Minutes from Silver meeting of 9 November 2018

Formatted version of minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/11/09-silver-minutes.html

Text version of the minutes:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

09 Nov 2018

Attendees

    Present
           jeanne, Charles, AngelaAccessForAll, Lauriat, KimD,
           Cyborg

    Regrets
           Jennison

    Chair
           jeanne, Shawn

    Scribe
           Mike, jeanne

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Alpha Test as a term?
          2. [4]questions for feedback in the Silver prototype
             templates
          3. [5]Responses for the prototype testing to date
          4. [6]Update on IA prototype
          5. [7]Update on Plain Language
          6. [8]Tim Boland's proposal on Conformance
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      * [10]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <jeanne> Minutes from AGWG - EU & Asia meeting where we did a
    presentation on Silver homework/Alpha Testing
    [11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018OctDec/
    0062.html

      [11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018OctDec/0062.html

Alpha Test as a term?

    <jeanne> jeanne: People were asking if how "baked" the Silver
    prototypes are. What about Alpha Testing as a term?

    <jeanne> Charles: It is ambiguous whether the testing is in
    Alpha, or the prototype is in Alpha.

    <jeanne> Shawn: I think prototype testing is the most accurate,
    but it needs to be universally understood, which is isn't.

    <jeanne> Charles: We are validating assumptions, so the next
    release is more likely to be the Alpha version.

    <Mike> scribe: Mike

questions for feedback in the Silver prototype templates

    Lot of presentations on the silver homework that we had given
    the AG Working group, talked about this at tpac but have not
    went through this in detail...until now! Have had some
    responses

    jeanne: 2 new folders with information. 1 is in the simple
    language folder called INDIVIDUAL GUIDANCE DRAFT

    <jeanne>
    [12]https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yvZHLoAaXyK-MZ3CCYR
    Bb75qPXiTowyj Folder of examples

      [12] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yvZHLoAaXyK-MZ3CCYRBb75qPXiTowyj

    jeanne: Another one for Information Architecture, had really
    good things here

    <jeanne> IA folder
    [13]https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13ZUtgIDUyC8KTQcQqLz
    jqluDX7Z9fhmx

      [13] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13ZUtgIDUyC8KTQcQqLzjqluDX7Z9fhmx

    jeanne: Good article from Dave Swallow about the web of anxiety
    and accessible needs, link to a series of design patterns -
    have used one of these (Locate user in service journey)
    ... Met with low vision task force and used this as an
    opportunity to create example write up of "Point of Regard",
    created in plain language

    <jeanne>
    [14]https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13ZUtgIDUyC8KTQcQqLz
    jqluDX7Z9fhmx

      [14] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13ZUtgIDUyC8KTQcQqLzjqluDX7Z9fhmx

    Mike: These are really good! Can start to populate prototype
    with real data now

    <jeanne> Template for IA:
    [15]https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRgf85Z_NJ7HmF-
    UX992wLx0F-sCQyipL6USL9HTmvBOWtH53C78SVNjKI8kLTxl5UuYJbc7ImiGsB
    _/pub

      [15] https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRgf85Z_NJ7HmF-UX992wLx0F-sCQyipL6USL9HTmvBOWtH53C78SVNjKI8kLTxl5UuYJbc7ImiGsB_/pub

    jeanne: Heres template for IA
    ... Need to look at questions and see if they are what we want
    them to be

    Lauriat: Main point is not to answer these exact questions, its
    to write something in there for the template. We also want
    feedback on what the process was like. Think about process
    itself, what worked, what didnt, what they were happy with,
    what was hard

    jeanne: I like those questions

    Lauriat: Was it possible to create an outcome based on how you
    thought it would come out?

    Charles: So did it match the template, was there soemthing that
    had to be added or removed? I'm missing the purpose of the
    template, this is for people participating in meetings that
    were had to write something within the template?

    jeanne: Yes, these were all people that write SC and
    guidelines, they were user testing our prototypes

    Lauriat: for the IA one we want to test the process of turning
    existing guidance or new guidance into new data that would fit
    into IA for silver and see how well that works

    Charles: Is this mapped 1:1 on the IA prototype? Theres one for
    all the short description etc.

    Lauriat: Yup, if someone was writing guidance that wasnt in
    silver yet this would be the data entry aspect of it. Right now
    in the prototype there is different sets of info because its in
    a DB and not flat file. The top level bit under guideline
    shortname has discrptions and related methods. The related
    methods is the join between descriptions and methods

    Charles: Need questions on template itself. Looking at this as
    an outline one of the first things that I see is that there
    isnt an exceptions attribute under guidance or methods
    ... do people need that, expect that, is it useful?
    ... and the list of tags, is this appropriate of do we need to
    add / edit / remove

    jeanne: We've been saying we have a seperate prototype of the
    tags

    Lauriat: have been encouraging people to come up with their own
    if appropriate

    Charles: Next Q, theres no definitions of what a method is? So
    can it be populated by what each of the things are

    Lauriat: prefixed with a mini presentation at this point, so
    understanding is given before hand. E.g. under tests, we have
    to specify that these are the sorts of tests that would go in
    here
    ... not testing how the template works as data input, more how
    info moves from current guidance to this new shape
    ... need extra documentation for how it looks in its current
    form

    Mike: What about things that should be covered?

    jeanne: A lot is covered in plain language, but it could be
    asked

    Mike: if it duplicated then we know that plain language is
    heading in the right direction

Responses for the prototype testing to date

Update on IA prototype

    <jeanne> scribe: jeanne

    MikeCrabb: I haven't had time to update more of the Information
    architecture prototype.
    ... I was at the @@ Minifest. I was showing the Information
    ARchitecture prototype at the conferenece for about 300 people.
    There was very positive feedback.
    ... these are people that have to comply, but don't like to
    because the information is so hard to find. They liked the
    tagging engine.
    ... Next step is putting some of the data that people we are
    creating into the prototype.
    ... I can move it to the W3C repo. The API is running on a
    simple PHP system that won't support much bandwidth.

    jeanne: Is there anything we can do to move it to a faster
    system?
    ... I can approach W3C to put it on their servers? They will
    inspect it for security.

    Mike: I can clean up the code, and I can also look at putting
    it on the university server.
    ... it can probably handle about 150 users at once.

Update on Plain Language

    <Cyborg> just joined, sorry

    <Mike> Angela: Wrote back to John a few days ago but thats the
    only activity to report on

Tim Boland's proposal on Conformance

    [16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2018Nov/
    0003.html

      [16] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2018Nov/0003.html

    <Mike> jeanne: Tim Bowland did a proposal for conformance
    complete with formulae

    <Mike> ... thrilled that he has joined. He things really deeply
    about conformance with a great deal of expertise

    <Mike> ... delighted that he things we should increase
    flexibility

    <Mike> Charles: His proposal is similar to a heuristic
    evaluation, evaluator has to justify. So we need to have a
    justification process - whole thing hangs on this

    <Mike> ... Burden is on tester to say why weights would change

    <Mike> Mike: Very easy to game the system?

    <Mike> jeanne: Could we do weights? One thing that people
    always want to know is why weights are set in a different way

    <Mike> jeanne: How does weighting come in, do we say tests are
    weighted in a particular way?

    <Mike> Charles: Not sure how we would arrive at a number but it
    would have to be a fixed value or range of value, dependant on
    number of tests

    <Mike> ... I'm evaluating a web page, there are 10 possible
    tests that I can use, and 5 of them dont even apply. So does
    that mean that I can only possibly score a 10 out of 5 tests vs
    a 10 out f 10 tests? Do I have to adjust the weight or is the
    weight fixed?

    <Mike> ... the weight of each test would increase

    <Mike> ...A lot has to be defined, not just waiting on a
    potential score but human evaluation process..

    <Mike> Lauriat: Another thing is gaming by adding things in 1
    category by getting around certain tests which do apply. This
    is just looking at overall sum with no categorisation

    <Mike> jeanne: We can add categories, we've been working on
    that. Know that we need some sort of minimum.

    <Mike> ...this might be a much easy way to do the point system,
    this could be one point structure and people could do what they
    need to for that project within the categories

    <Mike> Charles: Doesnt explicity say that score is achieved
    from human evaluator, just the rational. So automation testing
    and human evaluation is possible. Weight is fixed, and scores
    can be done by automation system / humans

    <Mike> ...overall here is the result and here is why I used
    these tests

    <Mike> jeanne: Some basic work has been done here, we can
    pursue this. Should we dig into it more?

    <Mike> +1

    <Cyborg> i can join back in if we go back into that process...

    <Mike> Charles: Worth answering questions to take it to the
    next level

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]

Received on Friday, 16 November 2018 15:57:10 UTC