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

Minutes of the Silver meeting of 7 December 2018

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:59:45 -0500
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bc135652-1c5c-36c8-6d97-d8aac51b1289@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted minutes:

Text of Minutes:


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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

07 Dec 2018


           LuisG, Cyborg, KimD, Makoto, jeanne, Shawn, Jennison,
           Angela, MikeCrabb, Charles, AngelaAccessForAll,
           kirkwood, Lauriat, JF, shari, johnkirkwood, Scott,
           Cooley, scottcooley


           Jeanne, Shawn



      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]holiday schedule
          2. [4]Working on the draft of the conformance prototype
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions

holiday schedule

    Jeanne: Can we agree on our Holiday schedules? Christmas is on
    a Tuesday, so I would assume we wouldn't have meetings on the
    25th and Jan 1, but would we meet on the 21st and 28th.

    <jeanne> No meeting on 28.

Working on the draft of the conformance prototype

    Lauriat: We could just ask folk on the Tuesday before.

    Jeanne: Let's plan to meet and then ask on the Tuesday before.


       [7] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit

    Jeanne: Around when WCAG was published, W3C dropped the
    conformance requirements. They kept it in WCAG since it was
    already done.
    ... That said, we want to do conformance because WCAG is used
    in regulations. And people need to show that they meet the
    ... what we've been thinking for conformance is a larger
    picture of conformance. I took some time to take what was in
    our slide deck and update it based on conversations we've had.
    ... I want to go through to it make sure I've put it in here

    Lauriat: When we were talking about heuristic evaluation, I
    don't think we need a catch all method to go along with it
    ... I'm not totally confident about it, but that's what I'm
    feeling at this point
    ... I can't think of a way to implement it that would just be
    restating of the guideline

    Charles: What about technology agnostic? At the beginning we
    say that methods are technology specific. If there are 5
    technology specific methods is there room for a technology
    agnostic method?

    Lauriat: I don't think so but the opposite might work. A
    technology specific catch all method.

    Charles: Does that suggest the methods outside of this are not
    only tech specific, but implementation specific?

    Lauriat: I think that's the direction we were going.

    Charles: So method is almost synonymous with implementation.
    How you did it.

    Lauriat: It was almost like the current techniques.

    scottcooley: Sounds like methods are synonymous with "how to"
    regardless of technology

    Charles: I think it was specific to technology though

    Jeanne: They're the Silver equivalent of the techniques;
    although we anticipate some of the existing success criteria
    will become methods since they're technology specific.
    ... the guidelines are the technology agnostic advice
    ... and the methods are how to do it

    scottcooley: So there may be several methods to satisfy a

    Jeanne: ... yes

    Charles: Do we need to identify what technology means within
    ... technology seems to imply content technology and not
    delivery technology

    Lauriat: Maybe earlier than what I originally thought, but
    don't need to identify that yet
    ... I think we're thinking more of...things that are different
    enough that they would warrant having separate methods or
    ... like "a website" "a web application might be
    different..."VR" would definitely be different

    Cyborg: How does IoT fit into that? Or would that be a

    Lauriat: Maybe a category, but this is where the lines blur a

    Charles: Because we know it's on the horizon and we need to
    define; does the statement "methods are technology specific"
    hold true?

    Jeanne: We're getting in the weeds a little bit, so let's move

    Lauriat: I've made a note in the doc so we don't lose track of
    this thread.

    stevelee, we're looking at this doc right now

       [8] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.6oetdyu21wzd

    Jeanne: The points system, we worked on this right after TPAC.
    One of the issues was that it's too easy to game, so we talked
    about ways to reduce the harm of gaming.
    ... in each category of user need, someone needs to get points
    in that category. There would be a minimum for Bronze, Silver,
    Gold in each category. There's a diagram of a hypothetical

    JF: I'm still worried about points attached to methods. You
    might be able to do a test that gets you a lot of test but not
    address all the needs.
    ... what about a minimum number of tests that need to be

    Jeanne: We had talked about this about the interference SCs.
    Saying those would need to be required.

    JF: I can see that as a "minimum tests that must be done and
    you must score X"

    Lauriat: For the points sytems basics, I see different category
    of user needs and points in each level, but don't understand
    the connection between points and bronze silver gold

    Jeanne: They're arbitrary and they're just demonstrating that
    the points don't need to be the same for each category.

    Charles: So this is basically a scoreboard of what you've ended
    up with.

    Lauriat: Why are there points at all? With the "you must get
    all bronze to get bronze" it seems how conformance works now
    for A, AA, AAA and it looks like we've renamed them

    JF: That kind of matches my understanding as well. For the
    categories there, you had to have a minimum number of tests for
    each disability type would give you the medal level.

    Charles: So the points might not be related to your conformance

    JF: They could be. Consider a VPAT where you usually provide a
    good amount detail. You could publish the points there.

    Charles: I'm concerned if you put actual earned points into
    public conformance claims, that's more bad behavior for gaming
    the system.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 7 December 2018 22:00:12 UTC

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