W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-act-r@w3.org > June 2021

Minutes of the joint ACT - Silver Testing meetings of 7 June and 14 June 2021

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:37:19 -0400
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>, ACT public list <public-act-r@w3.org>
Message-ID: <76dd3c01-af87-6f2c-29aa-9bc648551837@spellmanconsulting.com>
==Summary 7 June, 2021==

  * The proposals we worked on came from the conclusions of the Joint
    ACT-Silver-AGWG meetings in May.  They were developed by the Silver
    Conformance Testing subgroup.  The proposals take one WCAG3 Outcome
    from Structured Content, and one Method, Relevant Headings.
      o Proposal for including ACT definitions with Outcomes
        <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vsp1V2hBpU6Y0vNt-AGP-Y6fOxx1-IjoKgBJ_3bPlfg/>
      o Proposal for merging WCAG3 Method and ACT Rules
        <https://docs.google.com/document/d/19FaJF_9V1CayeO92OiPpUil9USOTJWOPLdfgcOIJ6Fw/>

  * The group discussed multiple ways of describing the actual outcome
    in plain language.  Several different proposals were discussed.
  * The group worked on Explanations of Terms (aka definitions, but
    framing them so they are specific to the Outcome and do not conflict
    with official W3C (and other) technical definitions.
  * The group listed examples of Exceptions to the Outcome.  We agreed
    that Exceptions belonged at the Outcome level, but realized that we
    may find examples that are appropriate to the Method (technology
    specific) level.  Descriptions need to be level specific, for
    example, that an H1 needed to be inclusive of the headings below
    it.  Because it is HTML specific, we tentatively decided to include
    it in the Method.

Minutes 7 June 2021 <https://www.w3.org/2021/06/07-wcag-act-minutes.html>

==Summary 14 June 2021==

  * The group reviewed homework from last week.  There were new
    proposals for phrasing the Outcomes in plain language.  The feedback
    from one plain language expert was that they were still difficult to
    parse.  Jeanne requested that the people interested in plain
    language phrasing of Outcomes start working on proposals together
    and include one of the plain language experts, because this is a
    plain language issue and not a testing issue.
  * The proposal from the homework for explaining the details of the
    outcome has 3 bullet points.  The group discussed whether each of
    the bullet points should be their own outcome.  We discussed pros
    and cons of making the outcomes more granular. It was noted that the
    initial feedback from the Mobile Accessibility Task Force that they
    wanted more granular outcomes.  The cons were worries about the
    acceptance of a very large number of outcomes and the usability. The
    pro was that it would be easier to teach and learn if each outcome
    was very clear and in plain language.  The straw poll was
    overwhelmingly in favor of a more granular outcome approach.  It
    should be noted that this group was largely comprised of testers and
    naturally would favor a tester-friendly approach.
  * Next Steps: The Silver Conformance Testing Subgroup is picking a
    more granular outcome and updating the Outcome and Method proposals
    to reflect a narrow outcome and will send it to the two lists.

Minutes June 14 2021 <https://www.w3.org/2021/06/14-wcag-act-minutes.html>
Received on Monday, 14 June 2021 17:38:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 14 June 2021 17:38:35 UTC