14:34:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ag
14:34:41 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/10/11-ag-irc
14:34:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:34:45 <Zakim> Meeting: AGWG Teleconference
14:37:47 <alastairc> agenda?
14:37:52 <alastairc> agenda+ Continue conformance conversation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yLYeNcybGxRu43KdrVUcOCL6iXsy6-gxl9-lbyr90dI/edit#slide=id.p
14:43:50 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #ag
14:44:12 <Chuck> present+
14:44:15 <Chuck> agenda?
14:46:08 <jeanne> present+
14:52:41 <alastairc> regrets: ToddL, BruceB, AzlanC
14:52:45 <alastairc> present+
14:55:38 <alastairc> chair:alastairc
14:55:45 <Fazio> Fazio has joined #ag
14:55:46 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #ag
14:57:31 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #ag
14:58:48 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #ag
14:59:02 <ShawnT> present+
14:59:48 <joweismantel> joweismantel has joined #ag
14:59:52 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #ag
14:59:57 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #ag
14:59:59 <JakeAbma> present+
15:00:01 <Jennie> present+
15:00:03 <GN> GN has joined #ag
15:00:16 <GreggVan> present+
15:00:20 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #ag
15:00:23 <wendyreid> present+
15:00:37 <joweismantel> present+
15:00:45 <bruce_bailey> present+
15:00:58 <alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List
15:01:30 <Lauriat> Lauriat has joined #ag
15:01:33 <Lauriat> Present+
15:01:49 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #ag
15:02:12 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #ag
15:02:13 <Judy> present+
15:02:17 <Wilco> present+
15:02:19 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #ag
15:02:22 <jaunita_george> present+
15:02:22 <wendyreid> scribe+
15:02:45 <maryjom> present+
15:03:01 <MichaelC> present+
15:03:05 <bruce_bailey> regrets for second hour
15:03:26 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #ag
15:03:45 <wendyreid> alastairc: Does anyone have any announcements?
15:03:51 <alastairc> TOPIC: Announcements
15:04:03 <bruce_bailey> q+ to mention IAAF
15:04:10 <wendyreid> Chuck: There will be a survey for the ??? survey
15:04:12 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:04:17 <wendyreid> ... one of the upcoming agenda items
15:04:25 <wendyreid> ... if there are any questions, q+
15:04:26 <Makoto> Makoto has joined #ag
15:04:28 <alastairc> s/???/WCAG2ICT
15:04:33 <dmontalvo> present+ Daniel
15:04:36 <wendyreid> bruce_bailey: interagency accessibility forum is happening this week
15:04:39 <sarahhorton> sarahhorton has joined #ag
15:04:42 <wendyreid> ... will post a link in the agenda
15:04:45 <Makoto> present+
15:04:48 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
15:04:48 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention IAAF
15:04:52 <bruce_bailey> https://www.section508.gov/iaaf/agenda-2022/
15:04:55 <sarahhorton> present+
15:04:57 <Raf> Raf has joined #ag
15:04:59 <alastairc> zakim, taken up next item
15:04:59 <Zakim> I don't understand 'taken up next item', alastairc
15:05:01 <wendyreid> alastairc: First and only item for today
15:05:01 <laura> laura has joined #ag
15:05:03 <alastairc> zakim, take up next item
15:05:03 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Continue conformance conversation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yLYeNcybGxRu43KdrVUcOCL6iXsy6-gxl9-lbyr90dI/edit#slide=id.p -- taken up [from alastairc]
15:05:16 <laura> present+ Laura_Carlson
15:05:19 <wendyreid> ... last week's conversation on conformance
15:05:32 <wendyreid> ... we will talk through topics, first is adjectival scoring
15:05:38 <wendyreid> ... coming from conversations at TPAC
15:05:48 <wendyreid> ... looking to move on to potential solutions for these topics
15:05:54 <Fazio> present+
15:06:08 <wendyreid> ... we've already reviewed percentages, 100% pass fail, scoring approaches
15:06:16 <wendyreid> ... issue severity, prioritizing by functional need
15:06:25 <wendyreid> ... scores, protocols
15:06:29 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
15:06:30 <wendyreid> ... starting with adjectival
15:06:36 <mbgower> present+
15:06:38 <Raf> present+
15:06:42 <wendyreid> ... then going to move on to how we use these things together
15:06:47 <wendyreid> ... what is the best model for WCAG 3
15:07:02 <wendyreid> Rachael: This is the last of the conformance scoring concepts
15:07:09 <wendyreid> ... as a reminder, thse can all lay over each other
15:07:19 <wendyreid> ... we want to think through some of the ways we can move through these
15:07:24 <alastairc> q?
15:07:30 <wendyreid> ... adjectival scoring, bands to improve understanding
15:07:40 <SuzanneTaylor> present+
15:07:46 <wendyreid> ... motivational, easier to summarize bands
15:07:52 <wendyreid> ... challenges, it's potentially confusing
15:08:02 <alastairc> TOPIC: Adjectival Scoring
15:08:07 <wendyreid> ... it's hard to spell, adds subjective judgement
15:08:22 <wendyreid> ... increases complexity
15:08:29 <wendyreid> ... challenges with i18n
15:08:34 <wendyreid> ... slide 12
15:08:38 <wendyreid> ... potential solutions
15:08:59 <wendyreid> ... Lara has pointed out, could subjectivity be mitigated by defining what falls into each band
15:09:10 <wendyreid> ... tieing them to different approaches
15:09:34 <wendyreid> ... bronze to WCAG 2.2 AA, etc
15:09:43 <Fazio> regardless of approach we use I think we should somehow give credit for WCAG 2.x testing
15:09:49 <wendyreid> alastairc: Next steps, are there any key benefits or challenges
15:09:56 <GreggVan> q+
15:10:02 <wendyreid> ... anything that would improve this solution
15:10:05 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:10:18 <wendyreid> GreggVan: Has there been any thought to, seven point scales, or three
15:10:43 <wendyreid> ... it seems that reliability would go down, or stress, if we define these
15:10:52 <wendyreid> alastairc: Question, did we consider scales
15:10:58 <wendyreid> ... poor to best in levels
15:11:01 <alastairc> q+
15:11:02 <Rachael> q_
15:11:05 <Rachael> q+
15:11:07 <alastairc> q-
15:11:16 <wendyreid> GreggVan: Three point, might be better, everything could fall into the middle
15:11:27 <wendyreid> ... curious is there further thought
15:11:29 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:11:42 <wendyreid> Rachael: We've had some of that work done in the first public working draft
15:11:47 <wendyreid> ... different scales
15:11:58 <bruce_bailey> q+ to suggest Venn Diagram to illustrate that conformance ideas are not exclusive to each other ?
15:11:58 <Wilco> q+
15:12:07 <alastairc> ack bruce_bailey
15:12:07 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest Venn Diagram to illustrate that conformance ideas are not exclusive to each other ?
15:12:11 <shadi> shadi has joined #ag
15:12:20 <shadi> present+
15:12:25 <wendyreid> bruce_bailey: Just had the idea, can we illustrate the conformance ideas are compitble with each other
15:12:32 <wendyreid> ... there could be overlap
15:12:36 <wendyreid> ... possibly combinable
15:12:53 <wendyreid> alastairc: How do we evaluate, look at the various models
15:13:00 <alastairc> ack Wilco
15:13:08 <wendyreid> Wilco: I don't think it's necessarily obvious that the same scale works for everything
15:13:19 <alastairc> q+
15:13:23 <wendyreid> ... true/false seems to work well for most things, but not everything needs the same scaling
15:13:34 <alastairc> ack me
15:13:45 <wendyreid> alastairc: I think when we've discussed this previously, for some things the scale is 2
15:13:47 <wendyreid> ... poor or best
15:13:52 <jeanne> +1 to not everything has to be the same scale.
15:14:06 <wendyreid> ... i.e. language on the page, two options, allowing for some things not to have a full scale
15:14:22 <alastairc> q?
15:14:24 <wendyreid> ... from previous discussion, we didn't want different scales for everything with ranging numbers
15:14:35 <wendyreid> ... benefits, challenges?
15:14:38 <Chuck> q+
15:14:42 <wendyreid> ... how would you solve the challenges
15:14:44 <alastairc> ack Chuck
15:14:51 <wendyreid> Chuck: There are problems with this solution, I'll admit
15:15:17 <wendyreid> ... one thing I learned, if you had individuals, and they had different results, but you averaged them, the average would work
15:15:31 <wendyreid> alastairc: Is that trying to solve subjective difference
15:15:38 <Lauriat> q+ to note the judgement expression as a feature and not a bug
15:15:40 <wendyreid> Chuck: And interrelator reliability
15:15:48 <alastairc> ack Lauriat
15:15:48 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note the judgement expression as a feature and not a bug
15:16:06 <wendyreid> Lauriat: As a note on interrelater reliability, having a scale for subjective judgement
15:16:14 <wendyreid> ... one person's failure is another person's pass
15:16:32 <wendyreid> ... having a way to express "I marked it as x because..." vs a simple yes/no
15:16:51 <Rachael> q+
15:16:55 <wendyreid> ... if you have an article about a park, with a photo of a dog, and the alt text is subjective
15:17:04 <wendyreid> ... this is something we need to test to confirm
15:17:12 <wendyreid> ... I'd rather prototype it, test it
15:17:14 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:17:26 <wendyreid> Rachael: Chair hat off, something I have been thinking about
15:17:31 <wendyreid> ... tree structures of assessment
15:17:36 <wendyreid> ... rather than a single test
15:17:39 <wendyreid> ... a tree of tests
15:17:47 <wendyreid> ... alt text is an example of that
15:17:53 <wendyreid> ... is there alt, yes no
15:17:56 <wendyreid> ... is the quality good
15:17:57 <wendyreid> q+
15:18:13 <wendyreid> ... potentially, is there more broadly context that needs to be applied
15:18:16 <wendyreid> ... like a museum
15:18:30 <wendyreid> ... it might be possible to assign adjectival ratings to parts of the tree
15:18:32 <alastairc> +1 to Lauriat's comments, having bands for something like "equivalent" is easier than pass/fail.
15:18:38 <Chuck> I will scribe for wendy when she speaks
15:18:39 <wendyreid> ... some things would only have certain levels
15:18:40 <Lauriat> +1, exactly my thinking of how ACT can help guide that
15:18:47 <alastairc> ack wendyreid
15:18:58 <alastairc> scribe+ Chuck
15:19:07 <Chuck> wendyreid:  Super strong +1 to Rachael.  I'm getting into testing talk, this is my first thought for what we described so far.
15:19:31 <Chuck> wendyreid:  There is a lot of strong yes/no in current WCAG.  Unit test level is "does this page have a title".  Second question is "is the title good".
15:19:54 <mbgower> q?
15:19:56 <Chuck> wendyreid:  There are lots of things that start with yes/no, and you go further down.  The following questions can be subjective.
15:20:10 <Wilco> q+
15:20:13 <Chuck> wendyreid:  The tree structure can address the concerns, with subjectivity, time, etc.
15:20:17 <Chuck> back to wendy
15:20:20 <alastairc> ack Wilco
15:20:38 <wendyreid> Wilco: Seems to me that how you test, and how to break them up, is not correlated to quality
15:20:44 <wendyreid> ... skeptical of that approach
15:20:49 <wendyreid> alastairc: How good what is?
15:21:11 <wendyreid> Wilco: If you use different tests to measure abjectival rating, if you fail first level, this
15:21:22 <wendyreid> ... I don't think this is how tests are broken up today
15:21:26 <Lauriat> q+ to note I heard that as more of where to make decisions about rating, rather than direct correlation
15:21:35 <wendyreid> alastairc: Are there guidelines that come to mind?
15:22:01 <mbgower> q+ to say that an overall approach should help us align clear requirements with testing
15:22:07 <wendyreid> Wilco: Things stacking on other things, some of these scaled up into ACT, but not great for determining quality
15:22:10 <wendyreid> ... I wouldn't use them for that
15:22:11 <alastairc> ack Lauriat
15:22:11 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note I heard that as more of where to make decisions about rating, rather than direct correlation
15:22:17 <wendyreid> Lauriat: +1 to Wilco
15:22:38 <wendyreid> ... I understood what Rachael described as educational and supportive, how to walk through a test
15:22:45 <wendyreid> ... here's where you can make these decisions
15:22:53 <wendyreid> ... possibly problematic
15:23:00 <wendyreid> ... if it fails x, it fails completely
15:23:08 <alastairc> ack mbgower
15:23:08 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that an overall approach should help us align clear requirements with testing
15:23:10 <wendyreid> ... but if you get to a point to assess quality, here's how to do that
15:23:30 <wendyreid> mbgower: Thanks for the discussion, relate this to something Ken Nakata said in his keynote
15:23:42 <wendyreid> ... the problem with wCAG is that it can be vague and complex at the same time
15:23:45 <wendyreid> ... to Wilco's point
15:23:57 <wendyreid> ... if one path forward is a more mindful approach to look for clarity
15:24:17 <wendyreid> ... friction, we need to ensure our tests are moving people to clarity
15:24:23 <wendyreid> ... more reliability
15:24:33 <wendyreid> ... dependent on the clarity of requirements
15:24:41 <SuzanneTaylor> q+ to suggest robust examples for each band, as a way to vet the bands now, to clarify the bands for testers in the future, and to also help guide designers and developers in the future
15:24:43 <wendyreid> ... the scoring adds to that clarity
15:24:54 <Peter_Bossley> Peter_Bossley has joined #ag
15:25:11 <Peter_Bossley> present+
15:25:13 <wendyreid> alastairc: Adjectival scoring would be more useful if we start with objective tests, then build on subjective ones
15:25:21 <GreggVan> q+
15:25:26 <alastairc> ack SuzanneTaylor
15:25:26 <Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to suggest robust examples for each band, as a way to vet the bands now, to clarify the bands for testers in the future, and to also help guide designers
15:25:29 <Zakim> ... and developers in the future
15:25:32 <laura> +1 to MG  We need to keep the distinction between simple and clear front of mind.
15:25:39 <wendyreid> SuzanneTaylor: We should list a robust set of examples as a solution
15:25:46 <wendyreid> alastairc: Informative documentation
15:26:02 <wendyreid> SuzanneTaylor: Robust examples to help vet the bands, for us and for designers and developers
15:26:09 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #ag
15:26:15 <wendyreid> alastairc: Which we've done in WCAG 2.x
15:26:16 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:26:24 <wendyreid> GreggVan: This discussion gives me an idea
15:26:32 <Ryladog> Present+ Katie_Haritos-Shea
15:26:38 <stefans> stefans has joined #ag
15:26:39 <wendyreid> ... I'm always concerned about people being required to do something
15:26:43 <wendyreid> ... but the goal is unclear
15:26:46 <stefans> present+
15:26:49 <wendyreid> ... adjectival seems unclear
15:26:54 <wendyreid> ... but we want to move past the binary
15:27:08 <wendyreid> ... what if we could combine adjectival, with a binary
15:27:21 <wendyreid> ... when done, you either do or don't conform, but with a score
15:27:34 <wendyreid> ... You got C's, you passed, but you could also pass with A's
15:27:40 <Lauriat> +1, something we've noted as something we should investigate, so let's definitely not lose that
15:27:42 <wendyreid> ... encourage to do better
15:27:48 <wendyreid> alastairc: I think that aligns
15:27:55 <Chuck> Combine adjectival with minimum level to pass
15:27:58 <mbgower> q+
15:28:07 <wendyreid> ... to build on mbgower 's example, do images have alt, then how good is the alt, etc
15:28:16 <wendyreid> ... concept of equivalence
15:28:22 <Chuck> +1 to exploring gv's idea
15:28:27 <mbgower> q+ to say I did a presentation on how to get to clarity on ALT a couple months back
15:28:34 <wendyreid> ... but with clear cut bands, each instance is a minimum requirement, it moves it along
15:28:39 <alastairc> ack mbgower
15:28:39 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I did a presentation on how to get to clarity on ALT a couple months back
15:29:01 <wendyreid> mbgower: I just wanted to remind folks I did a playback on alt on images
15:29:15 <kirkwood> present+
15:29:21 <wendyreid> ... I proposed, what if every alt had a 2-5 word short description
15:29:30 <wendyreid> ... method to designate whether an image was important
15:29:41 <wendyreid> ... every image must have a short description
15:29:46 <wendyreid> ... if important, needs more
15:30:00 <wendyreid> ... then get to adjectival score of quality
15:30:18 <wendyreid> ... binary of whether it is poor or good
15:30:23 <alastairc> q+
15:30:25 <wendyreid> ... then more detail for the higher levels
15:30:35 <alastairc> ack me
15:30:37 <wendyreid> ... requires us to go back to the testing for requirements
15:30:44 <wendyreid> alastairc: Sounds like a good example
15:30:50 <wendyreid> ... something to try on other guidelines
15:30:56 <Ryladog> +1 to MG
15:31:00 <wendyreid> ... considering the issues we've discussed
15:31:07 <wendyreid> ... are there other solutions?
15:31:24 <wendyreid> ... good options there
15:31:32 <wendyreid> ... this is one of our scoring type options
15:31:38 <wendyreid> ... evaluating issue severity
15:31:49 <wendyreid> Rachael: Just a reminder as we discuss issue severity
15:31:59 <wendyreid> ... we have already done this in WCAG 2 with A, AA, AAA
15:32:10 <wendyreid> ... different ways to do that levelling
15:32:31 <wendyreid> ... some benefits, addresses absolute barriers while recognizing difficulty of achieving perfection
15:32:42 <wendyreid> ... it does integrate and standardize
15:32:53 <wendyreid> ... prioritization, it happens informally outside of WCAG
15:32:57 <Ryladog> q+
15:33:02 <wendyreid> ... incorporate context
15:33:03 <alastairc> TOPIC: Issue severity
15:33:08 <wendyreid> ... reflect impact
15:33:14 <wendyreid> ... challenges to solve
15:33:22 <wendyreid> ... conversation on the list and in the previous meeting
15:33:38 <wendyreid> ... what is severe for one person in one context and task, may not be for another
15:33:44 <wendyreid> ... we need to define and test consistently
15:34:07 <wendyreid> ... who determines the context or task outside of the specification
15:34:28 <wendyreid> ... did we miss any of the pros and cons?
15:34:40 <wendyreid> alastairc: Are we missing anything?
15:34:40 <alastairc> q?
15:34:43 <alastairc> ack Ryladog
15:35:14 <wendyreid> Ryladog: One thing I always include in informal prioritization, even when specific, higher than A
15:35:26 <wendyreid> ... if certain things aren't working, they are highest priority
15:35:33 <wendyreid> alastairc: We had a subgroup working on this
15:35:51 <wendyreid> ... the main thing we worked through was looking at all of the tests in the FPWD, put in the spreadsheet
15:36:04 <wendyreid> ... group looked at them and classified as critical errors
15:36:16 <wendyreid> ... easier to point at critical than serious, medium, minor, etc
15:36:23 <wendyreid> ... grading the lower levels was harder
15:36:28 <wendyreid> ... as pointed out on the list
15:36:43 <wendyreid> ... across scenarios, it differs
15:36:52 <wendyreid> ... separate but integrated methods
15:37:28 <wendyreid> ... set of issues, working with or be the site owner, you may have some prioritization of the tasks, if you have a barrier that has been raised in testing
15:37:44 <wendyreid> ... info image missing alt text, if you took that away, what is the impact
15:37:54 <wendyreid> ... judgement of the barrier and the impact
15:38:04 <wendyreid> ... but this does maybe not be part of the initial testing
15:38:13 <wendyreid> ... maybe to help move from bronze to silver, onwards
15:38:15 <alastairc> q?
15:38:19 <sarahhorton> q+
15:38:24 <alastairc> ack sarahhorton
15:38:39 <shadi> q+
15:38:44 <wendyreid> sarahhorton: I was going to add, a benefit, based on how we've been talking about it, the issues in the way we break them down in a matrix
15:38:57 <wendyreid> ... moving from identifiying something as critical, critical for whom
15:39:02 <wendyreid> ... using functional and user needs
15:39:21 <wendyreid> ... one of the main design goals of WCAG 3 is to bring user needs more central to the standards
15:39:32 <wendyreid> ... this is critical to users with this functional need
15:39:39 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:40:01 <wendyreid> shadi: We might be talking about different aspects or purposes of testing
15:40:06 <wendyreid> ... what we mean
15:40:15 <wendyreid> ... there is testing as in "did I meet the crtieria"
15:40:23 <wendyreid> ... clarity of did I do this or not
15:40:48 <wendyreid> ... we also need the outside view, does it look like this content has met these criteria
15:40:57 <wendyreid> ... this is more of a statistical thing, check a sample
15:41:04 <wendyreid> ... is the claim correct
15:41:10 <wendyreid> ... another dimension, when we try to score
15:41:17 <wendyreid> ... is it likely that the claim is true
15:41:24 <wendyreid> ... what is the ranking of one vs the other
15:41:49 <wendyreid> ... I may be wrong, but I think we're discussing different goals, purposes for the testing
15:41:54 <alastairc> q?
15:41:59 <SuzanneTaylor> q+
15:42:07 <wendyreid> alastairc: In terms of approached or goals
15:42:23 <wendyreid> ... for the sub group, better aligning results with lived experience
15:42:29 <wendyreid> ... having a "better ruler"
15:42:32 <SuzanneTaylor> q-
15:42:43 <wendyreid> ... working on the feasability at the guideline level
15:42:49 <wendyreid> ... we're meeting again tomorrow
15:42:57 <wendyreid> ... potential solution listed
15:43:00 <wendyreid> ... slide 15
15:43:11 <wendyreid> ... incorporating context with site owners
15:43:12 <GreggVan> q+
15:43:17 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
15:43:23 <wendyreid> GreggVan: I don't have a solution
15:43:33 <wendyreid> ... we discussed before, we did severity before A AA AAA
15:43:45 <wendyreid> ... cognitive group points out that the cognitive are viewed as less severe
15:44:18 <wendyreid> ... something with no alt text is easy to envision as a blocker, but something being a blocker for someone with a cognitive disability is harder to envision
15:44:19 <alastairc> q+
15:44:27 <wendyreid> ... physical barriers will appear to be more concrete
15:44:31 <Fazio> +1 COGA would have concerns about severity
15:44:33 <wendyreid> ... than cognitive barriers
15:44:44 <Ryladog> +1
15:44:54 <wendyreid> ... I worry that cognitive will be harder to measure
15:44:54 <alastairc> ack alastairc
15:44:58 <wendyreid> alastairc: It has come up
15:45:02 <shadi> q+
15:45:10 <wendyreid> ... chair hat off, I think it's something we need to actively keep an eye on
15:45:18 <Rachael> I added that as an additional challenge
15:45:18 <wendyreid> ... it's easier to assess concrete requirements
15:45:39 <wendyreid> ... but the cognitive view brings in other requirements
15:46:00 <wendyreid> ... if we look at a per-instance basis, it could be challenging to view pages as a whole
15:46:17 <wendyreid> ... difficult to assess at the guideline or test level
15:46:27 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:46:30 <wendyreid> ... but if you're looking at a higher level, site level, might be possible
15:46:55 <wendyreid> shadi: The question to me, COGA could have concerns, could this also be an improvement for the community
15:46:58 <alastairc> q?
15:47:00 <wendyreid> ... improvement from the current status
15:47:10 <Fazio> has yet to be seen
15:47:14 <Ryladog> q+
15:47:35 <wendyreid> alastairc: The group should evaluate based on functional needs, assess with the various groups, involve COGA
15:47:38 <alastairc> ack Ryladog
15:48:18 <shadi> q+
15:48:21 <wendyreid> Ryladog: I also wonder a little bit about the owner determining, if we separate these things by need, we should just leave out the COGA stuff because they are a particular site
15:48:34 <wendyreid> ... challenge with separating out
15:48:42 <Rachael> q+
15:48:57 <wendyreid> ... in general usability, design will say we don't want this amount of info, we don't want more than x number of steps
15:49:01 <Lauriat> q+ to +1 mbgower's previous note on clarity as an absolute essential for this
15:49:07 <wendyreid> ... design can say that, I wonder if we can need to look at that
15:49:14 <Fazio> rule of 4 in short term memory
15:49:27 <wendyreid> ... work around the way people may avoid certain use cases
15:49:35 <wendyreid> ... let people make choices
15:49:37 <alastairc> ack shadi
15:50:04 <wendyreid> shadi: Good point Ryladog, ruling out like that categorically, the model proposed would not work that way
15:50:14 <wendyreid> alastairc: To allow site owners to choose what they test
15:50:19 <wendyreid> ...?
15:50:26 <wendyreid> ... depends on how we present it
15:50:37 <wendyreid> ... we'd want to avoid people picking and choosing between groups
15:50:40 <wendyreid> q+
15:50:54 <Chuck> I will scribe for wendy when she speaks.
15:50:59 <wendyreid> alastairc: from the POV of people choosing, potentially a WCAG-EM style of assessment
15:51:04 <wendyreid> ... what would people need
15:51:05 <alastairc> ack Rachael
15:51:23 <wendyreid> Rachael: In this conversation, there are two kinds of crtitical errors
15:51:32 <wendyreid> ... one is clear, i.e. flashing, but others are more nuanced
15:51:45 <wendyreid> ... the out side ones can be handled as a protocol
15:51:46 <alastairc> ack Lauriat
15:51:46 <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to +1 mbgower's previous note on clarity as an absolute essential for this
15:51:54 <wendyreid> Lauriat: +1 to Rachael
15:52:11 <wendyreid> ... wanted to raise one of mbgower points, the adjectival, it's the other side of expressing issue severity
15:52:29 <wendyreid> ... the previous point around clarity, it's very much true for severity
15:52:37 <wendyreid> ... it's clear for people to follow and understand
15:52:37 <jeanne> +1 to clarity and testing
15:52:41 <Jennie> +1 to Rachael. Certain criteria that issue severity may not be appropriate for could use other types of evaluation. Example: if related to cognitive accessibility
15:52:45 <wendyreid> ... test it to understand
15:52:49 <alastairc> q?
15:52:54 <alastairc> ack wendyreid
15:53:10 <Chuck> wendyreid:  I see the role of issue severity.  We see it today with what vendors are doing.
15:53:22 <Chuck> wendyreid:  I get things assigned priority depending on impact, and user impact.
15:53:30 <Chuck> wendyreid:  This works because I'm on an agile dev team.
15:53:55 <Chuck> wendyreid:  I see the issue about not identifying by disability type.  There is an element in the market of exclusion on purpose.
15:54:15 <Chuck> wendyreid:  When a site owner raises accessibility of their site, they put focus on different things on user base they know.
15:54:49 <Chuck> wendyreid:  Use cases and scenarios most important.  It feels wrong to say we won't focus on a group now, but the reality is that they kind of have to issue priority based on use case or the product and service they sell.
15:55:11 <Jennie> q+ How do we get cognitive needs considered
15:55:14 <Ryladog> q+
15:55:14 <Jennie> q+
15:55:16 <Chuck> wendyreid:  Dev teams have to prioritize.  I think it can feel challenging, but the subject matter experts do play a role in choosing severity.
15:55:18 <alastairc> ack Ryladog
15:55:29 <wendyreid> Ryladog: I know that's the relaity
15:55:45 <Fazio> Priortizr COGA as most severe :)
15:55:51 <wendyreid> ... when one goes for conformance, somehow, we're measuring for each user group
15:56:15 <Jay_Mullen> Jay_Mullen has joined #ag
15:56:17 <wendyreid> ... this site is a 2, on a scale of 1-4, it's not covering every user group
15:56:23 <wendyreid> +1
15:56:39 <wendyreid> alastairc: In general, we do try to approach things from a baseline and improve from there
15:56:47 <alastairc> q?
15:56:50 <alastairc> ack Jennie
15:57:29 <wendyreid> Jennie: I found Wendy's point interesting, as someone who scores points, the people with cognitive disabilities who are part of a user base, the people making those decisions are unaware of them
15:57:35 <wendyreid> ... or could be part of the user bade
15:57:52 <wendyreid> ... need to get more needs of cognitive users recognized
15:58:02 <wendyreid> ... I agree, there is ways to use multiple strategies for scoring
15:58:03 <alastairc> q/
15:58:04 <alastairc> q?
15:58:34 <Fazio> q+
15:59:04 <wendyreid> Fazio: If you think about cognitive needs, that should be the most severe level
15:59:05 <kirkwood> categorize severity by user group should be a seriously considered approach
15:59:08 <Francis_Storr> Francis_Storr has joined #ag
15:59:22 <wendyreid> ... workaround where cognitive accessibility as highest level need
15:59:24 <Chuck> q+ to ask for a scribe change
15:59:24 <GreggVan> q+
15:59:31 <wendyreid> alastairc: We need to get guidelines in as part of conformance
15:59:31 <Chuck> ack Faz
15:59:38 <wendyreid> ... and work with COGA to define severity
15:59:40 <Chuck> ack Ch
15:59:40 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for a scribe change
15:59:54 <Chuck> thank you wendy!
16:00:13 <alastairc> TOPIC: Prioritizing by Functional Needs
16:01:24 <laura> scribe: Laura
16:01:32 <alastairc> scribe: laura
16:01:41 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:02:06 <Rachael> q+
16:02:19 <Fazio> +! COGA encompasses many groups
16:02:20 <laura> gregg: prioitsing by group. coga is thought of a one group.  But it is more groups.
16:02:24 <Jay_Mullen> All I can say on Issue severity (new here) - is that when I deliver an audit - there is the core rating of severity of Critical / Serious / Moderate / Minor / Best Practice and that is great but often when its a large site you have hundreds of violations between each and a product owner cannot really parse or understand well if they are not an expert - and they do not know where to start. So what we do is provide a second level of priority wi[CUT]
16:02:35 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:02:47 <Jay_Mullen> of 1-5 (1 being the highest priority) which is defined by details such as is it a repeate dpattern, is it part of critical flow, does it impact wide audience versus small audience. The severity always stays critical but it is further set apart and differentiated by this second level that product owners will rely on to prioritize development actions on agile teams.
16:02:56 <laura> rm: functionl needs doc has many groupings listed.
16:03:24 <laura> gregg: want to plant. the idea of hight and low.
16:03:29 <alastairc> q?
16:03:44 <Fazio> I love the functional needs approach
16:03:53 <laura> rm: key bnefit of funtional needs.
16:04:10 <laura>  ... has challenges.
16:04:29 <laura> ... has risk of bias
16:05:32 <laura> ... If the number of functional needs matters, than it motivates greater subdivision in the FAST (May move inequality to FAST)
16:05:32 <laura> If the number of functional needs matters, than it motivates greater subdivision in the FAST (May move inequality to FAST)
16:05:32 <laura> ... May introduce biases against those functional needs that appear less frequently
16:06:00 <laura> ... Adds complexity.
16:06:37 <laura> ac: any benefits or challenges?
16:06:54 <jeanne> +1 to being careful that we are improving equity
16:07:08 <alastairc> q+
16:07:09 <laura> jk: integration with lawsuits.
16:07:35 <laura> ... may match the real world. Gives impetus to do this,
16:07:45 <alastairc> ack me
16:08:23 <laura> ac: challenge- which are applicable accross tech can vary.
16:09:06 <laura> ... some tech may be more usable than others.
16:09:28 <kirkwood> lawsuits are by user groups with specific functional needs.
16:09:33 <Jennie> q+
16:09:39 <alastairc> ack Jennie
16:09:39 <laura> ... hisitant to use this as part of conformance.
16:10:16 <laura> jennie: functional needs could inform other scoring mechanisms.
16:10:55 <laura> ac: looking at the test level.
16:11:11 <laura> ... any solutions?
16:11:25 <GreggVan> q+
16:11:47 <laura> rm: reworking FAST.
16:11:52 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:12:20 <laura> gregg: Also need to consider combination of disabilites.
16:12:34 <sarahhorton> q+
16:12:40 <alastairc> ack sa
16:13:11 <laura> sh: could be another of context is important
16:14:33 <Rachael> Link to FAST for anyone who hasn't seen it : https://w3c.github.io/fast/
16:14:37 <laura> ...  prioritizing in a closed enviormnent like a kiosk.
16:15:06 <laura> ... there is a contextual aspect to this.
16:15:14 <jon_avila> jon_avila has joined #ag
16:15:16 <jon_avila> q?
16:15:21 <jon_avila> present+jon_avila
16:15:50 <laura> RM: Weighting.
16:16:18 <laura> ... it is a concept.
16:16:24 <laura> ...Allows inclusion outcomes with lower benefits without skewing conformance
16:16:34 <laura> ... Allowing lower weighted items may be a way to bring advisory techniques into conformance
16:16:48 <laura> ...Adds complexity and is more difficult to understand
16:16:57 <laura> ... Difficult problem to correctly weight
16:17:04 <laura> ... Weighting by testing could be a problem for regulators
16:17:22 <laura> ... have not solutions yet.
16:17:25 <jon_avila> q+
16:17:30 <alastairc> ack jon_avila
16:17:34 <laura> ac: back away slowly.
16:17:42 <jeanne> +1 to alastair's caution
16:17:43 <Ryladog> A good example of a lower weight items - is the people with severe ammonia allergies so must always wear a mask
16:17:59 <kirkwood> Can’t we just give the ability to measure which needs are covered and let the owner determine how to prioritize/weight/points
16:18:03 <laura> ja: Katin mentioned positive statements.
16:18:53 <jeanne> +1 to JA
16:18:57 <laura> ... show people can take a standard appooach or give them another way
16:19:18 <alastairc> q?
16:19:18 <Chuck> q+
16:19:23 <alastairc> ack Chuck
16:20:20 <laura> ac: maybe have baseline conformance. but give them something extra to score points.
16:20:24 <Fazio> no. Because more important but more difficult things would always get left out in lieu of easy outs
16:20:25 <jeanne> q+ to having flexibility in context and could be tied to minimum by Functional Need
16:20:30 <jon_avila> it would have to be to support the same disability
16:20:32 <alastairc> q?
16:20:36 <alastairc> ack jeanne
16:20:36 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to having flexibility in context and could be tied to minimum by Functional Need
16:21:32 <sarahhorton> q+
16:21:38 <alastairc> ack sarahhorton
16:22:20 <jeanne> +1 to Sarah's example -- that was what was I meant by flexibility in context
16:22:37 <laura> sh: headed in direction of 3rd party content. and allowing not to meet criteria.
16:23:28 <laura> ... doesn't mean I think it is a good idea.
16:23:56 <laura> ac: any solutions?
16:24:07 <Chuck> q+
16:24:19 <alastairc> ack Chuck
16:24:35 <laura> chuck: maybe look at an example.
16:25:00 <laura> ... or mayt his is a warning sign that this isn't the right apporach.
16:25:04 <jeanne> q+ to talk about weighting prototypes
16:25:17 <alastairc> ack jeanne
16:25:17 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about weighting prototypes
16:25:53 <laura> jeanne: did work in 2019 on weighting.
16:25:56 <Chuck> I thought so, I thought that these existed, just couldn't find examples on the fly.
16:26:15 <laura> ... take away is we didn't get any of them to work.
16:26:55 <Chuck> q+ to say that to give this "weighting" a fair opportunity, maybe invite any individuals to come up with a proposal if desired, otherwise we deem that there is not much support.
16:27:01 <kirkwood> agree with Jeanne
16:27:06 <alastairc> ack Chuck
16:27:06 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that to give this "weighting" a fair opportunity, maybe invite any individuals to come up with a proposal if desired, otherwise we deem that there is not
16:27:09 <Zakim> ... much support.
16:27:23 <laura> ... think we should not pursue.
16:27:26 <GreggVan> q+
16:27:36 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:28:03 <laura> gregg: spent a couple of years on this & couldn't get it to work.
16:28:29 <laura> RM: Setting Minimum Scores
16:28:46 <laura> ... Key Benefits
16:28:50 <laura> ... Provides a baseline for prioritization and may motivate getting started
16:29:10 <laura> ... A way to allow more flexible conformance approaches
16:29:19 <laura> ... May promote equity
16:29:28 <laura> ... Challenges to solve:
16:29:36 <laura> ... Risk of gaming
16:29:38 <mbgower> q+
16:29:39 <Chuck> q+
16:29:44 <laura> ... Organizations may adopt minimum and claim conformance. If less than WCAG 2, this would hurt progress
16:29:44 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:29:58 <alastairc> q+ to suggest 'gating' rather than minumums, in general
16:30:07 <laura> ... Risks compliance stopping at the minimum and important needs being left out
16:30:19 <laura> ... Adds complexity and is more difficult to understand
16:30:42 <alastairc> ack Chuck
16:30:54 <laura> mg: minimum score may help improve accessibility.
16:31:23 <alastairc> ack alastairc
16:31:24 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest 'gating' rather than minumums, in general
16:31:40 <Ryladog> improved authentication will eventually help with that
16:31:46 <laura> chuck: could be a problem: site with one problem  area but rest of the site is great
16:32:16 <laura> ac: more issues a A that AA. Issue with gating
16:32:42 <laura> ... could have a way of progression.
16:32:44 <mbgower> q+ to say emphasis on user process can help offset what Chuck is pointing out
16:32:50 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:32:50 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say emphasis on user process can help offset what Chuck is pointing out
16:33:08 <Chuck> +1
16:33:12 <GreggVan> q+
16:33:23 <laura> mg: emphasis on user process could help mitigate issues.
16:33:42 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:34:49 <laura> gregg: worry that parts of a process may be critical but we leave them out.
16:35:02 <alastairc> TOPIC: Protocols
16:35:56 <laura> rm:  Being able to complete some kind of additional process (such as user testing) after testing to gain some type of additional credit
16:36:08 <laura> ... Allows reporting conformance on things that can’t be tested with high inter-rater reliability
16:36:19 <laura> ... May be easier for decision makers to understand and adopt based on their situations
16:36:27 <laura> ... May motivate orgs to go above minimum accessibility (and provide ways to do so)
16:36:35 <laura> ... Challenges to solve
16:36:43 <laura> ... How to reduce gaming of the system
16:36:52 <laura> ... Administrative burden for AG if more than just a few protocols are needed
16:37:03 <laura> ... Administrative burden for AG if more than just a few protocols are needed
16:37:08 <Ryladog> q+
16:37:38 <laura> ... solutions:
16:37:38 <alastairc> ack Ryladog
16:37:41 <laura> ... This could be done by affirmation
16:37:47 <Fazio> like our maturity model
16:38:07 <laura> katie: yesI SO 9000/9001  and  affirmation
16:38:30 <laura> ... what about pairing? whear does that fall?
16:38:38 <Rachael> q+ to answer
16:38:47 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:38:47 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer
16:38:50 <laura> ... should be extra points for it.
16:39:14 <laura> rm: good question. We should come back to it.
16:39:45 <Ryladog> Accessible Pairing
16:39:49 <laura> ac: Protocols is good way to extend confromace.
16:40:09 <laura> rm: different ways it could play.
16:40:29 <alastairc> q?
16:41:32 <sarahhorton> q+
16:41:33 <laura> ac: seems like a necessary thing to for funtional needs.
16:41:36 <alastairc> ack sarahhorton
16:42:22 <laura> sh: could provide hooks for regulators.
16:42:32 <alastairc> q+ to add example for broadcasters
16:43:05 <Ryladog> Pointing to existing other standards
16:43:05 <alastairc> ack me
16:43:05 <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to add example for broadcasters
16:43:22 <laura> ac: like the idea of provide hooks for regulators.
16:44:09 <laura> ... could be an extension.
16:44:17 <SuzanneTaylor> q+ to say that protocols could be as simple as triple A broken down into categories
16:44:21 <alastairc> ack SuzanneTaylor
16:44:21 <Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to say that protocols could be as simple as triple A broken down into categories
16:44:52 <laura> st: could be like WCAG AAA.
16:45:09 <Ryladog> +1
16:45:21 <laura> ... could encourage better accessibilty
16:45:35 <alastairc> TOPIC: Evaluating conformance proposals
16:45:56 <laura> rm: Requirements Document
16:46:16 <laura> Accessibility guidelines & Guidelines process.
16:46:32 <laura> ... we have metrics.
16:46:38 <alastairc> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cqnw0dw-xnEVJM7QSCAe9r9WyJNVkEPzgm9k8h4aSl4/edit#slide=id.gb3ceb32d61_0_33
16:47:00 <laura> ... Considerations for WCAG 3 Conformance
16:47:11 <laura> ... we ha 11 of them
16:48:11 <laura> ... we have "Additional Criteria to Evaluate Success" questions tha we are capturing.
16:48:21 <alastairc> q?
16:49:43 <laura> jk: another one to add: Is the proposed conformace model easy to understand?
16:50:32 <laura> rm: we need to figure out  2 or 3 options to explore.
16:50:58 <laura> ... need volunteers to write them up.
16:51:30 <laura> ... (gives examples of options)
16:51:44 <alastairc> Current slide: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yLYeNcybGxRu43KdrVUcOCL6iXsy6-gxl9-lbyr90dI/edit#slide=id.g1659f228417_0_0
16:52:24 <laura> ac: what would you do?
16:52:54 <GreggVan> q+
16:52:58 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:53:00 <laura> ... any questions?
16:53:26 <laura> gregg: Are you looking at global view?
16:53:44 <laura> ac: yes.
16:54:32 <mbgower> q+
16:54:40 <laura> ... Bronze Pass/Fail
16:54:54 <alastairc> ack mbgower
16:55:04 <laura> ... Silver Adjectival
16:55:23 <laura> ... Gold: Protocols
16:55:50 <laura> ac: this is a basic template you can work with.
16:55:56 <GreggVan> q+
16:55:58 <Rachael> q+
16:56:04 <alastairc> ack GreggVan
16:56:42 <laura> Gregg: try to take the whole of what we have and see if it will fit in the model
16:56:57 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:57:08 <laura> rm: 2 ways forward.
16:57:27 <laura> .. if you have a suggestion copy silde 34.
16:57:39 <alastairc> ack Rachael
16:57:45 <laura> ... then have intial conversations.
16:58:02 <SuzanneTaylor> q+
16:58:11 <alastairc> ack SuzanneTaylor
16:58:12 <laura> ac: any volunteers?
16:58:30 <laura> st: copy silde 34?
16:58:57 <laura> rm: yes. I'll make a new version.
16:59:16 <jaunita_george> Present+
16:59:17 <mbgower> Thanks for a great summary and exercise
16:59:21 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15ZoKbczXw3JIoyDxAxKtBG0sWMKnB6lqAnV4V9xVsoM/edit#slide=id.g165c944dd8c_0_17
16:59:44 <laura> ac: try the excercise.
16:59:51 <Francis_Storr>  present+
17:00:41 <alastairc> rrsagent, make minutes
17:00:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/11-ag-minutes.html alastairc
17:19:05 <Karen> Karen has joined #ag
17:24:36 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
17:36:35 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
17:36:49 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
18:11:46 <Jem> Jem has joined #ag
18:20:59 <jeanne2> jeanne2 has joined #ag
18:57:46 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
19:06:37 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
19:20:49 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
19:26:29 <Karen> Karen has joined #ag
19:27:40 <mbgower_> mbgower_ has joined #ag
19:27:42 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
20:15:17 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
20:16:45 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
20:51:11 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
21:20:51 <SuzanneTaylor> SuzanneTaylor has joined #ag
21:34:22 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
21:53:04 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:38:20 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #ag
22:51:13 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag
23:39:00 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #ag