Meeting minutes
<Wilco> https://
New paragraph in Qualitative: There are no shortcuts available here. An outcome that leaves a lot of room for interpretation is simply incomplete. It can not be used as a way to communicate requirements between organisations without additional documentation describing what interpretation to use.
Jeanne: +1
new paragraph in Ambiguity: Because outcomes are not technology-specific, some level of ambiguity is unavoidable. Something called a “description” in one technology, may be called a “help message” in another. Interpreting technology-agnostic language of WCAG for specific-technologies like HTML and PDF requires some “translation”. Methods help with this, and ideally
provide technology specific definitions for technology-agnostic definitions of WCAG 3. This necessary “translation” is the only acceptable reason why an outcome may be ambiguous, and should therefore not persist in its methods.
We discussed using a rubric or adjective rating for qualitative measurements. It has the potential to improve reliability. It doesn't have to be numerical or scoring, it can be binary and just guide poeple to determining pass-fail.
WF: There is a comment that some people find it more difficult to do a numerical scoring system
JS: That's why it
… is important for us to define what goes in each band of the rubric.
We reviewed the Soundness of Outcomes section. Jeanne liked how it broke down the range of to a series of questions that can guide the discussion instead of just opinions of different members of AG and Silver.
Wilco will write a couple sentences explaining why it is important not to adopt standards for emerging technology too quickly because it can block later improvements because they would have to wait for another major upgrade of WCAG, WCAG4.
We agreed to move Why Testability Matters to the first section.
Next Steps: Get feedback from AG, Silver, and MATF. Jeanne will present to MATF, Francis will present to Silver, and Wilco will present to AG.
Scheduling - no Silver meeting next week, we will ask for time on next AG agenda. Jeanne will work with MATF on scheduling.
We are going to go on hiatus after this is approved until the group starts writing guidelines.
JS: Should we get all these process and template documents into a Note?
WF: It's a lot of work and takes away from the flexibility. Maybe not for everything? But there is a lot of value in the ACT rules format.
JS: Maybe after we run a few groups through it.
WF: Once we run the group through it and work out the process, it's probably a good idea to try it.