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

Minutes of the Silver meeting of 4 December 2018

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:05:57 -0500
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a2c0f0ea-54ad-179e-3f8a-d9618c64ef2d@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/12/04-silver-minutes.html


Text of minutes

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

04 Dec 2018

Attendees

    Present
           Charles, Lauriat, kirkwood, AngelaAccessForAll, JF,
           Makoto, KimD, Jeanne, Jennison

    Regrets
           Jennifer, MikeCrabb

    Chair
           Shawn, jeanne

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Conformance model working discussion (continued)
      * [4]Summary of Action Items
      * [5]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

Conformance model working discussion (continued)

    <kirkwood> agree with JF on sharing

    Jeanne: Michael Cooper thought we should start sharing the
    sketch of the conformance because we could use the feedback and
    help in figuring out the hard stuff.

    Minutes from where we left off:
    [6]https://www.w3.org/2018/11/30-silver-minutes.html

       [6] https://www.w3.org/2018/11/30-silver-minutes.html

    Shawn: How to reflect the an important image is broken.

    [7]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IK83Gfxz01zFWgNtaCWCL0Le
    Bqhu9DudyWp_IwovWc0/edit#heading=h.gbpelxi718we

       [7] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IK83Gfxz01zFWgNtaCWCL0LeBqhu9DudyWp_IwovWc0/edit#heading=h.gbpelxi718we

    <Lauriat>
    [8]https://docs.google.com/document/d/18JyGF-AK8Qgq7DPyVlDYmxoj
    6814rORxuCf0l0oSb7U/edit

       [8] https://docs.google.com/document/d/18JyGF-AK8Qgq7DPyVlDYmxoj6814rORxuCf0l0oSb7U/edit

    Method for Language of Page:
    [9]https://docs.google.com/document/d/18JyGF-AK8Qgq7DPyVlDYmxoj
    6814rORxuCf0l0oSb7U/edit#heading=h.6aa9aegss0ly

       [9] https://docs.google.com/document/d/18JyGF-AK8Qgq7DPyVlDYmxoj6814rORxuCf0l0oSb7U/edit#heading=h.6aa9aegss0ly

    Charles: Heuristic evaluations often still use the Nielsen
    scale developed in the 90s. It is a 1-10 scale that is scored
    for each page, then the overall score is tabluated and then
    recommendations for remediation are given.
    ... in Silver, it could be "It is understandable" so you would
    tell if every image is understandable and scale it as 1-10,
    then say anything over 5 passes
    ... Shawn: So in the example of the hotel booking site, the
    score for alternative test would score "with difficulty"
    because the stars don't have explanatory alt text.
    ... The other testing and results of those tests are the
    justification for the heuristic score, but the heuristic
    evaluation is conducted independently of that test.
    ... run the test to make sure that alt text exists

    <Lauriat> …Shawn: The heuristics would stay at a higher task
    level, with the applicable tests that apply given the
    technology and build up the justification of the heuristics
    score.

    <scribe> scribenick: jeanne

    Shawn: Someone who doesn't know what tests apply, have to run
    through a list of tests and select which tests are applicable.
    ... experienced people know the applicability of tests and go
    from the content or DOM down
    ... it's forming a framework of how people should think about
    heuristic evaluation and say that the heuristics may or may not
    apply.

    Charles: that's one way to approach it, what I'm suggesting is
    that we have a high level set of heuristics that is more like
    the Principles: Is it understandable, is it perceivable, etc.

    Shawn: Having the heuristics at the task level -- not linked
    directly to the tests -- but give people guidance of "this is
    what you need to think about when you are assessing it".

    Charles: A narrower set of heuristics help with the cost of
    testing
    ... should the higher level heuristics be Principle based or
    human modality based.
    ... should it be "everything interactive must be touchable".
    One heuristic can be the modality of touch, one can be modality
    of sight
    ... then we can account for an evaluation that has judged them
    all.
    ... this can be against the entire site once all the other
    modalities

    Jeanne: I would strongly recommend that we align with the EN
    301 549 and section 508 modalities, as people who conform to
    those standards already have to do that.

    Shawn: I think 1-10 is too granular. I think 1-4: Impossible,
    difficult, decent, awesome
    ... I want to have a scale that includes awesome, is that
    people keep asking for a scale where people can do better than
    "fine"

    JohnKirkwood: This is a problem that I run across. In the
    courtroom, that's where the problem with black-and-white
    accessible. A jury thinks: This is or is not equivalent for
    this community.
    ... it's not successful, it's equivalent for different groups
    of people.

    Charles: if the heuristics are human modality based, and we
    have a defined set of modalities to test against, and the
    subject of the evaluations should be a "separate but equal"
    site. We will not have "text-only" or accommodation sites.

    Jeanne: I agree with the sentiment, but there are problems with
    requiring that. For example, an organization who is being sued
    for lack of audio description in their courseware, but the
    platform doesn't support a video channel. The organization is
    making a separate set of videos with the audio description
    included in the main video channel.

    JohnKirkwood: I agree.

    John gave an example the scribe missed.

    Charles: How do we ensure that the evaluation is conducted
    against the main site.

    <kirkwood> for example some sites translate into 9 languages
    and legal precedent around it and ensure same experience. can
    look to as an example.

    <kirkwood> One thing that i feel missing is navigation, and
    task completion

    Jeanne: I think we still will need to have individual heuristic
    tests, especially for some of the cognitive disability needs.

    JOhnKirkwood: The Principle missing in WCAG is Navigable. It is
    keeping people out of the internet world because they are
    having a hard time navigating it.

    Charles: I think I have been asking myself: "Principles vs
    Modalities". I think the answer is both. There are principles
    but they are lacking some items.

    JohnKirkwood: With AR and VR, the way Silver will be
    transformational in the future, it will be the ability to get
    through information and to know where one is in the
    information.

    Jeanne: +1

    <kirkwood> dounds good

    Shawn: A good activity for Friday would be to sketch out an
    outline of Conformance and mark what is hand-wavy or has
    problems and go share it and ask for help.

    Charles: I will put together this list of heuristics, but I
    don't know how to fit it into conformance

    Jeanne: I will pull together the images and text from the
    different slide decks.

    <kirkwood> sorry my audio dropped

    Shawn: I started the document and will send out a link.

    <scribe> ACTION: Charles to create a list of heuristics

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-197 - Create a list of heuristics [on
    Charles Hall - due 2018-12-11].

    <scribe> ACTION: Jeanne to add information from slide decks to
    the new Conformance document.

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Add information from slide
    decks to the new conformance document. [on Jeanne F Spellman -
    due 2018-12-11].

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Charles to create a list of heuristics
    [NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to add information from slide decks to the
    new Conformance document.

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 16:06:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:44 UTC