- From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:21:41 -0500
- To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGQw2hnMWYZBnwqdyMDmXofWpwyGCWt_recHN=9+d3WRjwcmjA@mail.gmail.com>
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]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Silver Community Group Teleconference 11 Jan 2019 Attendees Present johnkirkwood, Charles, LuisG, JF, KimD, jeanne, kirkwood, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, Shawn, Lauriat, AngelaAccessForAll Regrets Chair SV_MEETING_CHAIR Scribe LuisG Contents * [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: [5]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i 4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit [5] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit Lauriat: we also got an email on the overall WG mailing list <Lauriat> Comments in the main mailing list: [6]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2019JanMar/0 036.html [6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2019JanMar/0036.html 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