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

Minutes of Silver meeting of 11 December 2018

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:43:24 -0500
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f16b0985-6d82-1e61-f535-16e3271d1b4d@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/12/11-silver-minutes.html

Text of Minutes:
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

11 Dec 2018

Attendees

    Present
           Charles, kirkwood, jeanne, Lauriat, Makoto, JF

    Regrets

    Chair
           Shawn, jeanne

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Conformance model working discussion: building up
             points
          2. [4]Updates on the other prototype projects?
          3. [5]Getting examples from Task Forces
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> scribenick: jeanne

Conformance model working discussion: building up points

    <Lauriat> Conformance super-drafty draft:
    [8]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i
    4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit

       [8] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit

    specific section we are working on is: Point System
    [9]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i
    4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.i2woik1lvd30

       [9] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.i2woik1lvd30

    <Charles>
    [10]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lEkht-bhkaPMzOojWpDjZhb
    nGeckiYLh-J4-ze7cGS0/edit?usp=sharing

      [10] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lEkht-bhkaPMzOojWpDjZhbnGeckiYLh-J4-ze7cGS0/edit?usp=sharing

    Charles: I created a set of heuristics based on Mandate 376
    plus two more (in the document linked above).
    ... I am concerned about scoring where an individual heuristic
    from the set doesn't apply and how does that affect the
    scoring? For example, if a system doesen't accept voice input,
    then voice input would not apply.

    Shawn: This gets into the capabilities of the platform. For
    example, if an ATM doesn't have voice input, we need to
    highlight that it doesn't have that ability.

    John: If the system doesn't support it because the user doesn't
    have a microphone. That's a problem in regulatory.

    Shawn: But it becomes a method where we can highlight that the
    method is missing.

    JF: Web content is going to be the primary use of SIlver.

    Charles: I was thinking of the opposite case where a particular
    user need doesn't apply because it isn't in the content, for
    example, text content. Only when something is actionable on the
    page, we need the fine motor heuristic.

    Shawn: People will need to get a zero if they don't apply

    Jeanne: We need a does not apply, because if we give them a low
    score, that limits the final score

    JF: We need a way to protect people from saying each category
    doesn't apply. Give the basic heuristic test and document that
    the heuristic doesn't apply. Then give them 5 points in the
    category.

    Shawn: Points don't apply except in categories
    ... For example, you need to get Bronze 10 times.

    JF: In many ways this is going back to the all-or-nothing, you
    either have Gold in every category or we don't.

    Charles: It inspires people to go higher to get the higher
    level

    Jeanne: We can change this design -- it was a solution to the
    problem of leaving categories of disabilities behind.

    John: Propose: A minimum score in each category. There are
    certain number of minimum points to achieve bronze, silver,
    gold.
    ... then we have range overall to achieve the overall goal.
    ... your site-wide is a combination of score in each category,
    with a minimum they must score, and the overall amount of
    points

    Charles: Is it by page, by domain, by sub-domain

    Jeanne: I think the organization decides.

    Shawn: The tasks could be very different in different parts.

    Charles: How would they claim conformance?

    Jeanne: For all practical purposes, that is in the VPAT. People
    chose to file VPATS for individual products or parts of site.
    ... people no longer file conformance claims for W3C, it's all
    VPAT.

    Charles: We need a scoring range that is clear. 1-4 with a high
    and low end, for example.
    ... mathematically, there is no middle point, so we need a
    middle point and the middle point is the threshold.
    ... each user need has to have the same range

    Jeanne: Just to be clear, are we talking about heuristic
    evaluation against the categories, or the individual tests?

    Charles: We could apply heuristics against individual criteria,
    or we could apply heuristic evaluation.
    ... this setting of a scoring range is against the whole site.
    ... the heuristics are against the entire product,

    Jeanne: So the way I see it is that we would have heuristic
    tests for the minimum in each category. Then people can score
    more points by following the Methods. Some of those Methods
    would still have to have heuristic tests that are specific to
    the Method. Some of the proposals from COGA need specific
    heuristic tests.

    Charles: You would have to have more than one evaluator and the
    evaluator needs domain knowledge.

    Jeanne: I don't think we can do that on a practical level --
    that would increase the cost tremendously.

    Charles: If we don't do that, then we only have one person's
    opinion. 2 evaluators overlap by 80%.

    Shawn: We are taking the opinion of how something is made and
    declaring that and owning it.
    ... if someone thinks it passes, then we give people the
    ability to say why they do.

    Charles: That's why we need two, so that there is validity.

    Shawn: This is a problem we have today, so we don't have to
    completely solve it. To give people a way to score it, even if
    it is less than perfect testing.

    Charles: This is in answer to a problem that is part of what we
    said.

    Jeanne: We have to be careful about requiring a hueuristic
    claim that would be the minimum in each category, I have no
    problem requiring two evaluators for "bonus"
    ... points in a Method, but we would have tremendous pushback
    for requiring it.
    ... I have no problem with people claiming they conform to a
    minimum for a Category, that's what we have today in the VPAT.

    Shawn: Let's get back to an example of scoring.

Updates on the other prototype projects?

    MikeCrabb: No news on the prototype, but I did get an inportant
    paper accepted that is based on the research we did last year.
    This is important.

    Jeanne: Can you also do a view of the prototype that shows a
    list of guidelines sorted by tag? Mark Tanner has been asking
    for that, and I know we talked about it, but it would be
    helpful if we can show that.

Getting examples from Task Forces

    Shawn: I talked with the chairs and staff contact yesterday
    about getting examples from the Task Forces.
    ... they suggested that we give them very specific examples
    that we want people to write.
    ... give them a proposal or a success criteria and ask them to
    write that in plain language following the template for plain
    language, for example.
    ... it was also a discussion of how to get poeple to write
    techniques, they suggested breaking them into smaller parts.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2018 15:43:49 UTC

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