IRC log of silver on 2023-02-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:54:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver
14:54:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:54:35 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:54:36 [Zakim]
Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
14:59:03 [JenStrickland]
JenStrickland has joined #silver
15:00:36 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver
15:00:58 [Chuck]
Chuck has joined #silver
15:05:01 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #silver
15:05:10 [maryjom]
15:05:19 [Azlan]
15:06:10 [janina]
janina has joined #silver
15:06:15 [jeanne]
agenda+ Next week in AGWG
15:06:18 [jeanne]
agenda+ overview of the two Conformance Options
15:06:18 [jeanne]
agenda+ start adapting Error Prevention to the two options
15:06:22 [janina]
15:06:29 [Chuck]
scribe: Chuck
15:06:37 [jeanne]
regrets: Shawn
15:06:50 [JenStrickland]
15:06:51 [Chuck]
jspellman: Next week in AGWG...
15:07:09 [Chuck]
zakim, take up item 1
15:07:10 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Preview of Tuesday's AG WG call -- taken up [from jeanne]
15:07:14 [jeanne]
Email -
15:07:44 [Chuck]
jspellman: There will be a culture update, and a full draft review survey from last week, hopefully most answered. That's followed by WCAG 2 issues.
15:07:57 [Chuck]
jspellman: This group should review the survey for next week, guideline grouping survey.
15:08:31 [Chuck]
jspellman: The guideline grouping is an idea that a # of us had and worked on, trying to build on the grouping work we did many times over the past years.
15:08:55 [Chuck]
jspellman: We are trying to group by expertise so that we can invite appropriate experts to participate and help develop the guidelines. This is to group by areas of expertise.
15:09:07 [Chuck]
jspellman: If you have ideas of experts that should be invited, please include in comments or send to chairs.
15:09:16 [Chuck]
jspellman: <transcripts>
15:09:29 [JenStrickland]
15:09:36 [Azlan]
Should I have access to that grouping survey too? Currently I do not
15:10:03 [Chuck]
Jen: On the guidelines grouping survey, I don't have permissions.
15:10:10 [Chuck]
15:10:17 [Chuck]
ack Jen
15:10:22 [Azlan]
Ok this now works for me
15:10:46 [Azlan]
15:11:05 [Chuck]
ack Ch
15:11:43 [Chuck]
15:12:48 [Chuck]
zakim, take up item 2
15:12:48 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Map out writing placeholder content -- taken up [from jeanne]
15:13:00 [Chuck]
zakim, close item 2
15:13:00 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Map out writing placeholder content, closed
15:13:01 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:13:01 [Zakim]
3. Next week in AGWG [from jeanne]
15:13:08 [Chuck]
zakim, close item 3
15:13:08 [Zakim]
agendum 3, Next week in AGWG, closed
15:13:08 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:13:08 [Zakim]
4. overview of the two Conformance Options [from jeanne]
15:13:10 [Chuck]
zakim, take up item 4
15:13:10 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- overview of the two Conformance Options -- taken up [from jeanne]
15:13:29 [jeanne]
Scoring Options ->
15:13:34 [Chuck]
jspellman: Here's link to scoring options. We'll review for those who have not followed in AG.
15:14:00 [Chuck]
jspellman: Some of this is my interpretation. The options need more details. We will form a small group to work out the details.
15:14:12 [Chuck]
jspellman: Let's first review the different options for scoring. This is going to have an impact on us.
15:14:41 [Chuck]
jspellman: And what we do next. We will be taking on the work that Sarah, Todd and Suzanne did on error prevention, and adapt that work to these new conformance proposals.
15:15:05 [Chuck]
jspellman: We can actually prototype what the guidelines could look like in this format, and validate whether or not the options will work for a complex and in depth guideline.
15:15:42 [Chuck]
jspellman: Chairs recommended we did error prevention. A lot has already been done, and because it's complex, we think this is a good test to review the options and determine what needs to be changed.
15:15:45 [shadi]
shadi has joined #silver
15:15:53 [shadi]
15:16:10 [Chuck]
jspellman: The first option is similar to today, outcomes are scored pass/fail. Some include methods that are not required. These are best practice. These are stricter for determining passing.
15:16:18 [Chuck]
jspellman: This impacts bronze/silver/gold. In option 1...
15:16:28 [shadi]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:16:28 [RRSAgent]
15:17:03 [Chuck]
jspellman: In option 1, everything has to pass bronze. At least 50% of best practice needs to pass. For silver and gold they have higher passing for best practices.
15:17:09 [Chuck]
jspellman: That's a rough number for now.
15:18:01 [Chuck]
jspellman: For option 2. Outcomes will score pass/fail/exemplary. Exemplary has stricter requirements. You have to pass Silver, 50% have to pass 'exemplary'.
15:18:12 [Chuck]
jspellman: Not too much work to have 2 different versions for each options. Any questions?
15:18:24 [Chuck]
Janina: Are we still thinking page model?
15:18:47 [shadi]
15:19:02 [Azlan]
q+ to ask is there significant difference between "exemplary" and "best practice"?
15:19:06 [Chuck]
jspellman: That circles back to the new survey for guidelines structures. What we suggested as an option... WCAG 2 today, guidelines are structured by disability needs... but outcomes of sc are very technology solution based.
15:19:24 [Chuck]
jspellman: What we were thinking for WCAG 3, we start with user needs. The solutions will be user need driven.
15:19:58 [Chuck]
jspellman: I thought it would be easier to organize guidelines by how they are used. Flipping disability orientation on how guidelines are developed. How they are actually used by designers, users, testers.
15:20:25 [Chuck]
jspellman: There's still the disability orientation at the base. Highest level of organization: Entire site? Component? View? Or a user process?
15:20:57 [Chuck]
jspellman: I'm very interested in peoples ideas about this, but we should keep in mind that this is temporary. When we put this out to the public, we want it to be tagged so that people can sort and filter the way they need it.
15:21:21 [Chuck]
jspellman: It's not that this organization is permanent. Alastair says is that every org is right and people can use every organization, this time it's by expertise.
15:21:40 [Chuck]
jspellman: It's not by page. Maybe entire site, view, component...
15:21:50 [Chuck]
jspellman: and finally user process.
15:22:16 [Chuck]
Janina: Can I poke at this some more? I have APA based questions. I'm curious as how the plan for conformance gets logged. Especially if we make it machine readable.
15:22:51 [Chuck]
Janina: I'm thinking of advertising... there's the attempt coming from long standing community group to set up a user group. APA wants to ensure we don't start flashing in an add, or keyboard trap.
15:23:09 [Chuck]
Janina: You can't test every add against every page... to high a load. So what is a reasonable process?
15:23:33 [Chuck]
Janina: The best suggestion out of APA.... whatever you include in advertizing does not lower conformance, provided you have machine readable claims.
15:23:59 [Chuck]
Janina: Advertising is paid, this is how the web is funded. For accessibility reasons, you may need to go with a cheaper add and avoid the add that includes flashing.
15:24:39 [Chuck]
jspellman: It's a real issue. I would say that my personal opinion, that isn't necessarily tennable. The owner of the site has no control.
15:24:44 [Chuck]
Janina: This will always be 3rd party.
15:25:00 [Chuck]
jspellman: I think we have to address in 3rd party of conformance. I don't see how we address this.
15:25:02 [Chuck]
15:25:04 [maryjom]
15:25:16 [Chuck]
ack Shadi
15:25:39 [Chuck]
q+ Shadi
15:25:45 [Chuck]
ack q+ Azlan
15:25:48 [Chuck]
ack Azlan
15:25:48 [Zakim]
Azlan, you wanted to ask is there significant difference between "exemplary" and "best practice"?
15:25:52 [Chuck]
q+ Azlan
15:26:20 [Chuck]
ack Ch
15:26:49 [Chuck]
MaryJom: If you have flashing content, it has to take up more real estate, can be handled to decrease size of adds.
15:26:53 [Chuck]
15:26:59 [Chuck]
jspellman: Flashing is just a small part.
15:27:13 [Chuck]
Chuck to add to chairs discussion.
15:27:22 [Chuck]
ack maryjo
15:27:32 [Chuck]
ack Shadi
15:28:26 [Chuck]
Shadi: I am trying to understand, there are 2 levels of outcomes. One at outcome level, and one for conformance level, aggregated. But aggregated is also in the other one.
15:28:54 [Chuck]
Shadi: I like the current approach of separating outcome levels. Pass/Fail/(maybey exemplary), and take out of aggregation for now.
15:29:00 [Chuck]
Shadi: Trying to get clarity.
15:29:22 [maryjom]
15:29:28 [Chuck]
jspellman: This is good. AGWG had a meeting where different proposals for different conformance models were proposed. There were 5, group agreed to pursue 2.
15:29:59 [Chuck]
jspellman: When the 2 proposals were moved to the editors draft, they were split into 2 sections. Option 1 pass/fail in scoring comes from same proposal as option pass/fail in 6.2.1
15:30:12 [Chuck]
jspellman: Option 2 pass/fail/exemplary is same proposal in conformance levels.
15:30:48 [Chuck]
jspellman: Rachael and I took the 2 proposals and inserted them into editors draft. They are in 2 different places, but they are the same 2 proposals. Does that address question?
15:31:10 [Chuck]
Shadi: That helps clarify, I do see in each there are 2 options. What are we discussing right now? When I came in we were talking through working through an example.
15:31:18 [Chuck]
Shadi: For error prevention.
15:31:24 [Chuck]
Shadi: Is it just for the outcome?
15:31:44 [Chuck]
Shadi: Or is it to look at the aggregation?
15:32:15 [Chuck]
jspellman: We will do both, that's where we are going. we will start by building the model we've been working on for several weeks, taking the existing writing process and aligning with maturity levels AGWG approved.
15:32:58 [Chuck]
jspellman: We are going to take existing work we have for error prevention, and build through the process, do 2 options: pass/fail and pass/fail/exemplary. Along way we will try and build a prototype of all things AGWG has agreed to.
15:33:11 [Chuck]
jspellman: The 2 options are the proposals of 2 options that the group decided to pursue first.
15:33:37 [Chuck]
jspellman: We need to prototype this. It's nice to have opinions, but you don't know until you build it. That's what we are going to do.
15:33:52 [Chuck]
jspellman: I don't think it's a lot of work, but we'll find out.
15:34:02 [Chuck]
Shadi: I like the separation of what you and Rachael did.
15:34:29 [Chuck]
Shadi: Outcomes, definitions of how to write requirements, confromance levels and how to aggregate... I like this approach.
15:34:41 [Chuck]
jspellman: I think the 2 options are solid, but soooo high level.
15:34:42 [Chuck]
15:35:09 [Chuck]
jspellman: They don't address (yet)... if you have a lot of images, what's passing? 20 images, 100? 95%? What's passing?
15:35:18 [Chuck]
jspellman: We need to move into details.
15:35:24 [Chuck]
ack Az
15:35:46 [janina]
Speaking of images, Comcast/Xfinity has begun advertising the "10Gb Internet"
15:36:01 [Chuck]
Azlan: I noticed, we've got a definition for best practice. I didn't see that for exemplary. To be able to discuss the 2 options, I may have missed this. What is the significant different between best practice and exemplary?
15:36:29 [Chuck]
jspellman: I think structural. Option 2 proposal has exemplary built into each method. Every single method would have fail, pass, exemplary.
15:36:57 [Chuck]
jspellman: Option 1 has methods that are required, and has methods that are best practices. Captions for example. Everyone agrees that captions have to exist, that will be under both proposals.
15:37:57 [Chuck]
jspellman: Option 2 says that if the captions are open and can be customized by the user, and accessible to braille, that would get "exemplary". Option 1 would day that you have a method that you must have coptions, and a best practices method... and your closed captions are customizable to braille users.
15:38:07 [Chuck]
jspellman: One is built into method, and the other is optional.
15:38:18 [janina]
Thinking Exemplary: Send me only the alt, not the actual images ...
15:39:06 [Chuck]
Azlan: I think I understand. In one option there is a single method and there are 3 possibilities... pass, fail... exemplary (higher level than pass). And the other option is that one method is pass/fail, and a second method to gain higher than passing result. Is that correct?
15:39:11 [Chuck]
jspellman: Yes.
15:39:28 [Chuck]
jspellman: Option 1 is closer to A, AA and AAA model. We know from research that this has challenges.
15:39:44 [Chuck]
jspellman: We need to figure out, show data to determine how well it works, and demonstrate why and why not.
15:40:16 [jeanne]
15:40:16 [Chuck]
jspellman: And show where it doesn't work. If all needs of a user group fall into best practices, we are repeating the same challenge.
15:41:01 [Chuck]
jspellman: I set up a new doc for error prevention, and I started with placeholder. Here's a label.
15:41:09 [jeanne]
New Error Prevention draft ->
15:42:16 [Chuck]
This now becomes a working session that does not require scribing....
15:44:25 [jeanne]
3.3.3 Analysis ->
15:44:41 [jeanne]
3.3.4 Analysis ->
15:50:08 [JenStrickland]
Apologies, I'm trying to digest it all.
15:51:02 [shadi]
+1 to MaryJo
15:57:01 [jeanne]
Error Prevention Guideline Draft (2021) ->
16:00:05 [Azlan]
Also need to drop for a meeting
16:02:03 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:02:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate jeanne
16:02:40 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver
16:03:13 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver
16:59:42 [kirkwood]
kirkwood has joined #silver
19:37:57 [janina]
janina has left #silver