- From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:46:46 -0500
- To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
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