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

Minutes of the Silver meeting of 11 January 2019

From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:21:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGQw2hnMWYZBnwqdyMDmXofWpwyGCWt_recHN=9+d3WRjwcmjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Thin on official minutes, but we talked through:

   1. Ways we could include Non-Interference type testing the context of
   task-based assessments with Non-interference tests and tasks with only
   tests relevant to task-specific things.
   2. Applicability of functional user needs by essentially seeing whether
   the given task could possibly use any methods that relate to that user need.

…and started discussing (will pick up next week):

   1. How to relate impact of a given test failure to points. Example:
   loads of correctly used methods, but one mistake renders everything
   unusable for someone (dismissing a dialog fails to remove aria-hidden from
   the entire screen).
   2. How to balance incentivizing application/content authors to use
   methods that work, with incentivizing the platform (browsers, AT, OS, etc.)
   to do their share of the work. Clear for the cases where a given guideline
   has no available methods to make something accessible in a particular way,
   but less clear for cases like ARIA adding a state that nobody yet supports
   or cases where an AT or browser update breaks a previously working method.

Formatted minutes: https://www.w3.org/2019/01/11-silver-minutes.html


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

                               - DRAFT -

                 Silver Community Group Teleconference

11 Jan 2019


          johnkirkwood, Charles, LuisG, JF, KimD, jeanne,
          kirkwood, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, Shawn, Lauriat,





     * [2]Topics
     * [3]Summary of Action Items
     * [4]Summary of Resolutions

   Lauriat: Overall the discussion went really well. Nobody said
   "we can't do that" it was more "how do we do this?"
   ... the feedback wasn't too surprising; overall everbody was
   supportive of what we had fleshed out and confused about what
   we hadn't
   ... at this point, just need to start working on some of the
   other bits
   ... a closer look to applying points to task-based assessments
   instead of full page stuff
   ... we have a couple of points in the document that allude to
   it but don't go into specifics

   <Lauriat> Conformance draft:


   Lauriat: we also got an email on the overall WG mailing list

   <Lauriat> Comments in the main mailing list:


   Lauriat: some of these we may have walked through, but not
   worked through all of them

   <Lauriat> "3. Perhaps it would be better to separate “content”
   requirements from “process” or “assurance” requirements, such
   as the conformance evaluation methods used. In that case, the
   level of assurance would be reported separately from the points
   gained in each functional performance category."

   <Lauriat> Tagged on Non-Interference in the draft: "Probably
   including more (single-key shortcuts), we could apply these on
   the surrounding environment of each step of a given task when
   doing an assessment of that task, but not apply all of the rest
   of the tests to that full environment."

   Lauriat: We should also think through the exercise of doing an
   assessment for an application as well as a website.

   <Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 11 January 2019 20:22:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:44 UTC