13:46:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver
13:46:36 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/22-silver-irc
13:46:38 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:46:39 <Zakim> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
13:48:52 <jeanne> agenda+ Review drafted changes to reflect new direction for tests
13:49:08 <jeanne> agenda?
13:49:22 <jeanne> zakim, clear agenda
13:49:22 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:49:25 <jeanne> agenda+ Review drafted changes to reflect new direction for tests
13:49:25 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #silver
13:50:29 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #silver
13:50:32 <Lauriat> agenda?
13:50:39 <Lauriat> Present+
13:53:57 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #silver
13:56:18 <janina> janina has joined #silver
14:00:04 <Rachael> present+
14:00:15 <SuzanneTaylor> present+
14:00:42 <Rachael> scribe: SuzanneTaylor
14:01:39 <shadi> present+
14:02:20 <janina> present+
14:02:22 <Lauriat> Zakim, take up item 1
14:02:22 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Review drafted changes to reflect new direction for tests -- taken up [from jeanne]
14:02:44 <Jem> Jem has joined #silver
14:02:48 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachel: I can provide an overview
14:03:11 <SuzanneTaylor> s/Rachel/Rachael
14:04:00 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: We have discussed in subgroups and joint meetings how different types of tests can help expand on WCAG 2
14:04:20 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #silver
14:04:24 <Wilco> present+
14:04:56 <SuzanneTaylor> ... we have a description of this as something to explore
14:05:06 <Rachael> rawgit: https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/624/files
14:05:10 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #silver
14:05:13 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver
14:05:17 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #silver
14:05:21 <SuzanneTaylor> ... on the left you see what is being removed on the right what is being put in
14:05:31 <sarahhorton> present+
14:05:31 <Makoto> present+
14:05:33 <SuzanneTaylor> ... next is the actual resulting document
14:05:39 <Rachael> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html
14:05:45 <JF> JF has joined #silver
14:05:51 <JF> Present+
14:06:17 <SuzanneTaylor> Shawn: lets go through types of changes at a high level
14:06:29 <Rachael> TOPIC: Removal of scoring related content
14:06:31 <Lauriat> rawgit: https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/624/files
14:06:39 <Lauriat> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html
14:06:41 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: The first of the challenges is the removal of content that did not seem to be working
14:07:33 <SuzanneTaylor> ... the red on the left of the raw git shows what was removed
14:08:26 <SuzanneTaylor> ... I will walk through the proposed removals
14:08:39 <SuzanneTaylor> ... a lot of this is about the critical errors
14:08:51 <SuzanneTaylor> ... anything around actual scoring is being proposed as a removal
14:09:09 <Jem> present+
14:10:08 <Lauriat> qv?
14:10:09 <SuzanneTaylor> ... down in the conformance section, we are proposing removing anything about scoring there, to reset it and include later after the scoring work
14:12:01 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: The next groups of changes is related to adding to the test section
14:12:58 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: In section 1.2 Status Levels, the names have changes as we have worked with AGWG COGA etc
14:13:44 <SuzanneTaylor> ... the first is placeholder content, which is expected to be replaced and hidden by default, but alot of people have asked for placeholder content in order to help provide context and mental framework to understand those items we are currently working on
14:13:51 <Lauriat> rawgit rendering of the section: https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#section-status-levels
14:14:09 <SuzanneTaylor> ... the next is exploratory and that is mainly what we have so far, and the feedback should be about the proposed direction
14:14:19 <SuzanneTaylor> ... exploratory is also hidden by default
14:14:43 <SuzanneTaylor> ... there is a control to expose placeholder and exploratory content
14:14:59 <janina> q+
14:15:31 <SuzanneTaylor> ... there is a refining section and a mature section, with advice about the type of feedback that is appropriate
14:15:34 <Lauriat> ack janina
14:16:03 <SuzanneTaylor> Janina: This sounds similar to W3C recommendation levels, is that an issue?
14:16:40 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: This is about a granular paragraph level, more so than full documents like the W3C levels
14:16:59 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: It gives people an idea of the real status of the document
14:17:15 <SuzanneTaylor> Janina: That is helpful
14:17:40 <jeanne> update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#testing
14:17:44 <Lauriat> Testing section: https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#testing
14:18:03 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: In section 4, Testing (be sure to press the button to reveal placeholder and exploratory content if you don't see it)
14:18:30 <SuzanneTaylor> ... <goes through content of that section>
14:18:41 <SuzanneTaylor> ... right upfront that this is exploratory
14:20:21 <SuzanneTaylor> ... <goes through section about testing items, views, processes, full site, etc>
14:20:47 <SuzanneTaylor> ... there are definitions and examples of each of these
14:21:18 <sarahhorton> q+
14:21:31 <Lauriat> ack sarahhorton
14:21:42 <SuzanneTaylor> Sarah: I had a question about process
14:22:04 <Rachael> q+
14:22:11 <janina> q+
14:22:12 <SuzanneTaylor> ... what is part of a process, the full view or just the items needed to complete the task
14:22:28 <Lauriat> ack Rachael
14:22:56 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: great question, but we had been talking about each of these separately
14:23:10 <SuzanneTaylor> ... since it exploratory, this will be part of further exploration
14:23:50 <SuzanneTaylor> Sarah: I was thinking more that there would be items that are not part of the process
14:23:57 <JF> Is/are process evaluations intended to be part of conformance evaluations?
14:24:00 <Lauriat> ack janina
14:24:31 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: No, items in a view that are part of a process but not needed for the process would not be part of the process in our current thinking
14:25:37 <Wilco> q+
14:25:58 <SuzanneTaylor> Janina: One concern is when users want to go back and forth within a process to make decisions
14:26:07 <Rachael> q+
14:26:58 <JF> Other actions would be to increase/decrease quantities of item in shopping cart, modify the order in other ways (color, size, style, etc.)
14:27:06 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: We might need a meta level of processes, what is the function of the aggregate, and what needs to be included at this higher level (purchase/return/etc)
14:27:21 <Lauriat> qv?
14:27:23 <JF> Q+
14:27:26 <SuzanneTaylor> Janina: Common patterns might be helpful
14:28:02 <Lauriat> ack Wilco
14:28:04 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: In the scoping group, we thought we might want to collect patterns and subpatterns. will bring back idea of aggregate level
14:28:53 <SuzanneTaylor> Wilco: What type of feedback are you currently looking for. Why would we want to define these now, before we have examples?
14:29:26 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: In order to show the direction (this is exploratory) and to document what we don't know yet
14:30:07 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: The feedback we are looking for goes from word-level through over all ideas
14:30:25 <Lauriat> ack Rachael
14:30:44 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: I'm editing as we go along, let me know any thoughts on the changes
14:30:45 <Lauriat> ack JF
14:31:13 <SuzanneTaylor> JF: Is the intention of the small process or component tests to contribute the score, or are they just part of how to test?
14:31:34 <maryjom> q+
14:31:55 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: The intention is to help support multiple ways to test and yes, they are expected to be part of scoring and conformance
14:31:55 <Lauriat> ack maryjom
14:32:32 <SuzanneTaylor> Maryjom: We might want to look into what designers call these things
14:32:37 <janina> +1 to Mary Jo
14:33:20 <janina> I recall reading once that a computer picsel has a different name in television
14:33:22 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: will capture this as "feedback from communities on terminology"
14:33:34 <jeanne> types of tests -> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#types-of-tests
14:33:42 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: Next we will move into discussion the types of tests
14:34:09 <maryjom> For example "user scenario" or "user workflow" may be more understandable than "process".
14:34:09 <SuzanneTaylor> ... there are 4 types, from very objective to most subjective
14:34:25 <SuzanneTaylor> < reads the types >
14:34:54 <Wilco> q+
14:35:10 <Lauriat> ack Wilco
14:35:21 <janina> suggest /address/are intended to address/ ?
14:35:22 <SuzanneTaylor> Wilco: I think the word "objective" might be controversal
14:35:38 <SuzanneTaylor> ... this is how ATC uses the word
14:36:06 <SuzanneTaylor> ... in in WCAG 2, this word is used for inter-tester-reliability
14:36:15 <SuzanneTaylor> ... so we might want to use a different word
14:36:27 <JF> +1
14:36:36 <SuzanneTaylor> ... Also, I don't think we can have objective things in normative requirements in WCAG 3
14:36:49 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: Will the tests be normative?
14:37:14 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: currently they are not normative, but that can be discussed
14:37:53 <Lauriat> q+
14:37:53 <SuzanneTaylor> Wilco: could use quantitative vs qualitative
14:38:28 <SuzanneTaylor> Shadi: quantitative might create expectations that the tests are not manual
14:38:50 <janina> +1 to asking for feedback on naming things
14:38:50 <SuzanneTaylor> Shawn: Let's create a note about naming this concept
14:39:09 <Wilco> +1
14:39:12 <Lauriat> ack me
14:39:20 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: Could add this a survey question for Tuesday
14:39:44 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: <continues through the definitions and examples>
14:40:07 <SuzanneTaylor> ... methods are technology-specific
14:40:35 <Lauriat> Objective tests -> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#objective-tests
14:41:03 <Lauriat> Conditional tests -> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#conditional-tests
14:41:17 <Rachael> q
14:41:33 <JF> Q+
14:41:35 <Rachael> q+ to point out that WCAG 2 has these conditional tests for example alt text
14:41:51 <SuzanneTaylor> ... Silver research and design sprint indicated that conditional tests were needed
14:41:56 <Lauriat> ack Rachael
14:41:56 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to point out that WCAG 2 has these conditional tests for example alt text
14:42:41 <Lauriat> ack JF
14:42:49 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: Both of the first tests are already in WCAG 2.2 - is the alt-text there, does it describe the image
14:43:16 <Rachael> q+ to point out the purpose of this approach is to address the feedback and solve the point of view
14:43:18 <Wilco> q+ to respond
14:43:28 <SuzanneTaylor> JF: We also received feedback asking for less subjectivity in conformance testing
14:43:40 <Lauriat> ack Wilco
14:43:40 <Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to respond
14:44:09 <SuzanneTaylor> Wilco: This comes into issue where different people define "objective" differently
14:44:23 <Jem> +1 wilco
14:44:30 <Lauriat> ack Rachael
14:44:30 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to point out the purpose of this approach is to address the feedback and solve the point of view
14:44:47 <SuzanneTaylor> ... the intent is good, but wording needs to make it clear that we are not reducing inter-tester-reliability
14:45:02 <Jem> I think the core concepts of each testing is solid.
14:46:06 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: Some ways to ensure inter-tester-reliability are outlined here, such making sure a process was indeed followed
14:46:12 <Lauriat> q?
14:46:15 <Jem> +1 Rachael re: make it clear that we are not reducing inter-tester reliability
14:46:17 <Makoto> q+
14:46:27 <Lauriat> ack Makoto
14:47:00 <SuzanneTaylor> Makoto: concrete examples of each test type would make this easier to understand
14:47:10 <Lauriat> q+ to suggest linking to some working doc or docs
14:47:11 <Wilco> +1 I too would prefer an example of each before we add this as exploratory. Can live without though.
14:47:16 <SuzanneTaylor> ... this section highly on English vocabulary
14:47:47 <SuzanneTaylor> Shawn: Could we add an editor's note linking to one or more of the examples we have been working on?
14:47:59 <JF> @shawn - yes
14:48:01 <Rachael> +1 to adding an editor's note with examples.
14:48:11 <SuzanneTaylor> ... we are working on these tests for existing SC
14:48:14 <Lauriat> ack me
14:48:14 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest linking to some working doc or docs
14:48:14 <Jem> +1 with solid examples
14:48:29 <Lauriat> Convention tests -> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#convention-tests
14:49:07 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: Next is convention tests, and this is the first type of test that moves beyond the types of tests regularly used in WCAG 2
14:49:43 <SuzanneTaylor> ... < reads section on "Convention Tests" >
14:50:28 <Rachael> q+ to add reading level and visible controls examples
14:50:47 <JF> Q+
14:51:09 <Lauriat> q+ to add an industry convention example of link rendering
14:51:11 <SuzanneTaylor> ... an example might be a organization with a design pattern that includes a few accessibility requirements (contrast/focus visible and their own style guide on plain language)
14:51:53 <SuzanneTaylor> ... < reads description of methods for Convention Tests>
14:51:58 <Lauriat> ack Rachael
14:51:58 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to add reading level and visible controls examples
14:52:43 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: An example could be that a company chooses an appropriate reading level, then meets that
14:53:17 <Jem> q?
14:53:26 <Lauriat> ack JF
14:53:37 <SuzanneTaylor> ... another might be a convention for how invisible controls can be found (such as a company always uses a specific arrow)
14:54:07 <SuzanneTaylor> JF: What safeguards will be in place to ensure these rules are going in the right direction and not the wrong direction?
14:54:41 <SuzanneTaylor> ... in addition, how do we have consistent measure of conformance?
14:55:21 <SuzanneTaylor> Rachael: We would dictate a requirement, such as You must test against a reading level
14:56:05 <SuzanneTaylor> JF: What if a company chooses, for example, 7 point footer text?
14:56:56 <Jem> q+
14:57:12 <SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: This is not intended to allow product teams to over-write the first 2 types of tests, it is to allow, for example, a different reading level for emergency info versus a university professor's blog
14:57:29 <janina> q+
14:57:33 <SuzanneTaylor> JF: What do we have in place to ensure these conventions are correct?
14:58:22 <Rachael> q+ to say that we had stated that we would document failure conditions and that hadn't made it to this write up so I'm adding it back in
14:58:30 <JF> Q+
14:58:35 <janina> q-
14:58:35 <SuzanneTaylor> Shawn: The idea is create a structure to support organizations in creating what they need to go further, but not to replace the WCAG 2-style tests
14:58:39 <Rachael> q-
14:58:43 <jeanne> ack lau
14:58:43 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to add an industry convention example of link rendering
14:58:55 <jeanne> zakim, close queue
14:58:55 <Zakim> ok, jeanne, the speaker queue is closed
14:59:04 <SuzanneTaylor> ... there is still much to work needed for how this would work with conformance
14:59:06 <JF> +1 Shadi
14:59:35 <Lauriat> +1 to Shadi
14:59:51 <Lauriat> ack me
14:59:55 <JF> A better 'convention' example would be around multipole h1's on the same page
15:00:04 <Lauriat> ack Jem
15:00:20 <SuzanneTaylor> Jemma: My understanding is that these types of tests go together, they are not separate islands, and the new tests add transparency
15:00:28 <SuzanneTaylor> ... also +1 to Makoto
15:01:01 <Lauriat> ack JF
15:01:39 <Jem> These are great discussions.
15:01:41 <SuzanneTaylor> JF: to me a convention would be around the conversation about whether or not to have multiple H1s on a page - it would be nice, but we need to limit the types of conventions that are allowed
15:02:26 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/22-silver-minutes.html jeanne
15:04:01 <janina> janina has left #silver
16:24:32 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #silver
16:45:02 <laura> laura has joined #silver
17:42:48 <laura> laura has joined #silver
18:16:36 <laura> laura has joined #silver
19:12:03 <MichaelC_> MichaelC_ has joined #silver
19:39:17 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #silver
21:51:33 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #silver