Minutes of the Silver meeting of 14 August 2018

https://www.w3.org/2018/08/14-silver-minutes.html

Text of minutes:

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                 Silver Community Group Teleconference

14 Aug 2018

Attendees

   Present
          jeanne, KimD, Jan, jemma, LuisG, MichaelC,
          AngelaAccessForAll, shari, kirkwood, mikeCrabb, Lauriat,
          Imelda, Jeremy, Charles

   Regrets

   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          LuisG

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Process review post-WCAG 2.1
         2. [4]Prioritized prototyping projects
         3. [5]Conformance model prototypes
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

Process review post-WCAG 2.1

   Shawn: Just want to make sure everyone was aware of first
   topic. Email was sent out to main list soliciting feedback
   about process of creating WCAG 2.1 and how it works.

   <Lauriat> Survey:
   [8]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/processfeedback/

      [8] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/processfeedback/

   <Charles> I have “You are not allowed to see this
   questionnaire.”

   <Cyborg> i can't get access to the survey. or how to contact
   them. or the questions.

   <Cyborg> and the questions too?

   Shawn: In order to take it, you need to have W3C account and
   only those identified as participants of the WCAG working group
   can do it, but there is an email you can send feedback to. So
   if you tried working with the WG before, you can send something
   to that email. I'll send it to everyone in our group.

   <Lauriat> Question 1: Feedback on current decision policy

   <Lauriat> Question 2: Feedback on Techniques and Understanding
   document development process

   <Cyborg> Can we see links to their current decision policy or
   techniques and document development process?

   <Lauriat> Link to the email describing things:
   [9]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JulSep/0
   063.html

      [9] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JulSep/0063.html

Prioritized prototyping projects

   Shawn: The goal around this is to focus on prototypes we want
   to make solid and have testing done before TPAC in October.
   Spending time on things we can do before then and not other
   things.

   Cyborg: Can we list the prototypes underway?

   <Lauriat> List of prototypes:
   [10]https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/index.html

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

   <Charles>
   [11]https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/master/prototypes/index.html

     [11] https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/master/prototypes/index.html

   <Lauriat> Phase 3: Project Plan
   [12]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10p-8-v-XqRllBaX_eTi
   XXvyyDYeft8GRiN3_11V3U0w/edit#gid=0

     [12] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10p-8-v-XqRllBaX_eTiXXvyyDYeft8GRiN3_11V3U0w/edit#gid=0

   Charles: I think the Table 4 prototype is worth working on.
   That need is developed first without disability and guidance is
   provided starting with simple and then technical. Ex. Problem:
   User can't hear; outline solution without saying
   deaf/deafness/hard-of-hearing.

   Kelsey: What is the reason we're not naming the disability?

   Charles: It's the most inclusive way to identify a problem and
   a solution to the problem.

   <Lauriat>
   [13]https://chaals.github.io/proto-silver/atc18/videoAccessibil
   ity.html

     [13] https://chaals.github.io/proto-silver/atc18/videoAccessibility.html

   <Charles> [14]https://codepen.io/hallmedia/pen/zWpoEd

     [14] https://codepen.io/hallmedia/pen/zWpoEd

   Shawn: It might help to stack rant our prototypes.
   ... homepage design and standards for naming tagging can
   probably go below Information Architecture
   ... Plain language should stay pretty high priority

   Cyborg: Don't know if that's been updated.

   Shawn: I think the sheet itself hasn't, but on Github...it's
   marked as out of date.

   AngelaAccessForAll: Talked to Jeanne; we should have an update
   for that by Friday.

   Shawn: Order we have at the moment - Plain Language
   Translation, Information Architecture and Conformance Model;
   below is standards for naming/tagging and homepage design
   (waiting on IA, but want to involve information outreach group
   on this); other tasks below about personas and resolving
   conflicts. More things to do once we get information
   architecture and conformance model solidified.

   Cyborg: Flavor seems to be missing. I could put something
   together related to involvement of PWD

   Shawn: Anything else we need to chat about related to
   prioritizing prototype projects?

Conformance model prototypes

   Shawn: okay, let's move on

   Cyborg: LuisG and I went through a couple of changes to the
   conformance model. No conclusion. A few aspects we have
   agreement is integrating P1 and P2 into a new P1 that doesn't
   make assumption of one disability over another.
   ... planning to do quick survey of PWD to get sites that are
   friendly/unfriendly to see if we can do some pretesting of a
   conformance model on those to make sure the scoring would be
   consistent with that.
   ... try to get perspective of PWD, have reached out to some
   people this morning and gotten some interesting responses.

   <Charles> we have a Conformance survey and report with some of
   that answered

   <Charles> Conformance survey report:
   [15]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iOut3_i1JBQu5_16plZ8u7x
   Cd66T4TbW2zPR1KmWWF4/edit?usp=sharing

     [15] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iOut3_i1JBQu5_16plZ8u7xCd66T4TbW2zPR1KmWWF4/edit?usp=sharing

   Cyborg: We also discussed if user testing should be involved in
   the scale of automated testing/manual testing/user testing for
   where issues should be found. Maybe including PWD in its own
   category related to involvement of PWD.

   Thanks, Charles :)

   <kirkwood> letting people know that there is a process. beyond
   an accessibility statement but possibly a point of contact for
   accessibility issues. or state the process? a thought

   <Charles> +1 to the value of those criteria. however, they seem
   like items that are fairly difficult to prove in order to be
   measured.

   <kirkwood> “how handling feedback” is a great point, i think.
   and getting points for it

   <KimD> +1 this is great

   <Lauriat> +1

   <Charles> the accessibility statement then has to be verified?
   anyone can claim they include PWD in design and testing.

   <Charles> In the Accessibility Action Plan I wrote for my
   agency, I describe the statement as such: statements should:
   acknowledge the importance of and an intent / desire to be
   accessible; cite the steps taken and ongoing effort; express
   desire to hear of and methods to alert website administrator or
   accessibility coordinator of issues with a timeframe for
   response; be prominently located.

   Shawn: Looking forward to doing assessments with this kind of
   conformance model and whether this lines up with the experience
   of PWD.
   ... if we don't have more to talk about on conformance, let's
   return to the tangent...
   ... what do people think of having guidelines that are process
   based?
   ... We have things around actually doing user testing / actual
   "butts in seats" testing.
   ... it doesn't mean people will listen to it, but if they do,
   they'll see the issues that testing would highlight.

   Kelsey: In my work experience, if the organization doesn't have
   history of fixing their site for a11y, there is a learning
   curve where they need to interpret the guidelines and how it
   applies.
   ... I think the agency understanding how the guidelines apply
   to them and having to enforce them would encourage companies to
   apply the guidelines.

   <jemma> rrsagents, make miniutes

   Shawn: Including accessibility in the design phase before
   development is one thing.

   Charles: I have an entire action plan for process. One things
   that comes up quite a bit from Lainey is that contracts should
   be explicit to identify who is responsible for accessibility.
   If it's not on paper, it's no one's responsibility.

   <Kelsey> Another idea: include accessibility in the Agile
   process

   Shawn: This would be great for consideration for the
   Conformance Declaration work.

   <kirkwood> publicly state there is a person/position in
   accessibility title in the company. Accessibility Director?

   Jan: Some companies have high level of accessibility and are
   opposed to losing points for not having third party testing
   done.
   ... I like what you said about preferring 3rd party evaluation,
   but am aware of the perception of paying them off.

   Shawn: Yeah, there isn't a consulting company big enough to
   evaluate all of a large companies products.

   <Charles> Back to the project plan (other tasks and groups),
   re: personas – please see previous doc, Insight vs Persona:
   [16]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HsXvxtE9KUeJDQlTlUHybhK
   pszBCE5Hgg-Xr-lAtTW4/edit?usp=sharing

     [16] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HsXvxtE9KUeJDQlTlUHybhKpszBCE5Hgg-Xr-lAtTW4/edit?usp=sharing

   <Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]