W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > August 2018

Minutes of the Silver meeting of 3 August 2018

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 16:36:57 -0400
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <dc5fa798-cf47-74c9-b79e-97d77ed5bb08@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted version of minutes:

Text of Minutes:


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

03 Aug 2018


           jeanne, KimD, Jan, jemma, LuisG, MichaelC,
           AngelaAccessForAll, shari, kirkwood





      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Continue discussion on the Conformance prototype
          2. [4]Looking for outside prototypes or more prototypes
          3. [5]Continue discussion on the Conformance prototype
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions

    [8]http://www.lflegal.com/2018/05/wai-eowg/ - write-up on the

       [8] http://www.lflegal.com/2018/05/wai-eowg/


       [9] https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/ConformancePrototype/index.html

Continue discussion on the Conformance prototype

    Jeanne: We were talking about the conformance model on Tuesday
    and I think we were talking about the point system

    Luis: We were talking about different point systems for
    different types of web sites ....

    <jemma> [10]https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-silver-minutes.html

      [10] https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-silver-minutes.html

    Luis: brought up heuristic evaluation

    <jemma> luis is sharing the meeting minutes from this Tuesday.

    <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask if points are assigned to
    types of tests, specific SC, context in site, etc. and to ask
    how points mapped to levels

    Michael: How do we decide what tests give points - can you get
    double points if you test one thing in two ways? How is it
    mapped out?

    Jeanne: We haven't mapped out how the points will be awarded
    ... at AccessU, people were suggesting that you would have
    blocks so that you had to have points in each block that were
    roughly equivalent to the major guidelines or principles.
    ... this was to keep people from stacking up points in one area
    to the detriment of other areas
    ... we have not talked about people testing things in two
    different ways to get points

    Michael: One scenario as a thought experiment, what if you had
    a site that had a lot of images and you get points for alt
    text, but you still can't complete the form, but you have
    enough points that the site passes without actually being
    accessible. Does the point take into account context like that,
    and since it's so site specific, how would that work?

    Luis: We don't have all of that worked out yet. Where I work,
    we have internal score cards that separate out the
    responsibilities by group. For example, we give you points for
    the first 5 alt text - we assume that you have the points and
    then we take away from those points. There are different ways
    of dealing with this.

    Michael: Some of the answers you are giving, but it would be
    nice to have it written down. My next question is how to map
    the numbers?

    Luis: We have not really gotten into the details of what the
    scoring system will be.

    Jeanne: We would like to do a full example to show how the
    points would work and how things would map to a different
    ... I need some help on this to devote to the document.

    <kirkwood> OpenAir

    Luis: I am willing to help and just need to set up some time to
    work on it.

    Jan: Maybe include Sharron Rush because of her Accessible
    Internet Rally

    <kirkwood> Can u forward on their rating sys?

    Isabel: I would like to be in the loop on this as well -
    particularly around the potential risk of scoring and its
    misuse. The worry I have is that if someone scores well and
    then gets complaints about a11y and then they use their score
    as an excuse not to address the complaints.

    Luis: My experience has been that scores are good for
    communicating to teams. The way you use the scores is important
    - it gives you a way to demonstrate that there is still work to
    be done. In terms of compliance, I would be concerned about
    using a score for compliance.

    Jeanne: Why?

    Luis: Because of some of the concerns that we have raised here.
    One score is not necessarily going to tell you how accessible
    something is. In Open AIR, you can get bonus points for doing
    video and audio. So, while that's good, it might not be
    relevant to the accessibility of the core content and purpose
    of the page.

    Jeanne: What if we only had bonus points apply to upper levels
    and say that the base, bronze level would require basic a11y

    Luis: Yes, but it can still get complicated; we have things
    weighted in our system (e.g. active image vs. image that does
    not convey meaning)

    Michael: Two additional thoughts: Aligning scoring with
    conformance (they don't necessarily map); Subjectivity, which I
    see in the prototype (human testable) - I am not sure that
    there is a completely objective reality, so how can we avoid
    subjectivity ... especially with a point system?

    Jeanne: I thought that table 5 dealt with that well. They had
    ideas on how to put subjectivity in the block so that you could
    still measure without it necessarily being precise. That would
    work at the individual test level, but not necessarily at the
    scoring level.

    Michael: I am also concerned about incomplete knowledge.

    Luis: Yes, people might disagree on how many points something
    is worth.

    Isabel: Two examples: One ... sites by transportation companies
    have root planners that conform to WCAG, but the root planners
    are really hard to understand and I have been told that it's a
    usability issue and not an accessibility issue; Second -
    LinkedIn is linear and can create barriers for people with
    disabilities - it highlights gaps in employment and none of
    that gets addressed; they can get a great score, but their
    design is affecting PWD
    ... how many SCs are evidence based and how many are based on
    the needs of people with disabilities (PWD)
    ... scoring can misrepresent the reality on the ground
    ... how are we going to get feedback from PWD and how to
    quantify that?

    Jeanne: Any ideas on how to solve these?

    Isabel: I don't have any ideas for solutions right now. The
    first thing that comes to mind is that it would be good to
    consult PWD and do co:design on the conformance model with them
    so that it's not imposed from the outside. Also, just having
    more discussions of what evidence-based means and having
    conversations with people who have had these issues in other

    Jeanne: Do you think we need to involve PWD at this phase more?
    We have PWD as part of this group. I originally pictured that
    we would refine things a bit more before we sought more
    ... generally, people do better when they have something they
    can comment on, rather than coming up with something from

    Isabel: I have one more suggestion: If there are edge cases of
    things that we want to have run through the conformance point
    model that are difficult in terms of risk - perhaps we could
    create a prototype around those issues so that when we go to
    PWDs for feedback, we get feedback on the risks as well as the
    conformance solution and scoring system.

    Jeanne: I would rather put our focus on how to do good, rather
    than how to prevent bad. We have to look at the unintended
    consequences of what we do, but we should approach this about
    serving the intended audiences better, rather than making this
    system airtight to prevent cheating.
    ... I think the point system gives us flexibility to change
    things in response to problems that get identified.
    ... One of the problems that came up at the design sprint was
    the concern of never meeting WCAG due to how frequently the
    site updates and the model is too static web-oriented. We can
    consider having a static web point system and a different
    system for dynamic, complex sites that have unique needs.

    Luis: One quick note about the conformance being more fluid ...
    in WCAG, the conformance is in the main WCAG document. Do we
    need to have a normative scoring system in the main spec?

    Michael: My recollection is that, at the time, there was an
    emphasis on specification quality and one things that had to be
    included was a conformance section.
    ... that then led to checklists that were primarily focused on
    technical specifications.

    Jeanne: I do think that we want to have a conformance section
    because we want WCAG to be referenced in policy, but hopefully
    we can determine how some of it can be normative and some of it
    could be adaptable to changes that need to be made.

    Michael: We do have the requirement that you can prove that
    something is implementable and you have to have a conformance
    section for that.

    Luis: One of the goals for Silver was for it to be more
    evergreen and more easily updateable. Do we want the
    nonnormative parts to be easily updatable, or do we also want
    the normative parts to be updateable?

    Jeanne: We don't have an answer to that yet.

    Michael: Although I said that conformance was included in large
    part for procedural reasons, it has been used for integrating
    into policy, so it may be difficult to move people away from
    using that.

    Jeanne: We want to have a conformance section.

    Michael: If we try to make it less overbearing, people may
    complain that it is not specific enough.

Looking for outside prototypes or more prototypes

    <jeanne> [11]https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/index.html

      [11] https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/index.html

    Jeanne: I did an update the silver prototypes list
    ... I added a new section called the "external accessibility
    guidance or prototypes"

    <jeanne> [12]http://intopia.digital/pdf/WCAG2_1Map.pdf

      [12] http://intopia.digital/pdf/WCAG2_1Map.pdf

    Jeanne: I added the WCAG Techniques Finder and the BBC
    guidelines and Intopia's WCAG 2.1 map

    <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask about smoothing
    subjectivity and to align scoring with conformance

Continue discussion on the Conformance prototype


      [13] https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/FlavorPrototype/site/index.html


      [14] https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfmXR8mR7-XZ9b0s9bWJgjEvSbCyIgv19KYEw8DdRnLfQAVpQ/viewform

    Jeanne: I was asked to address the Survey Questions of the
    Flavor's Prototyp during Tuesday's meeting - I did this in a
    Google Form; there are not a lot of questions on this, but
    please look at the questions.

    Isabel: The tabs themselves - there seem to be a lot of tabs.

    Jeanne: Yes, we need to get some testers in the Flavors

    <jemma> +q regarding "Should you be able to see the tabs that
    have no information? Should they be disabled, or hidden?"

    <jemma> +q

    Luis: The page I get to when I choose to "access the prototype"
    doesn't have any tabs

    Jeanne: So, we need more instructions for how to get there.

    Luis: What counts as "core information" and what counts as
    "technical information"
    ... I don't see anything on the prototype that addresses those

    Jeanne: The general information tab was the "core information"
    but I will fix that. Tab under the developer was the static
    web, dynamic web, aria, flash, etc.

    Luis: Technical is the development stuff and everything else is

    Jeanne: Yes

    <jemma> my question is about understaning the context of "no
    information". why is there a tab in the first place if there is
    no info? or is this just a question about the micro level user
    interface design, diabled or hidden?

    Jeanne: what we are going is putting general information at the
    same level as the technical information so that you don't have
    to drill down to the techniques.

    Luis: so is the question about separating core from technical?

    Jeanne: Yes, we could compare this design to the current WCAG
    design where the techniques are listed as a link.
    ... I could use the Silverlight example.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions
Received on Friday, 3 August 2018 20:37:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:43 UTC