- From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 10:35:15 -0400
- To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGQw2h=e4hKieLoFkoTnSLU6ZpW8ryeLRHxNeA6N3VEj9-bnnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Formatted version of minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/07/31-silver-minutes.html
Text version of minutes:
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Silver Community Group Teleconference
31 Jul 2018
Attendees
Present
AngelaAccessForAll, Jemma, Charles, KimD, jeanne,
Lauriat, kirkwood, mikeCrabb, LuisG, Jan
Regrets
Chair
Shawn, Jeanne
Scribe
jeanne
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]TPAC Reminder!
2. [4]Questions for EO on prototype
3. [5]Conformance Prototype questions
4. [6]Information Architecture
* [7]Summary of Action Items
* [8]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<imelda> +
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
<imelda> +1
TPAC Reminder!
[9]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2018Jun/0
036.html
[9]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2018Jun/0036.html
Today is the last day for TPAC registration for early bird
rates.
<Charles> I registered for Mon-Wed
I registered Mon-Wed
Shawn: I registered.
Questions for EO on prototype
<Lauriat> Jeanne: We looked at the form for Silver and plain
language. Wanted to talk about the basic questions that we want
to ask about the flavor and conformance prototypes.
<mikeCrabb>
[10]https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/FlavorPrototype/sit
e/home.html
[10]
https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/FlavorPrototype/site/home.html
<Lauriat> Jeanne: I'd ask "How do people like flattening it?"
Jeanne: having the core information at the same level as the
general information
<Charles> I would ask people about what roles are useful to
parse by
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: Another thing is "What's missing?" If
you'd add something else onto this, what would it be?
<Lauriat> …do we want to have it as a static web and dynamic
web at the same level as others, or as some kind of hierarchy,
with things under web?
Jeanne: How do you like the labels?
<Lauriat> …Another thing could be about how people are seeing
these different things, even though some of them aren't
available? Should we hide those unavailable, or display them
and have them disabled?
<Lauriat> Jeanne: That's a good one. Charles also added a
question in IRC, I like how Charles put it.
<Charles> another question would be “how does one locate all of
the success criteria that relate to {static web} (development
type)?”
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: With the way we have it implemented, this
is only with one individual SC and techniques. Would people
like this in the guidelines, or just how people would conform
to the guidelines?
<Lauriat> …Other issues we'll have going forward: what happens
when more than one person submits, how would people like to see
different methods displayed to them?
<Charles> another question: “should examples be enumerated?”
<Lauriat> Jeanne: Skipping back to a previous question, I don't
think we need to assume that we'll have guidelines and
principles, except maybe as introductory material.
<Lauriat> Jeanne: Somewhere in here we have to fit the testing
as well.
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: Is this going to the Working Group?
<Lauriat> Jeanne: We told them it exists and they'll look at
it, but we'll specifically show it to the EO WG this week for
feedback.
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: Another question, "What do we do if
someone proposes a bad technique?"
<Lauriat> Jeanne: We write a nice note back and close it.
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: What happens if someone suggests a new
development tag?
<Lauriat> Jeanne: Kind of a separate discussion, yeah.
<Lauriat> …More in maintenance, so let's not try to fit it in
here for now.
<Lauriat> +1 to that.
<Lauriat> Cybele: If two different groups need the same
information in different ways, does that get duplicated in
different languages/detail? Where's the separation of the
duplication?
<Lauriat> Jeanne: The general information tab, we can have a
number of different ways of displaying that information. We
could link in some of the videos demonstrating how different
people with disabilities use the web.
<Lauriat> …I could see most of the plain language
implementation in that tab, with more technical information,
techniques, and tests in the more specific technical tabs.
<Lauriat> Cybele: It matches what I was thinking, but in
practice I wonder if that gets complicated around where that
division lies when things (like a tree diagram) start to
separate.
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: The way I've looked at this, the general
information is "Here's what you should do" and the other tabs
are more "Here's how you do it."
<Lauriat> Jeanne: We have to assume that people know the terms
of their field, so I don't think we need to worry about plain
language in the specific tags, though we should of course make
it as clear as possible.
<Lauriat> …If you're a coder, you know how to read code.
<Charles> all document format prototypes should include that
“what” and some common “how”. some document format prototypes
will extend to “why” and “for whom” and “what problem is being
solved”
<Lauriat> Lauriat: The language around the code should still be
plain language.
<Lauriat> Charles: Plain language + their jargon.
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: Make the code as easy to read for people,
and then add language to support what's going on.
<Lauriat> +1 to both of those.
<Charles> part of the plain language style guide would be to
determine when jargon needs to be parenthetically or in-context
defined
<imelda> *1
<imelda> +1
<Lauriat> [general happiness for Charles' suggestion for adding
it to the style guide]
<Charles> and there was much rejoicing
<imelda> +1
<KimD> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: We'll put the questions in the form,
linking to the applicable prototype as necessary. We can also
put a link to the form from each prototype index page for
people to offer feedback.
+1 for improved accessibility of Forms rather than Github
issues
<LuisG> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<imelda> +1
<Lauriat> Jeanne: I started a Google Doc in the prototypes >
plain language folder, for kicking off the style guide.
[11]https://docs.google.com/document/d/10ZvjQXPc-l73oPPewOfGb44
L8qJ6vO9JrZv-nBAkzn8/edit?usp=sharing
[11]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10ZvjQXPc-l73oPPewOfGb44L8qJ6vO9JrZv-nBAkzn8/edit?usp=sharing
Conformance Prototype questions
<Lauriat> Jeanne: Let's switch to the conformance prototype and
come up with some questions for that, too.
<mikeCrabb>
[12]https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/ConformancePrototyp
e/index.html
[12]
https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/ConformancePrototype/index.html
<Lauriat> Jeanne: This one doesn't have an index page, maybe we
should move this to another page and add an index page with a
description.
<Lauriat> …I think we want to ask people if they like the way
we've adapted the Leeds model to Silver.
<Lauriat> Lauriat: I'd rather keep the questions open ended,
rather than yes/no.
<Lauriat> Jeanne: We should ask about keeping WCAG AA as Bronze
level.
<Lauriat> …We have more to work out around the points system,
though.
<Lauriat> …We have overall conformance, individual testing, and
then "accessibility supported" including the browser, assistive
tech, authoring tools, etc.
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: If we're looking at a points-type system,
do we have an upper limit to the points you can get? Or the
more you add the more you get, with no real upper limit to it?
<Lauriat> Jeanne: The way we were looking at it, the automated
testing, the clear measurable things would sit at the lower
level. We'd also have points in categories, so you couldn't
heavily load up on the simple things from automated tests and
ignore the more-difficult-to-measure.
<Lauriat> …So you need to do your alt text, your keyboard
access, etc.
<Lauriat> …At an upper level, we'd have more on usability
testing and that sort of thing that takes more effort.
<Lauriat> …We can have different point scoring systems for
different things. Mom & Pop vs. an e-commerce site.
<Lauriat> …For an e-commerce, you *must* have an accessible
shopping cart and such. For massive social media sites, we may
not score against the individual images, but more around the
capability around making the images accessible.
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: The conformance model from table 5 in the
design sprint, their prototype was more around the activity for
testing.
<Lauriat> Jeanne: Yes. Section three is around the conformance
and section four around how to measure the conformance.
<Charles> based on this line of conversation of “what if”, it
is important to note that a prototype should answer those
questions. THEN, the survey questions should be around whether
or not those answers are valid and useful and achievable.
<Lauriat> Luis: I have concerns about the points system and
whether it gets too complicated.
<Lauriat> Lauriat: The more I look at this, the more I think we
need to provide results of conformance for different sites to
show how it works and where different sites fall and why.
<Charles> to Shawn’s point, an actual score and how it was
calculated would need to be included to understand the model
<Lauriat> Right, exactly.
<Lauriat> Jeanne: I've asked the task forces for examples of SC
that didn't get into 2.1 because of the requirement for strict
testability, along with how to test them.
<Charles> and if the example site only had 11 applicable SC and
passed them all, it would presumably score higher than a site
that had 53 applicable SC and passed 51 of them.
<Lauriat> …I set up an example of how you can use a rubric for
testing one from the low-vision task force.
<imelda> +1 to both Shawn and Charles' feedback
<Lauriat> Jeanne: I'll write up some things and then Shawn and
others can correct it, so that we can have that.
<Lauriat> …We also have an example of alternative test, to do a
heuristics evaluation test rather than a flat "does it exist or
not" which doesn't address the helpfulness of it.
<Lauriat> …We could add a test showing whether the alternative
test was useful.
<Charles> heuristic evaluation can be biased by the subjective
conclusions of the evaluator
<Charles> it is useful, but ultimately not a reliable measure
Shawn: It is one part of usability testing.
... it mostly illustrates that usability testing can be done by
devs, it's not all UX-lab testing
... it's part of the spectrum of measurement.
<Lauriat> Jeanne: Let's move on, but thank you everyone for the
discussion and great questions!
Information Architecture
<Lauriat> Jeanne: I did get an email from Jennison on the IA
participation email he sent out - I'll follow up pointing them
to the document MikeCrabb set up and another document related
to it that we want them to look at.
<Lauriat> MikeCrabb: Yeah, we just need to get people to
comment on the document and then we should be set for creating
something fairly quickly.
<Lauriat> …With the way that it's working, it should be fairly
easy to create a fairly basic version of Silver without the
tagging, and then add in the tagging system on top of it.
<mikeCrabb>
[13]https://drive.google.com/open?id=14sfnvy-px5p_xNcIM0lyKse9j
KCdLCV5
[13] https://drive.google.com/open?id=14sfnvy-px5p_xNcIM0lyKse9jKCdLCV5
<Lauriat> Charles: I had a comment on the plain language
survey. The second question says "Which audiences should Silver
target when writing in plain language?" and I'm opposed to
that.
<Lauriat> …We want to not have exclusionary language. We want
to include more audiences, not exclude any particular audience.
<Lauriat> Jeanne: I'm good with that, I'm not attached to the
wording.
<Lauriat> Cybele: Not sure if it's the right wording of the
question, but I know we've had a back-and-forth on the audience
issue. I think sometimes it's good to break down the diversity
of audiences.
<Lauriat> …Not just in terms of the language, but in terms of
the information each audience needs to get.
<Lauriat> …I think it's important to think about what audiences
there are.
<Lauriat> Charles: I think it's important, but I think that's
why the research shows that we need to use plain language. I
more meant that the use of the word "target" implies that we
want to specifically provide information for one audience.
<Lauriat> …"What are some of the potential benefits of using
plain language?" and someone might offer up "So the general
public can read it."
<scribe> New document to comment on the Plain Language form <-
[14]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I0VbLM2i3xE9q6dUpOhLPBF
Bba4VzQ-TzWhVdmN-SpM/edit?usp=sharing
[14]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I0VbLM2i3xE9q6dUpOhLPBFBba4VzQ-TzWhVdmN-SpM/edit?usp=sharing
<Lauriat> Angela: I wonder if there's an opportunity to ask a
question like that, but address the specific need of a
particular audience.
<Lauriat> Jeanne: What you don't see, is we have a lot of
additional questions making the form fairly long, so I think we
can just drop this question. If it doesn't offer a lot of
value, let's just drop it.
<Charles> please send notice of updated survey if done before
Friday
<Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2018 14:35:51 UTC