to make this practical even for small enterprises) 18:20:43 * “that shows efficacy” means that, for example: 18:20:55 One round of testing that shows the product does not work well would not be enough to claim Silver. 18:21:06 One round of testing that shows the product does work well would be enough to claim Silver. 18:21:07 Q+ 18:21:12 Lauriat: So, Silver shaped like Bronze, but with stricter levels 18:21:16 Several rounds of testing with remediation in between, so that the last round shows the product works well would be enough to claim Silver. 18:21:36 For Guidelines of the nature that previously were not included because of concerns about subjectivity: 18:21:48 jeanne: note this would apply across all guidelines because the civil rights requirement is that we need to cover all needs 18:21:49 [By Guideline] Required basic evidence of compliance by guideline such as: 18:22:04 User testing/Remediation/Re-testing report OR User testimonies OR WCAG 3.0 could provide other examples as well OR Organizations could use types of evidence that are not listed but that they consider equivalent 18:23:01 Jemma: Still trying to grok the big picture ... 18:23:11 ack Jemma 18:23:53 Jemma: Would this put ARIA in only beginning at Silver; based on annotating javascript? 18:24:31 Lauriat: My understanding would not be a technology distinction, but a margin of error and type of testing evidence 18:24:51 Jemma: Asks about Silver sentence that mentions javascript 18:24:55 [Limited to Specific Widgets, etc] Additional Testing is required but is limited to particular guidelines and particular content types (such as a JavaScript-based widgets) 18:24:58 Q+ 18:25:04 +1 WCAG needs to be agnostic to specific technologies 18:25:13 ack SuzanneTaylor 18:25:25 SuzanneTaylor: Great point -- shouldn't be anything limited to specific widgets 18:25:43 SuzanneTaylor: I was trying to respond to requirement for accessibility supported 18:26:03 SuzanneTaylor: you would need to test a js widget with at; else how do you know? 18:26:14 SuzanneTaylor: But, maybe this is misleading 18:26:34 SuzanneTaylor: maybe question is are we allowing at testing 18:26:34 That would be great to document, because it may explain why so many widgets are not accessible. I find the devs I've worked with need to see it in writing. 18:26:36 'allowing" or "requiring"? 18:26:52 Lauriat: Gold Leve 18:26:58 Gold 18:27:10 [The overall product] For all Guidelines: Successful user testing OR User testimonies OR A published schedule of testing by people with disabilities and publicly-available issue triage 18:27:47 Q+ 18:28:07 ack JF 18:28:08 Thanks for the clarification, Suzanne. For subscring purpose, my two points for silver citeria 1) most of moden web use js based widget, 2)it would exclude ARIA spec which deals with rich app application. 18:28:51 jf: Wonders ov deltas in tolerance levels; is it a panel; what mix of pwd? etc 18:29:25 Lauriat: No sure I understand 18:29:33 jf: I could bring in anyone off the street ... 18:29:45 Lauriat: But that wouldn't be successful, would bew pretty clear 18:29:55 jf: Maybe; shouldn't we specify who the right users are? 18:30:03 Lauriat: Don't believe it's a problem 18:30:37 jf: Invokes Jamie Knight's "Now you know the experience of exactly one user with autism" 18:31:13 SuzanneTaylor: Suggest JF's be added issues to work through; to more clearly define goals 18:31:25 s/rich app/rich web 18:31:57 jf: Not just goals; expect we need to identify what users and what success looks like for them; blind vs motor 18:32:18 jeanne: Understood--We agree; let's move on. It's in issues to work through 18:32:39 Option 10 18:32:52 The key idea behind this is to write WCAG 3 into multiple recommendations, where different “types” of testing are separated into their own documents. These documents are closely connected in the same way that CSS 3 has multiple recommendations that are inter-connected. Each of these documents has a bronze, silver, and gold conformance level. This could be done (for example) like this: 18:33:04 topic: Option #10 18:33:36 WCAG 3: Outcomes: This document describes universally expected outcomes for accessible content. It is applied to individual views. This document contains what WCAG 3 currently refers to as “atomic” tests. 18:33:41 Direct link to option 10: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.p6rrzu9pyjtw 18:33:52 WCAG 3: Usability: This document is scoped to processes and tasks. It outlines how to work with users, with personas, and with assistive technologies to discover and address accessibility needs specific for the process/task under test. This document contains what WCAG 3 currently refers to as “holistic” tests. 18:34:04 WCAG 3: Sites & Apps: This document is scoped to collections of views, and transitions between them. This document allows testing based on sampling. Thresholds are built in, so that sites and apps can conform, even if not all views in the sample are fully conformant. This threshold is used to handle the “spoons” issue. 18:34:07 Wilco: Suggesting breaking wcag3 into three related docs 18:34:15 WCAG 3: Organisation Maturity: This document describes quality assurance measures an organisation should have in place to ensure the accessibility of digital products and services. 18:34:16 q+ to talk different documents after Wilco is finished presenting 18:34:47 wilco: based on split around responsibility; scoping things differently 18:34:59 Each of these documents has its own Bronze, Silver and Gold conformance levels. Unlike WCAG 2.x, for WCAG 3 it should be far more common for both the lowest, and the highest conformance level to be used by organizations. The levels attempt to each strike a different balance between on the one hand the required knowledge and effort of the content provider, and on the other hand the experience of people with disabilities. 18:35:06 wilco: usability would be scoped on processes 18:35:20 wilco: site and apps doc that focusses on the overall 18:35:30 laura has joined #silver 18:35:35 wilco: or even above for all organization web presences 18:35:50 wilco: that allows flexibility inconformance models 18:35:54 The goal for the conformance levels should be as such: 18:36:08 Bronze conformance: Ensure content is free of issues that is likely to block people with disabilities. This level focuses on making good decisions with commonly available tools. Bronze is achievable by content providers without experience with web technologies, and with limited to no budget. Amateur blogs, self-employed businesses, etc. This should also serve both as an entry-level to accessibility. 18:36:18 wilco: allows each to focus on a key area with cost benefit basis 18:36:20 Silver conformance: Ensure a good experience for people with disabilities when common solutions are readily available, and an acceptable experience when they are not (such as through alternatives). Silver is achievable for content providers with a professional understanding of web technologies, commonly available tools and training materials and occasional access to a digital accessibility specialist. 18:36:51 wilco: Consider Bronze3 basically what one can do with off the shelf tooling 18:36:52 Gold conformance: Ensure an excellent experience for people with disabilities. Gold will require extensive understanding of web technologies and digital accessibility, and will involve creating research-driven solutions tailored to primary and secondary demographics of the software. Gold conformance should be used in combination with silver conformance to achieve excellent accessibility for the most important areas of an organisation’s software, an[CUT] 18:37:01 ...everything else. 18:37:10 wilco: this model would also support more mix and match 18:37:34 wilco: believe we should learn from failure of AAA adoption 18:37:56 wilco: This model would allow some portion of site to be Gold, while others are Silver 18:38:00 q? 18:38:02 well articulated Wilco 18:38:06 ack jeanne 18:38:06 jeanne, you wanted to talk different documents after Wilco is finished presenting 18:38:07 ack jeanne 18:38:11 jeanne: Very interested in this 18:38:20 jeanne: we need to explore the details 18:38:47 jeanne: Recalls a multiple doc suite was part of one of the proposal at our design sprint some years ago 18:39:16 jeanne: Believe it was Lainey Feingold; different kinds of components; social; web; apps 18:39:20 This is an intriguing proposal. +1 to more exploration into this 18:39:35 jeanne: Intrigued this is coming around again; could solve problems 18:40:04 q+ 18:40:08 jeanne: Noticing diff between Bronze and Silver; a different approach from before 18:40:13 FYI We've made a lot of progress on the Maturity Model and will present soon 18:40:16 q+ 18:40:18 ack Wilco 18:40:36 Wilco: In writing this up I thought 3 levels was perhaps a little short of what we would want 18:40:41 wilco: Think we may need 4 18:40:59 wilco: but didn't want to overcomplicate for now, so stuck with 3; but we should be open to 4 18:41:00 q+ to say that scoring could express a lower level than bronze 18:41:10 ack Jemma 18:41:31 Jemma: Concerned about inequality in what tooling produces 18:41:58 Jemma: What would a small establishment do? Could never get to Gold 18:42:25 Jemma: how to avoid the rich/poor gap 18:42:39 Lauriat: agree we need to be mindful of that 18:42:51 jeanne: agree 18:42:53 q+ 18:43:12 q+ 18:43:14 ack l 18:43:14 Lauriat, you wanted to say that scoring could express a lower level than bronze 18:43:36 Lauriat: Wanted to speak to one more level below Bronze; believe scoring could essentially provide that 18:43:54 Lauriat: Would still show how close; and would still show progress 18:44:26 jeanne: Concerned another lower level would encourage a race to the bottom 18:44:47 wilco: Believe there is reason to consider, though 18:45:13 wilco: Recalls moving from wcag1 to wcag2 stopped many smaller orgs because it became too expensive to keep up 18:45:18 wilco: that's unfortunate 18:45:34 wilco: a11y testing isn't cheap, and you can't claim conformance without it 18:45:58 wilco: Also, it's not quite enough for large orgs 18:46:02 and when we leave small orgs behind, we leave users behind too 18:46:12 wilco: So I have concerns at the low end and the high end 18:46:21 jeanne: suggests WCAG3 for small business 18:46:24 wilco: Cool idea 18:47:08 jeanne: suggests this could also address the desire for supporting component libraries 18:47:10 needs another definition. What constitutes "small business"? What about a school board's web site be considered? 18:47:21 ack w 18:47:26 ack df 18:47:29 That could address Jemma's point about rich/poor gap. 18:47:30 ack f 18:47:46 Fazio: Hopefully we can address the cost problem in the maturity model 18:48:10 Fazio: by including pwd through all aspects of org work 18:48:19 Q+ to respond to David F 18:48:50 Fazio: good resources provided to pwd makes the baseline; and if you have pwd employed; then you've got testers while you go along ... 18:48:54 Costs a lot is relative. 2% on a 2 million budget is a lot of money. On a 1k budget, it's two pizzas 18:49:10 ack JF 18:49:10 JF, you wanted to respond to David F 18:49:31 jf: Understand, concerned ideation discrepency 18:49:51 jf: the neighborhood wonk built the website over the weekend; we should also capture those 18:50:13 jf: Also, we're not just expecting to impact sites 18:50:28 Fazio: No, addressing this in maturity model as well 18:50:59 +q 18:51:07 Fazio: Having the model to follow helps anyone who wants to be a11y 18:51:25 can we set up a fund to help with "the poor"? 18:51:26 Fazio: need to know who to go to to get this started; we point to those things 18:51:36 ack Jemma 18:51:37 ack jem 18:52:07 Jemma: hoping for help for small tooling 18:53:05 topic: Option #11 18:53:05 present+ 18:53:06 Option 11: Agency for Developers and Decision Makers 18:53:16 Lauriat: notes we can get started in last 5 minutes 18:53:21 Definition of Agency as Used Here: The ability of organizations that wish to be accessible to act independently. Empowerment. The ability to accomplish things or make decisions by yourself without needing help. 18:53:26 Lauriat: agency for devs and site makers 18:53:40 WCAG 3.0 Automated* Foundation (inspired by Github 451) [Agency comes through automation] 18:53:45 SuzanneTaylor: wrote it based on some github issues and borrowed from idea of profiles in Option 7 18:53:56 WCAG 3 would define a set of outcomes that have these characteristics: 18:53:59 SuzanneTaylor: Idea is to give more agency to devs and decision makers 18:54:09 Provide a high level of benefit 18:54:20 Can be tested with an automated evaluation tool 18:54:25 SuzanneTaylor: would be things that are automated and important enough to be in a first level 18:54:44 WCAG 3 would provide specific requirements for the set of tests that a tool must include to be used for this 18:54:54 *Just because a tool can test for something does not mean it is part of this level. 18:54:54 SuzanneTaylor: 2nd level would be wcag3 full foundation 18:55:03 WCAG 3.0 Full Foundation [Agency comes through automation + Q&A testing support] 18:55:09 SuzanneTaylor: also focussing on empowering devs 18:55:14 WCAG 3 would define a set of outcomes/scores to create the following high-level outcomes: 18:55:22 SuzanneTaylor: either automation or q&a script 18:55:30 Users are not blocked from accomplishing tasks - All user profiles considered equally 18:55:55 SuzanneTaylor: Thereafter, badges a la user proviles 18:56:16 SuzanneTaylor: no badge until first two levels met 18:56:36 Friction and frustration caused by a mismatch between user needs and sites/products is reduced 18:56:50 All user profiles considered equally Goal is to significantly reduce the likelihood of friction becoming a blocker or a competitive disadvantage Goal is not perfect usability and much usability would fall into the higher-level Badge categories 18:57:09 Credly Acclaim is expensive 18:57:09 Each outcome/score required can be tested through either: An automated evaluation tool 18:57:17 Badgr is free though 18:57:20 Detailed work would be needed to decide if everything here is part of the Automated Foundation or if anything else is added here. There may be Outcomes that are testable with a tool, but where the user impact is not quite severe enough to be in the very first level, and those might be placed here. 18:57:30 Or a Question-and-Answer (Q&A) Script / Wizard WCAG 3 would provide the Clear Words script Vendors would be likely to create Wizards, and related / built-in tutorials, etc 18:57:41 Badges (inspired by Github #466) [Agency comes through high level decision makers’ ability to choose a badge] 18:57:52 SuzanneTaylor: Suggests a memory care facility currently needs lots of expensive help to meet a11y; this would mediate 18:57:57 q+ 18:57:58 Much like the badges used for on consumer food packaging (https://hamacher.com/so-many-certifications-non-gmo-project-certified-gluten-free-certified-vegan-usda-organic-and-ewg-verified/ ) 18:58:01 There is an Open Badge Standard too 18:58:11 Once you meet Full Foundation, you can start claiming badges Badges are the only “levels” that allow you to use public-facing W3C-Designed icons. Badges can be available for a variety of different types of accomplishments: 18:58:14 ack jeanne 18:58:38 Completing (or reaching a very high score for) all universally applicable outcomes for a user profile 18:58:43 ack jeanne Interesting idea, but need to figure out civil rights implications; shouldn't be too easy to preclude support for COGA 18:58:50 Completing just one previously-Level-AAA guideline that is not part of the universally applicable set 18:59:01 Completing a type of testing or evaluation that the Accessibility/UX Field generally agrees is advisable For example, there could be a Badge for “Improved through User Testing” 18:59:04 jeanne: Suggest we pick up next week 18:59:12 Anything else that is discovered through work on WCAG 3 that should be encouraged 18:59:52 KimD has left #silver 19:00:00 Azlan has left #silver 19:00:23 zakim, bye 19:00:23 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been jeanne, sajkaj, jennifer_strickland, Lauriat, KimD, SuzanneTaylor, Azlan, Laura_Carlson, Fazio, AngelaAccessForAll, Jemma, 19:00:23 Zakim has left #silver 19:00:26 ... ChrisLoiselle, JF, Wilco, MichaelC, johnkirkwood 19:00:28 rrsagent, make minutes 19:00:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/09-silver-minutes.html sajkaj