Silver Task Force & Community Group

23 Sep 2022


Lauriat, cwadams, Azlan, sarahhorton, Wilco, Rachael, ToddL, Jem


<cwadams> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06/?login

<cwadams> pros & cons https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#

AGWG Surveys (New sub-groups, ACT, Issue Severity, Equity)

<scribe> scribe: sarahhorton

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/subgroups-2022-06/

Lauriat: Survey for subgroup participation, includes availability, interest
... will start from there to form next subgroups

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/act-agwg-sept-2022/

<scribe> ... new ACT rules, for WCAG 2.2

<Azlan> I am not allowed on the second one

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: checking on the links

<Azlan> I'm fine on the first

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: following up with links

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-post-tpac/

Lauriat: Accept as exploratory, reflects discussion, updated PR

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/

Lauriat: accepting equity PR as exploratory

cwadams: Question about accessing surveys

<Azlan> I can't access https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/issue-severity-post-tpac/ but I can access https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/equity-post-tpac/

Continue conformance Pros and Cons conversation

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit

cwadams: review pros and cons so far, talk through anything
... TPAC, AGWG discussions, quick exercise to sketch, now process to refine

<cwadams> Here is the link to the subgroups participation survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/subgroups-2022-06/?login

<cwadams> Here is the link to the ACT survey from Alastair's email: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act-agwg-sept-2022b/

Rachael: Add things to the list

jspellman: Fix equity on survey, going into requirements

Rachael: Ended on critical severity, people added things at end

cwadams: Evaluating severity in context
... [reads pros, cons]

Link to severity in context: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.tisei889p4ek

jspellman: Number of assumptions in comments that need to correct
... didn't go into details, thousands of critical paths in single page, would pick most important purpose
... proposal earlier about using SEO, standard way of doing user journeys, test, optimize, proposal not developed but good to look at
... higher priority based on more people, get into dangerous place, can't do by numbers, has to be by needs, civil rights
... can't say this will serve more people

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note that many of these seem to assume prescribing testing process, which I don't think we would do?

Lauriat: Same take on assumptions, not surprising, overlap in concepts, critical and test processes
... don't want to prescribe test processes
... goal to move form conformance where everything has same weight, any bug means fail
... give nuance to express, better alignment with experience
... not defining who determines context, task, new way of expressing results
... materials that provide guidance on testing
... issues that are critical, issues that don't have as much user impact
... one web page can have thousands of things, have to navigate with some things, expression of impact to users
... pick apart process, this assumption part of test process, personas, who's doing what, how things build up

<Zakim> cwadams, you wanted to discuss imprecision of conformance claims

cwadams: Cons are valid, but cons already exist regardless
... already issues with precision, picking critical path
... idea doesn't exacerbate cons

Rachael: Benefit in transforming cons into ways not to do this

<Lauriat> +1 to Rachael, I really like that framing

<cwadams> +1

Rachael: fact that cons articulate things we shouldn't do would be beneficial

Wilco: Criticality needs agreement with people in adversarial relationships, user and website owner, monitoring agency
... working with issue severity internally, paths, tasks, standardizing, how to do in way that come to same conclusion
... developer and user may not agree on what's critical on a page
... cons highlight that

cwadams: Two personal experiences, criticality of applying for coupon, sign up for random prize, can still acquire product
... another layer for same conversation

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to respond to the Wilco to say I think criticality helps support those conversations

Lauriat: Severity concept helps, if image alt exists but equivalence in question, tester thinks, close enough, user does not understand, severe issue, can't do thing
... gives language for tester, close enough that wouldn't be severe issue, narrows discussion to criticality rather than whether it is/isn't issue
... supporting inevitable conversations
... don't think can target repeatability, impossible goal, structure of conformance for closer alignment

cwadams: Refactor cons, ways we should do activity
... helped describe to have more evolved discussion

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note the context con

Lauriat: Con about context, doesn't seem like assumption, have had to say severity depends on context, ambiguity in defining context
... need to work on how it fits together
... highlights gap, potential con

cwadams: Few people talking a lot, pause, others?
... Interpreted as take WCAG2 criteria, statement is applicable, not new issue

Lauriat: Way WCAG 1, 2 defined, any failure means nonconformance

<cwadams> +1 Shawn is right, WCAG 2 is page level.

Lauriat: no context, just URLs of pages

<Lauriat> Direct link to Prioritizing by functional needs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bvZofimn35x_Jk3u3htpvQjTPbS7-KI_nQTQm8pZ9G0/edit#heading=h.oo1d2e6sgzx5

cwadams: [reads pros, cons]

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask whether this prioritization by functional needs, as proposed, would enter into conformance

Lauriat: Question about concept, does this as proposed is as a part of different levels of conformance or prioritization support

cwadams: Not differentiating levels of conformance, just focus on functional needs, could be factored into levels of conformance

Lauriat: Presented within conformance options, same with severity, haven't established that these are part of conformance
... potential mechanism, haven't decided about applicability to conformance

cwadams: chair hat off, explore these ideas could help with conformance conversations
... don't need to have comfortable fits, don't have concerns

<Lauriat> sarahhorton: Any conformance discussion ends up somewhat controversial, and both of these ideas have a lot of usefulness also outside of this conformance conversation. We might include these outside of the conformance conversations, standing alone.

jspellman: Interesting ideas in this, badge is interesting, concern about structural, anything that puts one disability over another
... issue in WCAG 2 levels (A AA AAA) know it has to be fixed
... civil rights issue, can't say people who are deaf more important than people who are blind, have to be very careful about setting up something structural

cwadams: Agree, will read cons

Lauriat: Agree, people approach solving issue with prioritization of some kind
... in practice, people approach as combination of severity and size of fix
... severe but difficult to fix, may wait, trivial to fix, do sooner, functional needs starts expressing impact
... looking at guiding people through prioritization, should end up as note, ways to approach prioritization
... would address concern about inherently including needs in structure, move conversation outside of conformance

cwadams: [reads cons]

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest maybe turning this into a broader prioritization exploration

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to echo Rachael's earlier suggestion in the context of us looking to express conformance closer to user experience and further from code-level issues

Lauriat: Rachael's suggestion on reframing cons is good

<cwadams> +1 To Rachael's point: Change the "cons" into "ways we shouldn't or do not recommend to do things"

Lauriat: highlight that cons arise because WCAG 1, 2 are technical implementation, tied to code level issues, far from user experience
... moving toward system that supports user experience, lots to work through
... approach cons to say, let's make sure that we really explored them

Makoto: Are we going to select option from options? Some options result in great ambiguity, create more gray areas than WCAG 2
... understand more nuanced approach, different options work for different outcomes

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to respond on the options: more like concepts and areas of exploration

Makoto: seeing list of cons, things we should not do, wanted to share concerns, not proposing solution

Lauriat: These aren't different considerations, more topics that arise from discussions about conformance, might combine, might more out of conformance
... more trying to talk about the concepts without talking about whole
... isolate concepts, work through pros and cons

<Zakim> cwadams, you wanted to answer Makoto unless someone else beats me to it

cwadams: Not enough time to review other topics
... where to take this discussion?

Lauriat: Bring clarifications to next discussions
... also suggest approach, e.g., Rachael's suggestion to look at cons, explore concepts that don't produce downside

<cwadams> +1

Lauriat: could explore whether that's possible
... set stage, start conversation with high-level questions, start of same page
... get more people in conversations

Wilco: Hearing, sensing thinking that people don't understand what we're trying to do, stay open to listening to what people are saying

cwadams: Following code, helps guide discussion, different perspective

Lauriat: Thanks, all, big discussion, challenge to work though, continue on Tuesday!

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2022/09/23 15:18:08 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/pint/point/
Default Present: Lauriat, cwadams, Azlan, sarahhorton, Wilco, Rachael, ToddL, Jem
Present: Lauriat, cwadams, Azlan, sarahhorton, Wilco, Rachael, ToddL, Jem
Found Scribe: sarahhorton
Inferring ScribeNick: sarahhorton

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]