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

Minutes of the Silver meeting of 25 January 2019

From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:06:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGQw2hnzzYoJAhPqAhF2dLJdGfoANVe9e9cLdgYtF75kgtS2tA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Formatted minutes <https://www.w3.org/2019/01/25-silver-minutes.html>

Text of minutes:

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                 Silver Community Group Teleconference

25 Jan 2019

Attendees

   Present
          johnkirkwood, Charles, LuisG, JF, KimD, jeanne,
          kirkwood, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, Shawn, Lauriat,
          AngelaAccessForAll, Makoto, JanMcSorley, Jennison, Jan

   Regrets
          Angela

   Chair
          Jeanne, Shawn

   Scribe
          LuisG

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]quick review of useful IRC commands
         2. [4]task evaluation
     * [5]Summary of Action Items
     * [6]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

quick review of useful IRC commands

   <jeanne>
   [7]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDV9uZEryZc2OeM88QLOYu9K
   CsqaUxspeBqc-foq648/edit#

      [7]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDV9uZEryZc2OeM88QLOYu9KCsqaUxspeBqc-foq648/edit

   Jeanne: I saw in Tuesday's agenda that you wanted to talk about
   task evaluation.

task evaluation

   Lauriat: This came up as part of the conversation. Cyborg
   requested that we spend a session talking through how we do
   task evaluation
   ... and I thought it was a good idea to talk about it in depth
   ... in particular, it's in the context of moving from
   WCAG-level conformance to task-based assessment
   ... instead of page by page, it's task by task
   ... we said previously how non-interference works with this.
   and something we talked about previously...let me link to the
   conformance draft and specifically the non-interference part

   <Lauriat> Conformance draft:
   [8]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i
   4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.hgpudncy21e

      [8]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.hgpudncy21e

   Lauriat: I'm thinking we could have two different kinds of
   guidance; one that is non-interference and covers anything in
   the environment the user goes through
   ... even if the user isn't interacting with things, it can
   still interfere with the user's task
   ... audio controls, pause stop hide, etc.
   ... and other guidelines are primarily about what the user is
   directly reading or interacting with to complete the task
   ... one of the things we should probably talk through, is that
   a good idea. would it add more complexity and confusion on how
   to judge whether you're conforming

   Charles: I wonder if there's both.
   ... if points are limited or capped somehow for meeting all of
   the test that support a method and you get the appropriate
   points towards conformance
   ... but you can't get the maximum amount of points if there's
   interference

   Jeanne: Currently, you can't get WCAG conformance even if you
   met all the SCs, if you don't have one of the 4 interference
   SCs
   ... people mentioned at TPAC, if you failed non-interference,
   you can't get bronze

   Lauriat: Since we're going by lowest score, you might be able
   to get points for other things, but it wouldn't be at a bronze
   level because of that

   Charles: The points are still additive even though that task
   was blocked. So your cumulative score could pass the bronze
   threshold, but contradicts Jeanne's suggestion

   <Cyborg> sorry just joined. if there are links, can someone
   please re-share?

   <KimD>
   [9]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i
   4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.hgpudncy21e

      [9]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wTJme7ZhhtzyWBxI8oMXzl7i4QHW7aDHRYTKXKELPcY/edit#heading=h.hgpudncy21e

   Jeanne: That's why there's only 4 of these. We would have to
   say there's a special category that even if you're accruing
   points you need to meet the non-interference guidelines

   <KimD>
   [10]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDV9uZEryZc2OeM88QLOYu9
   KCsqaUxspeBqc-foq648/edit#

     [10]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zDV9uZEryZc2OeM88QLOYu9KCsqaUxspeBqc-foq648/edit

   Lauriat: What does it look like in terms of how you determine
   conformance if it's task based instead of page based.
   ... instead of listing URLs..it would be, list all the
   use-cases for your website

   <Cyborg> is this about methods or about creating task-based
   guidelines?

   <Cyborg> but do we already have task-based guidelines? are
   those new guidelines we need, that are more journey based? for
   example, would we want product owners to be creating processes
   to gather feedback about where the barriers lie in task
   completion?

   <Cyborg> how granular do they get in where the specific barrier
   is?

   <Cyborg> not need to get

   <Cyborg> so that's tricky for improvement then?

   <Lauriat> Related to the topic of flows:
   [11]https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc3 Essentially, I think we
   want to modernize WCAG's "Complete processes" part of
   conformance.

     [11] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc3

   <Charles> task based assessment is hopefully a viable framework
   for human evaluation. then the evaluation would be scored.

   <Lauriat> Noting so we don't lose it: we should look into
   adding guidance about providing help (documentation, contact,
   something) for users.

   <Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 25 January 2019 20:06:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:23:57 UTC