IRC log of silver on 2021-04-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:44:39 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver
17:44:39 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/09-silver-irc
17:44:41 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
17:44:42 [Zakim]
Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
17:45:06 [jeanne]
Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
17:45:06 [jeanne]
present:
17:45:06 [jeanne]
chair: Shawn, jeanne
17:45:06 [jeanne]
present+
17:45:07 [jeanne]
zakim, clear agenda
17:45:07 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:45:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/09-silver-minutes.html jeanne
17:45:07 [jeanne]
q?
17:45:07 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
17:45:16 [jeanne]
ack jo
17:47:05 [jeanne]
agenda+ reminder of meeting with AGWG on 29 April 2021
17:47:06 [jeanne]
agenda+ updates to the Style Guide for people interested in participating
17:47:06 [jeanne]
agenda+ Bronze Silver Gold options
17:47:06 [jeanne]
agenda+ Narrowing down the options
17:49:20 [jeanne]
regrets+ Sarah, Todd, Charles, Francis
17:56:51 [Fazio]
Fazio has joined #silver
17:58:35 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #silver
17:59:51 [sajkaj]
sajkaj has joined #silver
17:59:58 [sajkaj]
present+
18:00:22 [Chuck]
Chuck has joined #silver
18:01:09 [KimD]
KimD has joined #silver
18:01:21 [jennifer_strickland]
jennifer_strickland has joined #silver
18:01:30 [Lauriat]
Lauriat has joined #silver
18:01:34 [jennifer_strickland]
present+
18:02:17 [Lauriat]
Present+
18:02:17 [Chuck]
agenda?
18:02:31 [sajkaj]
scribe: sajkaj
18:02:46 [KimD]
Present+
18:02:51 [SuzanneTaylor]
present+
18:02:53 [sajkaj]
zakim, next item
18:02:53 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- reminder of meeting with AGWG on 29 April 2021 -- taken up [from jeanne]
18:03:16 [laura]
laura has joined #silver
18:03:30 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Rachael sending out a "save the date" email with three identified 2-hour blocks for telecon on conformance
18:03:31 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver
18:03:31 [laura_]
laura_ has joined #silver
18:03:43 [Azlan]
present+
18:03:46 [laura_]
present+ Laura_Carlson
18:03:51 [sajkaj]
jeanne: We will meet with AGWG and work out path forward; incl Bronze/Silver/Gold
18:04:12 [Fazio]
present+
18:04:18 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Asks whether anyone has the actual time of the 2-hour blocks--
18:04:22 [sajkaj]
[crickets]
18:04:26 [AngelaAccessForAll]
AngelaAccessForAll has joined #silver
18:04:28 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Look for email from Rachael
18:04:30 [AngelaAccessForAll]
present+
18:04:36 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #silver
18:04:48 [Jemma]
present+
18:04:52 [sajkaj]
sh9-11; 1pm-3pm; 5-7 All Boston Time
18:05:46 [sajkaj]
sajkaj: Notes not optimal for many; California, Europe ...
18:05:48 [sajkaj]
zakim, next item
18:05:48 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- updates to the Style Guide for people interested in participating -- taken up [from jeanne]
18:05:55 [ChrisLoiselle]
ChrisLoiselle has joined #silver
18:06:23 [Lauriat]
WCAG3 Style Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sInhvjkvq5WASlOrEMfshAZSVQB8kM1clRWfGXfVEFI/
18:06:25 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Believe we have updates to the style guide to guide many more authoring volunteers
18:06:33 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Angela has been working on those updates
18:06:52 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Comments have been requested; Please contact Angela
18:07:00 [MichaelC]
q+
18:07:18 [MichaelC]
ack me
18:07:22 [MichaelC]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Silver_Style_Guide
18:07:40 [sajkaj]
MichaelC: The guide I know of is at the URI I posted; If incorrect, need to checkin
18:08:02 [sajkaj]
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 [sajkaj]
q+
18:08:32 [sajkaj]
MichaelC: Suggests should always be a known location
18:08:34 [sajkaj]
q-
18:08:41 [sajkaj]
jeanne: We will move it back into the wiki
18:09:06 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Current draft is a merge of all the docs
18:09:11 [sajkaj]
MichaelC: OK
18:09:32 [ChrisLoiselle]
present+
18:09:37 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Wanted it on the agenda to make everyone aware and get clarity of what we're doing
18:09:40 [sajkaj]
zakim, next item
18:09:40 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Bronze Silver Gold options -- taken up [from jeanne]
18:10:05 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Asks Shawn to facilitate this discussion
18:10:27 [sajkaj]
zakim, who's here?
18:10:27 [Zakim]
Present: jeanne, sajkaj, jennifer_strickland, Lauriat, KimD, SuzanneTaylor, Azlan, Laura_Carlson, Fazio, AngelaAccessForAll, Jemma, ChrisLoiselle
18:10:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ChrisLoiselle, Jemma, AngelaAccessForAll, laura_, Azlan, laura, Lauriat, jennifer_strickland, KimD, Chuck, sajkaj, Wilco, Fazio, RRSAgent, jeanne, johnkirkwood,
18:10:29 [Zakim]
... SuzanneTaylor, MichaelC, Zakim, alastairc, jcraig, Rachael, joconnor, AWK
18:11:17 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: Notes this is a continuing conversation; we've been through option 8 previously
18:11:21 [Lauriat]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.piv827yj658b
18:11:48 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: Notes that it works with option 7, really annotates 7
18:12:15 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: Bronze ...
18:12:35 [Chuck]
Bronze
18:12:47 [Chuck]
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 [Chuck]
Guidelines of the nature that previously were not included because of concerns about subjectivity with:
18:13:15 [Chuck]
Required basic evidence, by guideline, of compliance that an individual could be expected to put together on their own
18:13:30 [Chuck]
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 [Chuck]
Additional care in the guideline design
18:13:52 [sajkaj]
q?
18:14:01 [Chuck]
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 [Chuck]
The WCAG 3 initiative should keep a record of the precedents used in helping to fine-tune these guidelines.
18:14:34 [Chuck]
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 [sajkaj]
q?
18:14:46 [Chuck]
Would include plain language description of the Adjectivenal precedents used in helping to fine-tune these guidelines.
18:15:05 [JF]
JF has joined #silver
18:15:11 [JF]
Present+
18:15:18 [sajkaj]
Jemma: Based on U.S. examples noted by Bruce
18:15:25 [Chuck]
Would include plain language chart of likely arguments against subjective standards, and how to address these arguments
18:15:53 [Chuck]
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 [sajkaj]
Jemma: Compare with what may already be in regs and subjective, but considered enforcable
18:16:17 [sajkaj]
zakim, who's here?
18:16:17 [Zakim]
Present: jeanne, sajkaj, jennifer_strickland, Lauriat, KimD, SuzanneTaylor, Azlan, Laura_Carlson, Fazio, AngelaAccessForAll, Jemma, ChrisLoiselle, JF
18:16:19 [Zakim]
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 [Zakim]
... SuzanneTaylor, MichaelC, Zakim, alastairc, jcraig, Rachael, joconnor, AWK
18:16:29 [Jemma]
s/jemma/suzanne
18:16:33 [Wilco]
present+
18:16:50 [sajkaj]
s/jemma/Suzanne/
18:16:59 [MichaelC]
present+
18:17:12 [sajkaj]
Bruce: Two examples not regulatory; relate to procurement review ratings
18:17:36 [sajkaj]
Bruce: the ratings tend to be adjectival
18:17:48 [sajkaj]
bruce: Also every Federal employee's annual review
18:18:12 [sajkaj]
bruce: note these are highly customized to the situation; unsure how to generalize from them
18:18:34 [sajkaj]
bruce: dhs (with Trusted Tester) is working on this
18:18:47 [sajkaj]
bruce: DHS is aspirational
18:19:39 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: Silver level ...
18:19:43 [Chuck]
Silver
18:19:55 [Chuck]
For Guidelines that are not subjective
18:20:13 [Chuck]
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 [Chuck]
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 [Chuck]
* “that shows efficacy” means that, for example:
18:20:55 [Chuck]
One round of testing that shows the product does not work well would not be enough to claim Silver.
18:21:06 [Chuck]
One round of testing that shows the product does work well would be enough to claim Silver.
18:21:07 [Jemma]
Q+
18:21:12 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: So, Silver shaped like Bronze, but with stricter levels
18:21:16 [Chuck]
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 [Chuck]
For Guidelines of the nature that previously were not included because of concerns about subjectivity:
18:21:48 [sajkaj]
jeanne: note this would apply across all guidelines because the civil rights requirement is that we need to cover all needs
18:21:49 [Chuck]
[By Guideline] Required basic evidence of compliance by guideline such as:
18:22:04 [Chuck]
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 [sajkaj]
Jemma: Still trying to grok the big picture ...
18:23:11 [Lauriat]
ack Jemma
18:23:53 [sajkaj]
Jemma: Would this put ARIA in only beginning at Silver; based on annotating javascript?
18:24:31 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: My understanding would not be a technology distinction, but a margin of error and type of testing evidence
18:24:51 [sajkaj]
Jemma: Asks about Silver sentence that mentions javascript
18:24:55 [Jemma]
[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 [SuzanneTaylor]
Q+
18:25:04 [JF]
+1 WCAG needs to be agnostic to specific technologies
18:25:13 [Lauriat]
ack SuzanneTaylor
18:25:25 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: Great point -- shouldn't be anything limited to specific widgets
18:25:43 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: I was trying to respond to requirement for accessibility supported
18:26:03 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: you would need to test a js widget with at; else how do you know?
18:26:14 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: But, maybe this is misleading
18:26:34 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: maybe question is are we allowing at testing
18:26:34 [jennifer_strickland]
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 [JF]
'allowing" or "requiring"?
18:26:52 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: Gold Leve
18:26:58 [Chuck]
Gold
18:27:10 [Chuck]
[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 [JF]
Q+
18:28:07 [Lauriat]
ack JF
18:28:08 [Jemma]
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 [sajkaj]
jf: Wonders ov deltas in tolerance levels; is it a panel; what mix of pwd? etc
18:29:25 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: No sure I understand
18:29:33 [sajkaj]
jf: I could bring in anyone off the street ...
18:29:45 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: But that wouldn't be successful, would bew pretty clear
18:29:55 [sajkaj]
jf: Maybe; shouldn't we specify who the right users are?
18:30:03 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: Don't believe it's a problem
18:30:37 [sajkaj]
jf: Invokes Jamie Knight's "Now you know the experience of exactly one user with autism"
18:31:13 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: Suggest JF's be added issues to work through; to more clearly define goals
18:31:25 [Jemma]
s/rich app/rich web
18:31:57 [sajkaj]
jf: Not just goals; expect we need to identify what users and what success looks like for them; blind vs motor
18:32:18 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Understood--We agree; let's move on. It's in issues to work through
18:32:39 [KimD]
Option 10
18:32:52 [KimD]
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 [sajkaj]
topic: Option #10
18:33:36 [KimD]
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 [Lauriat]
Direct link to option 10: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.p6rrzu9pyjtw
18:33:52 [KimD]
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 [KimD]
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 [sajkaj]
Wilco: Suggesting breaking wcag3 into three related docs
18:34:15 [KimD]
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 [jeanne]
q+ to talk different documents after Wilco is finished presenting
18:34:47 [sajkaj]
wilco: based on split around responsibility; scoping things differently
18:34:59 [KimD]
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 [sajkaj]
wilco: usability would be scoped on processes
18:35:20 [sajkaj]
wilco: site and apps doc that focusses on the overall
18:35:30 [laura]
laura has joined #silver
18:35:35 [sajkaj]
wilco: or even above for all organization web presences
18:35:50 [sajkaj]
wilco: that allows flexibility inconformance models
18:35:54 [KimD]
The goal for the conformance levels should be as such:
18:36:08 [KimD]
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 [sajkaj]
wilco: allows each to focus on a key area with cost benefit basis
18:36:20 [KimD]
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 [sajkaj]
wilco: Consider Bronze3 basically what one can do with off the shelf tooling
18:36:52 [KimD]
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 [KimD]
...everything else.
18:37:10 [sajkaj]
wilco: this model would also support more mix and match
18:37:34 [sajkaj]
wilco: believe we should learn from failure of AAA adoption
18:37:56 [sajkaj]
wilco: This model would allow some portion of site to be Gold, while others are Silver
18:38:00 [sajkaj]
q?
18:38:02 [Fazio]
well articulated Wilco
18:38:06 [sajkaj]
ack jeanne
18:38:06 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to talk different documents after Wilco is finished presenting
18:38:07 [Lauriat]
ack jeanne
18:38:11 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Very interested in this
18:38:20 [sajkaj]
jeanne: we need to explore the details
18:38:47 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Recalls a multiple doc suite was part of one of the proposal at our design sprint some years ago
18:39:16 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Believe it was Lainey Feingold; different kinds of components; social; web; apps
18:39:20 [KimD]
This is an intriguing proposal. +1 to more exploration into this
18:39:35 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Intrigued this is coming around again; could solve problems
18:40:04 [Wilco]
q+
18:40:08 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Noticing diff between Bronze and Silver; a different approach from before
18:40:13 [Fazio]
FYI We've made a lot of progress on the Maturity Model and will present soon
18:40:16 [Jemma]
q+
18:40:18 [Lauriat]
ack Wilco
18:40:36 [sajkaj]
Wilco: In writing this up I thought 3 levels was perhaps a little short of what we would want
18:40:41 [sajkaj]
wilco: Think we may need 4
18:40:59 [sajkaj]
wilco: but didn't want to overcomplicate for now, so stuck with 3; but we should be open to 4
18:41:00 [Lauriat]
q+ to say that scoring could express a lower level than bronze
18:41:10 [sajkaj]
ack Jemma
18:41:31 [sajkaj]
Jemma: Concerned about inequality in what tooling produces
18:41:58 [sajkaj]
Jemma: What would a small establishment do? Could never get to Gold
18:42:25 [sajkaj]
Jemma: how to avoid the rich/poor gap
18:42:39 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: agree we need to be mindful of that
18:42:51 [sajkaj]
jeanne: agree
18:42:53 [Wilco]
q+
18:43:12 [Fazio]
q+
18:43:14 [sajkaj]
ack l
18:43:14 [Zakim]
Lauriat, you wanted to say that scoring could express a lower level than bronze
18:43:36 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: Wanted to speak to one more level below Bronze; believe scoring could essentially provide that
18:43:54 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: Would still show how close; and would still show progress
18:44:26 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Concerned another lower level would encourage a race to the bottom
18:44:47 [sajkaj]
wilco: Believe there is reason to consider, though
18:45:13 [sajkaj]
wilco: Recalls moving from wcag1 to wcag2 stopped many smaller orgs because it became too expensive to keep up
18:45:18 [sajkaj]
wilco: that's unfortunate
18:45:34 [sajkaj]
wilco: a11y testing isn't cheap, and you can't claim conformance without it
18:45:58 [sajkaj]
wilco: Also, it's not quite enough for large orgs
18:46:02 [JF]
and when we leave small orgs behind, we leave users behind too
18:46:12 [sajkaj]
wilco: So I have concerns at the low end and the high end
18:46:21 [sajkaj]
jeanne: suggests WCAG3 for small business
18:46:24 [sajkaj]
wilco: Cool idea
18:47:08 [sajkaj]
jeanne: suggests this could also address the desire for supporting component libraries
18:47:10 [JF]
needs another definition. What constitutes "small business"? What about a school board's web site be considered?
18:47:21 [sajkaj]
ack w
18:47:26 [sajkaj]
ack df
18:47:29 [AngelaAccessForAll]
That could address Jemma's point about rich/poor gap.
18:47:30 [sajkaj]
ack f
18:47:46 [sajkaj]
Fazio: Hopefully we can address the cost problem in the maturity model
18:48:10 [sajkaj]
Fazio: by including pwd through all aspects of org work
18:48:19 [JF]
Q+ to respond to David F
18:48:50 [sajkaj]
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 [Wilco]
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 [Lauriat]
ack JF
18:49:10 [Zakim]
JF, you wanted to respond to David F
18:49:31 [sajkaj]
jf: Understand, concerned ideation discrepency
18:49:51 [sajkaj]
jf: the neighborhood wonk built the website over the weekend; we should also capture those
18:50:13 [sajkaj]
jf: Also, we're not just expecting to impact sites
18:50:28 [sajkaj]
Fazio: No, addressing this in maturity model as well
18:50:59 [Jemma]
+q
18:51:07 [sajkaj]
Fazio: Having the model to follow helps anyone who wants to be a11y
18:51:25 [Jemma]
can we set up a fund to help with "the poor"?
18:51:26 [sajkaj]
Fazio: need to know who to go to to get this started; we point to those things
18:51:36 [Lauriat]
ack Jemma
18:51:37 [sajkaj]
ack jem
18:52:07 [sajkaj]
Jemma: hoping for help for small tooling
18:53:05 [sajkaj]
topic: Option #11
18:53:05 [johnkirkwood]
present+
18:53:06 [KimD]
Option 11: Agency for Developers and Decision Makers
18:53:16 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: notes we can get started in last 5 minutes
18:53:21 [KimD]
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 [sajkaj]
Lauriat: agency for devs and site makers
18:53:40 [KimD]
WCAG 3.0 Automated* Foundation (inspired by Github 451) [Agency comes through automation]
18:53:45 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: wrote it based on some github issues and borrowed from idea of profiles in Option 7
18:53:56 [KimD]
WCAG 3 would define a set of outcomes that have these characteristics:
18:53:59 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: Idea is to give more agency to devs and decision makers
18:54:09 [KimD]
Provide a high level of benefit
18:54:20 [KimD]
Can be tested with an automated evaluation tool
18:54:25 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: would be things that are automated and important enough to be in a first level
18:54:44 [KimD]
WCAG 3 would provide specific requirements for the set of tests that a tool must include to be used for this
18:54:54 [KimD]
*Just because a tool can test for something does not mean it is part of this level.
18:54:54 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: 2nd level would be wcag3 full foundation
18:55:03 [KimD]
WCAG 3.0 Full Foundation [Agency comes through automation + Q&A testing support]
18:55:09 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: also focussing on empowering devs
18:55:14 [KimD]
WCAG 3 would define a set of outcomes/scores to create the following high-level outcomes:
18:55:22 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: either automation or q&a script
18:55:30 [KimD]
Users are not blocked from accomplishing tasks - All user profiles considered equally
18:55:55 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: Thereafter, badges a la user proviles
18:56:16 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: no badge until first two levels met
18:56:36 [KimD]
Friction and frustration caused by a mismatch between user needs and sites/products is reduced
18:56:50 [KimD]
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 [Fazio]
Credly Acclaim is expensive
18:57:09 [KimD]
Each outcome/score required can be tested through either: An automated evaluation tool
18:57:17 [Fazio]
Badgr is free though
18:57:20 [KimD]
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 [KimD]
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 [KimD]
Badges (inspired by Github #466) [Agency comes through high level decision makers’ ability to choose a badge]
18:57:52 [sajkaj]
SuzanneTaylor: Suggests a memory care facility currently needs lots of expensive help to meet a11y; this would mediate
18:57:57 [jeanne]
q+
18:57:58 [KimD]
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 [Fazio]
There is an Open Badge Standard too
18:58:11 [KimD]
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 [Lauriat]
ack jeanne
18:58:38 [KimD]
Completing (or reaching a very high score for) all universally applicable outcomes for a user profile
18:58:43 [sajkaj]
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 [KimD]
Completing just one previously-Level-AAA guideline that is not part of the universally applicable set
18:59:01 [KimD]
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 [sajkaj]
jeanne: Suggest we pick up next week
18:59:12 [KimD]
Anything else that is discovered through work on WCAG 3 that should be encouraged
18:59:52 [KimD]
KimD has left #silver
19:00:00 [Azlan]
Azlan has left #silver
19:00:23 [sajkaj]
zakim, bye
19:00:23 [Zakim]
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]
Zakim has left #silver
19:00:26 [Zakim]
... ChrisLoiselle, JF, Wilco, MichaelC, johnkirkwood
19:00:28 [sajkaj]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:00:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/09-silver-minutes.html sajkaj