W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > April 2019

Minutes of the Silver meeting of 30 April 2019

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:15:39 -0400
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <781176ad-0c71-f4b9-3a6e-9534c5a0cb11@spellmanconsulting.com>
== HTML Minutes: ==
https://www.w3.org/2019/04/30-silver-minutes.html

Note that the topics are not correct in the HTML minutes: The first 
topic was the Requirements: Technology Neutral re-wording. I have fixed 
it in the text version of the minutes below, but could not fix it in the 
HTML version.

== Summary of Resolutions ==

Summary of Resolutions

     1. Technology Neutral: Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that
        they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The
        intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the
        opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and
        emerging technology, even if specific technical advice
        doesn't yet exist.

== Text Version of Minutes ==

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

30 Apr 2019

Attendees

    Present
           Lauriat, jeanne, JF, ChrisLoiselle, Makoto, Chuck, Shri,
           KimD, kirkwood, Cyborg, Rachael

    Regrets
           Bruce, Denis, Angela

    Chair
           Shawn, jeanne

    Scribe
           jeanne

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Requirements: Technology Neutral rewording
          2. [5]AccessU
          3. [6]Design PRinciple 9
          4. [7]Requirements: Technology Neutral
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      * [9]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

Requirements: Technology Neutral rewording

    <scribe> scribe: jeanne

    Shawn: We left off with Technology Neutral

    <Lauriat>
    [10]https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutr
    al

      [10] https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutral

    jeanne: We were asked to bring it in line with WCAG 2
    Requirements [11]https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/

      [11] https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/

    Shawn: It is also too specific in how - Guidelines and Methods

    Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that they may
    apply to more than one platform or technology.

    jeanne: The above was the most recent proposal from Friday

    [discussion recapping proposals]

    <Lauriat>
    [12]https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutr
    al

      [12] https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutral

    <JF> Core guidelines are user-centric. Methods are
    technology-centric. The core guidelines are worded to apply
    across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific.
    The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the
    opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and
    emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet
    exist. Technical details are discoverable in the Methods but
    are not required to understand guidelines.

    <Lauriat> Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that
    they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The
    intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the
    opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and
    emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet
    exist.

    <KimD> +1 it's very close to 2.0 and I'm fine replacing the
    current with the new short.

    <Lauriat> Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that
    they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The
    intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the
    opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and
    emerging technology, even if specific technical advice doesn't
    yet exist.

    jeanne: I like including the second sentence.

    JF: "Specific technical advice"
    ... it's clearer than the original.

    <kirkwood> +1

    <kirkwood> seems clear to me

    <Makoto> +1 to "Specific technical advice"

    <Chuck> +1

    Shawn: ANd it avoids saying Guidelines and Methods

    <KimD> +1

    <ChrisLoiselle> +1

    +1

    <Shri> What is the difference "technology" and "platform?"

    <Cyborg> the phone number code isn't working...

    Shawn: Not a huge difference. Technology is what you creating
    something in or with: like HTML, java, XML, CSS. The platform
    is the operating system.

    JF: agree with Shawn

    <Cyborg> sorry, it's ok, figured it out - in now

    RESOLUTION: Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so
    that they may apply to more than one platform or technology.
    The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the
    opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and
    emerging technology, even if specific technical advice doesn't
    yet exist.

    <Cyborg> link again please if you can

    <Lauriat>
    [13]https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutr
    al

      [13] https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#technology-neutral

    <Cyborg> +1 to that

    <Cyborg> what is the concern about design principle 9?

    <Lauriat>
    [14]https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#design-principle
    s

      [14] https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/#design-principles

    <KimD> It's under §2

    <Cyborg> let's wait



    <Jan> I am having trouble connecting to the audio and webex.

    <Jan> Here is the text I came up with as a part of my homework
    from last week:

    <Jan> Be data-informed and evidence-based, recognizing that
    research outcomes may come from small sample sizes due to the
    prevalence of certain types of disabilities. Research-based
    recommendations for large groups of people with disabilities
    should not override recommendations that are made for smaller
    groups. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever
    possible and to ensure that the needs of all disability
    categories are effectively represented. This means that

AccessU

    <Jan> I will continue to try....

    Jeanne: We have a room at AccessU for Wed, Thurs and Friday. I
    will also be there MOnday and Tuesday if anyone wants to get
    together .

Design PRinciple 9

    <Cyborg> the problem with the audio on my end is that i was
    using an old email from April 19 that somehow other people
    responded to with regrets more recently.

    Be data-informed and evidence-based, recognizing that research
    outcomes may come from small sample sizes due to the prevalence
    of certain types of disabilities. Research-based
    recommendations for large groups of people with disabilities
    should not override recommendations that are made for smaller
    groups. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever
    possible and to ensure that the needs

    of all disability categories are effectively represented. This
    means that

    <Cyborg> Jan - check heading of your email - for April 30

    <Jan> This means that new Methods submitted by the public could
    require user research test results to verify validity. When in
    doubt, see Design Principle 1.

    <Cyborg> she just added more

    Be data-informed and evidence-based, recognizing that research
    outcomes may come from small sample sizes due to the prevalence
    of certain types of disabilities. Research-based
    recommendations for large groups of people with disabilities
    should not override recommendations that are made for smaller
    groups. The intent is to make informed decisions wherever
    possible and to ensure that the needs

    of all disability categories are effectively represented. This
    means that new Methods submitted by the public could require
    user research test results to verify validity. When in doubt,
    see Design Principle 1.

    <Jan> Thanks, John ... trying that.

    jeanne: I like it without the last two sentences.

    Cybele: I want to work on the phrasing of the small sample
    sizes, It's not always prevalence -- it can also be about bias.

    Shawn: One aspect is the number of people with that disability,
    the other is the size of the body of research. We are trying to
    balance it.

    <Jan> Okay ... finally on

    Shawn: it can also be under-representation in the research

    Cybele: Using "prevalence" gives a context of number of people
    in the disability. Shawn said it was more about
    under-representation in the body of research.

    Jan: I used prevalence is referencing small sample sizes

    <JF> +1 to Jan

    JF: We want to say that pure numbers will not influence final
    decisions. Small groups have equally valid needs.

    Shawn: It's more about the body of research

    <KimD> Are we saying this? Be data-informed and evidence-based.
    We recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both
    the number of people with a particular disability and also by
    the size of the body of research. The needs of the people with
    disability shall be prioritized equally with all other groups.

    <kirkwood> other than cognitive ;)

    <Jan> +1 to KimD's wording

    <Chuck> +1

    <Lauriat> +1

    <Makoto> +1 to KimD

    <JF> +1

    <kirkwood> +1

    <KimD> Be data-informed and evidence-based. We recognize that
    research and evidence are influenced by both the number of
    people with a particular disability and also by the size of the
    body of research. The needs of the people with disabilities
    shall be prioritized equally with all other groups.

    Are we saying this? Be data-informed and evidence-based. We
    recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the
    number of people with a particular disability and also by the
    size of the body of research. The needs of the people with
    disabilities shall be prioritized equally with all other
    groups.

    <KimD> (fixed typo)

    Racheal: We have people who fall under a large category of
    disability but have individual needs.

    <JF> We recognize that the amount of research and evidence
    available are influenced by both the number of people with a
    particular disability and also by the size of the body of
    research.

    <Cyborg> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever
    possible and to ensure that the needs of all disability
    categories are effectively represented. <--lost from Jan's
    original wording

    Jan: People with cognitive disabilities are the largest group
    by size, but have individual needs and may not be covered by
    the tools.
    ... people who are involved in standards work have noticed that
    their group has not been well-represented and I'm not sure if
    that is captured here.

    <kirkwood> +1

    Jan: In the COGA 2.1 work, the COGA group was asked "Where's
    the research?" We need to rely on experts as well as research.
    Bodies of experience and expertise

    Rachel": Due to the complexities of some disability needs, we
    will also rely on subject matter expertise.

    <KimD> Is this better?

    <KimD> Be data-informed and evidence-based. We recognize that
    research and evidence are influenced by both the number of
    people with a particular disability, by the size of the body of
    research, and the difficulty in capturing research regarding
    some disabilites. The needs of the people with disabilities
    shall be prioritized equally with all other groups.

    JF: In the absense of research, anecdotal evidence is
    important, but it needs to be separate.

    <ChrisLoiselle> I agree with JF, anecdotes would be rather soft
    based evidence. Reliable research and actual data that provides
    verifiable measurements / evidence.

    Shawn: We need to be evidence-based where possible. In the
    absense of hard data, we need to take anecdotal evidence.

    Jan: We are creating a large loophole. We have struggled with
    this on the COGA task force. We need to capture the
    prepoderence of evidence in surveys and capturing experience of
    individuals.
    ... we have to be careful of people influencing the standards
    by manipulating the research.

    Cybele: Can we encourage more research?
    ... I chafe with SME vs. experience of poeple with disabilities

    JF: Lived experience is the weakest, because they have
    individual experience.
    ... Subject matter expertise shows more than the individual
    experience.

    <kirkwood> volume evidence but specific application of evidence
    to direct to requirements framework becomes somewhat difficult

    Cybele: THere is something that chafes about that, my
    experience in the last 10-15 years are that people with lived
    experience have reached out in the community and actually have
    real contextual exeriencee and insight.

    <kirkwood> sorry, the volume evidence/research is great but
    specific application of evidence to direct to requirements
    framework becomes somewhat difficult

    JF: We are dealing with two extremes and trying to find the
    sweet spot in between.

    Cybele: We need the word rigor. THe problem with research is
    lack of rigor, the SME without empathy has a problem with
    rigor, and the person with disabilities with too narrow a focus
    lacks rigor.

    <Cyborg> except i would spell it as rigour - lol (Canadian)

    <ChrisLoiselle> If data-informed and evidence based, is within
    the wording, I feel that we should note that it is objective
    and observing what people do. SME's opinion would need to be
    verified somehow , based on their own research to show proof of
    evidence.

    <Lauriat> +1 to Chris

    JF: The example of WebAIM surveys is a good example of data
    that may not have rigor because the audience isn't random, but
    the body of resesarch from their surveys over time is valuable
    and important.

    <Cyborg> +1 to encouraging more research

    <ChrisLoiselle> I.e. what is evidence?

    Rachel: I propose another paragraph when we don't have evidence
    what we will do.

    <ChrisLoiselle> field visits, formative , summative usability
    tests , a/b testing? task analysis? Those would be strong
    evidence

    Jan: I like that idea. I think we can set a procedure to handle
    the circumstances where we don't have research.

    Cybele: A lot of research is interpreted. We need to look at
    the outliers as well as the conclusions.

    <KimD> How about this:

    <KimD> Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We
    recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the
    number of people with a particular disability, by the size of
    the body of research, and the difficulty in capturing data
    regarding some disabilities. The needs of the people with
    disabilities shall be prioritized equally with all other
    groups.

    <KimD> In situations where there is no evidence or research,
    information may be obtained from advocacy groups, subject
    matter experts and other others who can inform the design.

    <Cyborg> my concern was about how evidence-based can equal
    oppression of majority - and so interpretation of research
    ought to address outliers' needs as well

    <Cyborg> The intent is to make informed decisions wherever
    possible and to ensure that the needs of all disability
    categories are effectively represented. <--lost from Jan's
    original wording

    <Cyborg> +1 to John's change

    <Lauriat> +1 to JF's change

    +1 to JF's change

    Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We
    recognize that research and evidence are influenced by both the
    number of people with a particular disability, by the size of
    the body of research, and the difficulty in capturing data
    regarding some disabilities. The needs of all people with
    disabilities shall be prioritized equally. In situations where
    there is no evidence or research,

    information may be obtained from advocacy groups, subject
    matter experts and other others who can inform the design.

    <ChrisLoiselle> +1 to JF

    <Makoto> +1 to JF

    Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We
    recognize that research and evidence are influenced by the
    number of people with a particular disability, by the size of
    the body of research, and the difficulty in capturing data
    regarding some disabilities. The intent is to make informed
    decisions wherever possible to ensure that needs of all people
    with disabilities shall be prioritized

    equally. In situations where there is no evidence or research,
    information may be obtained from advocacy groups, subject
    matter experts and other others who can inform the design.

    <JF> +1

    <Jan> Yay!! +1

    <Cyborg> +1

    <KimD> +1

    <kirkwood> +1

    <Cyborg> if i could +2 that would be good

    <Lauriat> +1

    <Chuck> +1

    <JF> +1+1

    <Makoto> +1, but what does it mean by "others who can inform
    the design"?

    +1

    <Cyborg> we still need paragraph about encouraging research
    that is rigorous, includes those at edges (not just address
    needs of majority).

    <Rachael> +1 but add some clarification about rigor and
    aggregation on the last sentence

    Jan: You may have a need and there may be others who have the
    technical expertise.

    JF: Technologists may not have subject matter experitise but
    may have valuable expertise in how to implement the need.

    Rachel: drop the "others"

    <JF> In situations where there is no evidence or research,
    information may be obtained from advocacy groups and subject
    matter experts.

    <kirkwood> +1 to JF but didn’t go in minutes

    <Makoto> +1 to JF's edit.

    <Jan> +1 to JF's recommendation

    <Jan> We still need to add some additional text for rigor

    Jan: We don't want to have people pointing to a blog post as
    research. As that has happened in the past.
    ... I don't think we can use "rigor" but perhaps "methodical"?

    <KimD> In situations where there is no evidence or research,
    information may be obtained from advocacy groups, subject
    matter experts, and other valid data- gathering methods.

    <Cyborg> information-gathering and evaluation that aims to be
    rigorous and includes those at the edges (rather than just
    addressing the needs of the majority)

    <ChrisLoiselle> valid and reliable data? i.e is it replicable?

    <Rachael> Maybe: In situations where there is no evidence or
    research, information may be obtained from a survey or other
    methodical information gathering method of advocacy groups and
    subject matter experts.

    <Jan> In situations where there is no evidence or research,
    valid data-gathering methods can be obtained from advocacy
    groups, people with lived experience and other subject matter
    experts.

    <Rachael> In situations where there is no evidence or research,
    valid data-gathering methods can be used to obtain information
    from advocacy groups, people with lived experience and other
    subject matter experts.

    <Cyborg> +1 to Jan's wording

    <Cyborg> or to Rachael's <- better

    <KimD> +1, nice

    <Jan> +1 to Rachael's

    <Makoto> +1 to Rachael's wording

    <JF> +1

    <Chuck> +1

    Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible. We
    recognize that research and evidence are influenced by the
    number of people with a particular disability, by the size of
    the body of research, and the difficulty in capturing data
    regarding some disabilities. The intent is to make informed
    decisions wherever possible to ensure that needs of all people
    with disabilities will be prioritized

    equally. In situations where there is no evidence or research,
    valid data-gathering methods can be used to obtain information
    from advocacy groups, people with lived experience and other
    subject matter experts.

    +1

    <Cyborg> outliers can be left out in research

    <ChrisLoiselle> leaving meeting, thanks all.

    <JF> Gotta drop - bye all

    <Makoto> Arigato. Sayonara!

    jeanne: LEt's take this up in email and resolve it before
    Friday so we can get back to the WCAG to Silver Migration work.

Requirements: Technology Neutral

    Jeanne notes that the agenda was incorrect (pasted from an
    earlier email) and that the first topic was Technology Neutral.
    I will fix it in the email but I can't fix the html minutes.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

     1. [15]Guidance should be expressed in generic terms so that
        they may apply to more than one platform or technology. The
        intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the
        opportunity to apply the core guidelines to current and
        emerging technology, even if specific technical advice
        doesn't yet exist.

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
     David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([17]CVS log)
     $Date: 2019/04/30 14:49:04 $
      __________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2019 15:16:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:23:58 UTC