Minutes of the SIlver meeting of 30 November 2018

Formatted minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2018/11/30-silver-minutes.html

Text of minutes:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

30 Nov 2018

Attendees

    Present
           Charles, jeanne, LuisG, AngelaAccessForAll

    Regrets
           Jennison

    Chair
           jeanne, Shawn

    Scribe
           LuisG

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Point System and Conformance
      * [4]Summary of Action Items
      * [5]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

Point System and Conformance

    <jeanne> Jeanne: Following up on the meeting Tuesday, and what
    we were talking about people writing their own methods.

    <jeanne> ... how would we assign points? People aren't going to
    do something if they don't get credit

    <jeanne> ... what if we said that all methods had the same
    points?

    <jeanne> Charles: It doesn't make sense in some scenarios

    Charles: Ultimately, the goal is "did you meet the human need"
    not "did you meet 8 different ways?"

    <jeanne> Shawn: We don't want to penalize people for creating
    new methods, but we also don't want to encourage them to make
    up new methods, because most of the time, that isn't a good
    idea.

    Lauriat: If the points are tied to the human need, then the
    tests need to be tied to the human need.

    <jeanne> Charles: We don't want people to game the system by
    just adding methods

    <jeanne> ... we don't allow it into the document unless we
    validate that it meets a human need.

    <jeanne> Shawn: But we need to allow people to create new
    methods

    <jeanne> ... I think that may have been what David was trying
    to accomplish by creating a catch-all method

    Jeanne: David wrote up an example, I put it on the Google Drive

    <jeanne> David's proposal:
    [6]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UaYMTwcQv-4i6SbCne2o3JhP
    KgcK1QvS6R7VkVL5BqI/edit#heading=h.qjllof4t9wau

       [6] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UaYMTwcQv-4i6SbCne2o3JhPKgcK1QvS6R7VkVL5BqI/edit#heading=h.qjllof4t9wau

    Jeanne: he included a long list of techniques that could be
    made into methods

    <jeanne> Jeanne: I rather like it because it allows us to
    incorporate new Methods without having to negotiate points for
    each one. We could give a fixed number of points for the
    catch-all method

    <jeanne> Shawn: I wouldn't want to penalize people

    <jeanne> Jeanne: It wouldn't have to be less points than other
    existing methods, it just doesn't need to be more than other
    Methods.

    <jeanne> Shawn: David's example put a success criterion as the
    catch-all Method.

    <jeanne> Jeanne: I don't think that's bad, as long as it isn't
    the phrasing of every Method. It's a useful place for a success
    criterion.

    <jeanne> Shawn: Tweaking the Guideline for Robust, keeping the
    Guideline and moving the other advise into Methods. It makes
    Robust a very straight-forward conversion to Silver.

    <jeanne> ... so 1.3.1 would move to Robust, because it boils
    down to "did we code it correctly?"

    <jeanne> Charles: The fallback Method could be, Is it Robust?

    <jeanne> Shawn: The SCs that are based around coding could be
    one Method of ensuring that your application or product
    supports assistive technology.

    <jeanne> ... parsing could be another Method that is markup
    specific.

    <jeanne> ... Name Role Value is a better example.

    <jeanne> SHwan: The thing I don't like about a fall back
    Method, is that it isn't a Method,

    <jeanne> ... it doesn't tell you what to do

    <jeanne> Jeanne: I don't think that is an insurmountable
    obstacle. It could just tell you that you are allowed to create
    your own Methods and this is how you validate that it worked.

    <jeanne> Luis: I think we could restructure the fallback Method
    so that it is very generic. Take the example of using a kiosk:
    We could make it more generic.

    <jeanne> Shawn: It's more of a generic test than a generic
    Method.

    <jeanne> Luis: It could be generically phrased that you have to
    provide the information

    <jeanne> Shawn: But what is the difference then between the
    guideline and the method?

    <jeanne> Jeanne: It's a convenient place in the Information
    ARchitecture to include the test information and the point
    value.

    Shawn: How would we have a scoring system for a user-task.
    Instead of focusing on the page, focusing on the task a user
    has on a page.

    Jeanne: So let's say we have a hotel booking site. If we had a
    guideline that said, user must be able to accomplish the
    purpose of the product. We could have methods that cover
    different types of testing.
    ... and accomplishment. People could get points for how well
    people accomplish the task they want. It could just be
    something that adds to get to Silver or Gold level.
    ... after your granular component testing, you could do task
    accomplishment testing and get points for that
    ... The important part of that is that the organization needs
    to define what the tasks on the page should be.

    Shawn: To pick up on that...if we have a hotel booking site.
    This isn't something where any user would go to one particular
    page to do a thing.
    ... they're trying to go through a flow to do specific tasks.
    For a hotel...someone could book a room on some location based
    on criteria they need
    ... by city, hotel chain, availability, etc.

    Jeanne: They'd need to be able browse locations, select a date
    range...

    Shawn: The user doesn't say "I want to go and filter by date"
    they go to "find a hotel"
    ... the overall user story is "go to the site and book a hotel
    room based on the criteria you have"
    ... another would be " I need to go to the site to alter or
    cancel my reservation"
    ... or "based on my stay, I want to leave feedback"

    Jeanne: And the developers would be the ones that determine
    that
    ... I think we could have a variety of methods. One would be
    the developer does a cognitive walkthrough. Another could a
    heuristic evaluation of how easy it is to do that.
    ... and get some people with disabilities to see how well they
    could use the site

    Shawn: Setting aside this topic. When in the design sprint, we
    were sketching out how a failure to provide alt text could be
    tied to how it affects a given task.
    ... this whole time I've been assuming the task would be
    expressed at the conformance level so you could say "all tasks
    for this site are conformant even though there are images
    without alt text that don't affect the task"
    ... or "the going in and leaving feedback part fails because
    alt text is missing for the star rating"

    Charles: I think "task" has to be defined as part of this. For
    example, the user task could be something that isn't an
    interactive thing
    ... instead of completing an objective. Their model of a task
    might be "confirm that the hotel room has a safe in it" there
    could be an information only task
    ... like if there is an FAQ on the site that has the
    information, but there are images all over the site showing
    safes but the alt text doesn't show that

    Shawn: My confusion with the tasks tying to a guideline
    instead. I'd like to explore that possibility a bit more. I
    think it could be extremely powerful
    ... I only have the disconnect between the actual guidelines
    and the tasks. Making sure you can express the meaning of a
    guideline via tasks.
    ... with the design sprint exercise, we were defining user
    success by doing a walk through with a given persona and saying
    "given this persona can't see screen and needs visual info via
    other means"
    ... it would fail that task if the information wasn't provided
    via text

    Jeanne: We could have it both ways. It would count against an
    alt text guideline and overall usability. The ability to
    accomplish what you wanted to do

    shawn: the bit I'm trying to understand is the IA and the
    expression in terms of conformance

    Jeanne: Let's say someone has images on a menu without alt
    text, so people can't navigate
    ... that would mean they wouldn't get points (or would fail)
    for alt text
    ... they would also fail for "purpose of the site" so they fail
    in two places
    ... or if they did it well, they get points in both places

    Luis: For tasks that could be single or multiple pages, would
    users get more points for doing navigation or forms well on
    multiple pages than if they did a single page?

    Shawn: We could consider the task as one "entity" and all
    images, forms, navigation would be part of that one task entity
    instead of individual pages.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________