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

Minutes of the Silver meeting of 18 December 2018

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:46:46 -0500
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <49c0e495-05a9-6ea2-a8ab-d4399fce9fdc@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted version of minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/12/18-silver-minutes.html

Text of Minutes:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

18 Dec 2018

Attendees

    Present
           Lauriat, Jennison, jeanne, KimD, kirkwood,
           AngelaAccessForAll

    Regrets
           Cybele

    Chair
           Shawn, jeanne

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Meeting Friday, do we have enough people who would
             make the call?
          2. [4]Timeline check
          3. [5]Meeting Friday, do we have enough people who would
             make the call?
          4. [6]Conformance model working discussion: building up
             points
      * [7]Summary of Action Items
      * [8]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

Meeting Friday, do we have enough people who would make the call?

    no meeting on the 25, the 28 of December and the 1 of January

    <scribe> scribenick: jeanne

    Jeanne: Let's have an informal meeting on Friday the 21st of
    December. It can be a working meeting.

    Shawn: I will not be back on the 4th

    Jeanne: I can be there, so let's plan on meeting on the 4th.

Timeline check

    Shawn: We have been talking with the chairs and MIchael Cooper
    about the timeline
    ... the charter expires on 30 October 2019
    ... Silver needs a charter draft by June
    ... Silver will need a reference draft by June
    ... the reference draft has to be real enough

    Charles: Do we know if AGWG will be going for 2.2?

    Shawn: AGWG will be deciding that at the F2F at CSUN

    JF: I think they will continue in parallel. There were enough
    SC proposals to make it worthwhile to do 2.2.
    ... we don't want to lose the cadence we built with 2.1

    <kirkwood> JF characterizition is my understanding/feeling as
    well

    JF: we want to look at portability and how to move the content
    to Silver
    ... I think it is chancy that Silver will be done on time

    Jeanne: We can structure it so we will make a deadline, because
    we are going to follow a procedure that allows us to make a
    timeline with what is completed.

    Shawn: We have our current work on the Conformance document. We
    are going to follow the procedure we have been discussing.
    ... finish the Conformance model and share it with AGWG
    ... piece the prototypes together so we have an overall
    document that we can share.
    ... since the reference draft is not due until June, we have
    time to make several reference drafts to share before June to
    get feedback

    Jeanne: How do we want to do the user testing for Silver?

    <Charles> link to initial draft of a test plan for the plain
    language prototype:
    [9]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V-5truHrJY9prr2uzwDmur1i
    v2krcHdTByRIm4-lb9g/edit?usp=sharing

       [9] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V-5truHrJY9prr2uzwDmur1iv2krcHdTByRIm4-lb9g/edit?usp=sharing

    Jeanne: There has been a number of people in the group who have
    wanted to test each prototype individually.
    ... I think we have run out of time for that.
    ... I think we can save time by user testing the combined
    prototype
    ... I think it will be easier to understand

    JF: I think that AGWG struggled with understanding it in parts.
    Presenting it as a whole becomes a signal that Silver is
    progressing

    Shawn: The reason we wanted to test it separately so we can
    determine what individual options work better than others

    JF: I don't think there is a bigger value of testing nuclear
    parts.

    Charles: We want to validate our assumptions -- the Information
    Architecture can be tested to see if people can accomplish
    tasks within the Information Architecture before we start to
    put all the plain language into it.

    JF: I hear you say that you want to test the framework
    separately than the content.

    Shawn: If we have the plain language, information architecture
    and the conformance in one prototype and there are failures, it
    is harder to determine what part failed.
    ... for example, we can isolate an issue like: the information
    architecture worked well, but they didn't find the information
    in the plain language. That allows us to isolate the issue
    ... I'm not opposed to accelerate combining the prototype
    ... I don't want to put off the combined draft.

    Charles: We can fit them all together and test each part
    separately, even if they are all together.
    ... integration can happen and we can still test isolated
    things

    Shawn: That sounds like a perfect compromise, because we are
    still putting together a comprehensive draft so people
    understand how they all put it together.

    Jennison: If we can hold the testing until CSUN, because there
    is an opportuntity to ask a lot of people to do testing at
    CSUN.

    <Charles> i have to drop off the call to get to another
    meeting.

    Jennison: Accessibility Camp Bay area on March 9 would be a
    good opportunity for a soft launch.
    ... I think we should be doing testing aat CSUN

    <Charles> off call, but lurking on IRC

    Shawn: So we agree that we will combine the prototype and test
    it separately.

    Jeanne: I think we should send the Conformance document to AGWG
    by 8 January
    ... we should have the combined prototype on 31 January, so we
    can get feedback

    <Lauriat> Open questions section of the conformance
    super-drafty draft
    [10]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7
    i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.5roee9ue0h46

      [10] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.5roee9ue0h46

    Jeanne: we can get feedback and refine the draft in Feb for a
    rollout at CSUN in March

Meeting Friday, do we have enough people who would make the call?

Conformance model working discussion: building up points

    Conformance Draft:
    [11]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7
    i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.5roee9ue0h46

      [11] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.5roee9ue0h46

    Open Questions: Minimum set of tests?

    9 gold and one bronze means overall bronze - how to recognize
    the 9 gold?

    How to balance minimum sets of tests or methods against
    applicability given the content?

    How to come up with the number of points per method? How does
    that work with future maintenance? Past & future conformance
    claims?

    How to award points for more extensive testing for validation
    (eg: butts in seats testing)? Boosts given the kind of testing?

    How do we guide people through creating use cases and tasks?

    Sketch with limited vision: The goal was to build it up based
    on existing SC

    scribe: minimim tests
    ... how to come up with the number of points per method

    Jennsion: We should start with a minimum site for "How to
    balance minimum sets of tests or methods against applicability
    given the content?"

    Shawn: We were discussing a restaurant site with just a simple
    menu, hours and directions. There would be a lot that would not
    be applicable.
    ... black text on a white background would only have one
    method. It would be difficult to build up to gold if there was
    only one method that would get them points.
    ... what would be the heuristics of usage without perception of
    color where the usability would be very high. It could get a
    lot more points than something complicated.
    ... perhaps the headings would be in color, and that method
    could get them more points. This might be a bad idea, it's an
    idea.

    Jennison: We don't want to make it complicated for people, so
    we want to keep it simple for simple sites.

    Shawn: We discussed that certainly have categories of personal
    need be not applicable, so we wouldn't have to have to have a
    complicated system.

    Jeanne: That is what people currently do for VPATs, so it would
    be considered what people do today.

    Shawn: For example, for Usage without Vision. This site has no
    graphics, so any Methods about graphics don't apply. But
    Methods that require the site to be coded correctly, so those
    would apply. It can determine Headings, it can determine
    Language of the page. It doesn't have regions, so the Method
    for Regions wouldn't apply.
    ... because we have assigned points at the Method level, a site
    that was simple wouldn't get the points

    Jeanne: So a simple restaurant site that wanted to get Gold,
    they could do usability testing, involve people with
    disabilities -- they could be simple versions.

    Jennison: But that would be harder for people with simple sites

    Jeanne: If they want gold, then they have to work harder for
    it. That's their choice. The minimum is bronze, and they can
    work toward gold and do more.

    JF: That gets back to how to get people to do that: Having
    their nextdoor neighbor test it isn't sufficient.

    Jeanne: Agreed. We have to figure that out later.

    <Charles> test participants and recruiting advice could be
    suggested somewhere in the guidance

    Shawn: Different usability scales could be used to boost points
    for simple sites.

    Jeanne: I want to reintroduce the old idea of having different
    points score sheets for different types of sites where the site
    owner self-selects the point system that applies.

    Shawn: The problem is that is makes it too complex, the
    definitions are tough, and it limits the types of technologies
    that it can apply to.

    Jeanne: I agree that limiting the types of technologies is a
    powerful argument. I agree not to do that.

    Jennison: I don't see why we have to look at the last questions
    "How do we guide people through creating use cases and tasks?"

    Jeanne: This goes back to JF's question a few minutes ago. We
    have to give people definitions and boundaries of how to do the
    testing.

    JF: AGWG will have questions about this, so even if it goes to
    the nuclear level, AGWG will want to know.
    ... we have to be prepared for that.

    Shawn: For everyone not attending the meeting on Friday, Happy
    Holidays.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2018 15:47:11 UTC

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