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

Minutes of the Silver meeting of 14 December 2018

From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:05:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGQw2h=Xw+0DTGmTSpcE+zFSrbQQbhhqS6tXYaeNeg4g_1UDTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Formatted minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/12/14-silver-minutes.html

Text of Minutes:

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                 Silver Community Group Teleconference

14 Dec 2018

Attendees

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

   Regrets
          JohnFoliot

   Chair
          Jeanne, Shawn

   Scribe
          LuisG

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Point system/Levels & Conformance document
     * [4]Summary of Action Items
     * [5]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

Point system/Levels & Conformance document

   Lauriat: We had left off on Tuesday...we had talked through
   Bronze, Silver, Gold...how points would add up for each and
   then the points didn't matter for overall because the level
   would be determined the lowest of bronze, silver, or gold
   ... if you scores silver and gold in some categories, if you
   got bronze in one category, your overall score would be bronze
   since that's the lowest medal achieved in a category
   ... we were about to explore what kind of points scoring would
   we create to end up with bronze/silver/gold. for example,
   30/50/100 for the medals, respectively
   ... generally higher points means higher level
   ... we had talked about having more difficult or methods more
   beneficial to user be worth more points
   ... if we have, for example, 30/50/100 for the levels. When we
   add different methods for a guideline, how would we maintain
   the levels and how do we determine.

   Jeanne: One of the things JF said at the end of the meeting was
   setting a minimum test in each category that you must have and
   then have the level be your overall points
   ... so you had to do the minimum...it seems simpler and might
   be simpler to maintain

   Charles: I think it has merit, but still faces challenge that a
   large enterprise could earn a lot more points than a small
   private site with a couple of page

   Jeanne: only if you're scoring individual things. you wouldn't
   want to give points for each image that has alt text

   Lauriat: If you have just a page of text. Like a restaurant
   that just has a single page with their menu. A lot of tests
   won't apply.
   ... we had talked about the applicability of user needs or some
   tests

   Charles: will still have scenarios where some guidelines or
   methods or heuristic evaluations don't apply
   ... what happens if I have 9 gold and 1 bronze?

   Lauriat: We talked about the concept of beyond
   bronze/silver/gold if the user needs doesn't have anything that
   would ever come up. It wouldn't count against you.
   ... As a side note, in the conformance super drafty draft
   document, I made an addendum called "sketching things out" and
   I'm listing open questions
   ... we also wanted to award more points for organizations that
   do more extensive usability testing; for example with people
   with disabilities
   ... but the points system right now is around methods, how do
   we translate that?
   ... for instance, if you did usability testing with users with
   just one category of user need. then you could essentially get
   a boost in that user need category

   scottcooley: If they add heading structure, that would give
   them extra credit for applying heading structure method to make
   it more accessible

   Lauriat: what we're trying to do is center around the impact to
   user. Maybe on the restaurant page, it has heading structure,
   it's all text, but the bottom of the page there's a one pixel
   image for logging
   ... and that's missing alt text
   ... as far as the user experience goes, it has no impact on the
   user for figuring out what's on the menu/navigating the menu
   ... it doesn't prevent the user from getting information. If
   the user stumbles on the image they don't get the information
   but it doesn't prevent them from getting info from the page
   ... but if you have a similar case with one image with no alt
   text, but there was content, like the address of the restaurant
   in the image that's much different
   ... we need to come up the lists of use-cases and tasks that
   people would want to do and information the user would want to
   get
   ... there should be some examples in the education and outreach
   documentation that we come up with
   ... If we go through the success criteria we have today and
   build a list of those that apply to one particular category of
   user need
   ... and then without rewriting them yet, look at them for a
   category and put them in a list, how would we build up a point
   rating system for each of them

   <scottcooley> what is the URL of the wiki?

   <Lauriat> Wiki link:
   [6]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page

      [6] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page

   <scottcooley> thank you

   Lauriat: If you need some things to get to the minimum and you
   don't have content to get you there, how does that work?
   ... for coming up with points. that will probably come from the
   exploration you're going to do. The "how does that work with
   future maintenance" we can talk about now
   ... we could have a method today that is very popular, but if
   something better comes out a year from now. Would we want to
   change the number of points a given method that already existed
   and score the new method in relation to what exists?
   ... would we want to change the scores needed to get certain
   levels?
   ... this kind of brings us closer to how conformance applies to
   physical space
   ... if a buildling is old, the regulations changes, and in the
   future you need to renovate based on new regulations at some
   point

   Jennison: What if there is a shopping flow. A site upgrades
   just the checkout flow. They make the checkout conform, but
   don't have budget to fix everything else.
   ... could they claim the other flows conform to WCAG AA 2.0 and
   the checkout flow conforms to Silver

   Lauriat: I don't think so. We're moving away from
   full-page/full-site structure of website and moving to use-case
   and overall use-case for conformance
   ... the checkout flow would just be one piece of a user story
   ... this kind of gets to LuisG's point of how do we guide
   organizations to defining the tasks

   Jennison: And some flows not be the high priority flows. I
   guess it's the same with WCAG. we're leaving it up to judgment
   whether they're claiming conformance
   ... and which flows are they prioritizing and how?

   Lauriat: A company could say "these top interactions flows"
   work for users. Similar to having "meets with exceptions" in
   VPATs

   johnkirkwood: I have some concerns. What happens when it comes
   to legal information. It doesn't have a lot of traffic, but it
   is important. It wouldn't meet a bar by traffic or user flow,
   but still important.

   Lauriat: As another example, if your web application has a
   setting that says "enable braille display" or "magnifier" the
   end user that would want to use that likely only hits that once

   <Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 14 December 2018 20:06:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:23:57 UTC