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

MInutes of the Silver meeting of 9 July 2019

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:56:42 -0400
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <998bde06-fdd8-9ad0-f4d1-f823cc9f24fc@spellmanconsulting.com>

==Text of minutes==


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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

09 Jul 2019


           bruce_bailey, L�onie, johnkirkwood, KimD, Lauriat,
           Cyborg, Makoto, Rachael, CharlesHall, jeanne, johnkirk_

           Angela, Denis




      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Conformance proposals
          2. [4]John Foliot Conformance proposal
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions

    I can scribe

Conformance proposals

    Jeanne: Conformance proposals is first on agenda


       [7] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EXw5W6SuMXk7mrFN33hHVQuCn0DhKysXmUCKNML3SKg/edit#gid=108726882

John Foliot Conformance proposal

    JF: provided url for scoring and reporting proposal.

    Certain success criteria have more worth than others. We need
    to acknowledge low hanging fruit in relation to other
    requirements. Points and basis for points should be relative to

    SC 3.1.1. would have base score of 4 points. SC 1.3.4 would
    have 12 points as base score.

    Overall severity is debatable. JF chose max score of 10 , then
    assigned values.

    I.e row four SC 1.1.1 , total score of two: 1 point for visual,
    1 for cognition, gives total score of 2 for impact of users

    <Cyborg> can someone please repost link?


       [8] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EXw5W6SuMXk7mrFN33hHVQuCn0DhKysXmUCKNML3SKg/edit#gid=108726882

    Row 7 goes into how JF did the calculation. Row 8 is Best
    Possible Score explanation.

    Column M talks to total score. Are we going to use decimal
    points ? Should we aggregate up ?


       [9] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EXw5W6SuMXk7mrFN33hHVQuCn0DhKysXmUCKNML3SKg/edit#gid=108726882

    If you look at Sheet 2 : We would look at Sensory, Mobility,
    Cognitive ... and then look at User Needs per Mandate 376
    Functional Performance Statements , I.e. usage without vision,
    limited vision, perception of color etc...

    Sheet 3: Talks to Point System vs. Step system. What does
    reporting 30 points mean in context ?

    JF talks to bad, fair , good and excellent ratings , which is
    grouped by point ranges , i.e. bad would be 300-629 points,
    excellent would be 720 to 850 total points.

    example was based off of U.S.'s FICO score vs. Point System
    Basics . If looking at Point System Basics: Bronze , overall
    grade for bronze is 30 points.

    <jeanne> jeanne notes that the diagram for Point system that
    John is comparing to is an old straw man that was not accepted
    by the group. We need to find a way to mark old proposals as

    <scribe> scribe: ChrisLoiselle

    Sheet 3: JF talks to User Tests / Cognitive Walkthroughs vs.
    Mechanical Tests, Human Verification and then be put through a
    Score Aggragator

    The score would also talk to a time base dynamic conformance

    Does a cognitive walk through still hold same value 6 months
    later ? I.e. homepage content may have changed. Structure stays
    , but content changes. How does that impact users and overall

    Jeanne: defers to Leonie

    Leonie: the multipliers are great. Prioritizing user needs of
    groups of people with disabilities would need to be debated.

    JF: Agreed we don't want to make this into a competition
    between user groups.

    I.e. SC 1.1.1 benefits non sighted users , but may not help a
    person with a mobility issue. There should be some sort of
    weighted aspect

    <bruce_bailey> Here is my post about having an additional


      [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2019Jun/0045.html

    JF: Audio description - level of impact is important.

    Leonie: User requirement should be defined , i.e. I cannot see,
    therefore I need "x,y,z".

    JF: We have to acknowledge the impact of our efforts and how
    that impacts one or more groups.

    Leonie: Prioritizing off of disability type may lead to
    excluding other user groups and we need to avoid that.

    Leonie and JF: Talk to levels of disability within a disability

    <bruce_bailey> i don't think john's proposal encourages going
    after low hanging fruit -- because those items are worth fewer

    <jeanne> +1 to Bruce

    Leonie: What if a user group has lower number of people within
    the group against another group of disabled group?

    how would that impact end users?

    Jeanne: We don't want to make a hierarchy of disabilities.

    <KimD> +1 to measuring something besides "disability"

    <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask why "low hanging fruit" has
    to have impact on user, when the example given was
    effectiveness and ease of implementation

    JF: Time as a factor needs to be looked at as well...

    <bruce_bailey> Several weeks ago I pointed out that WCAG 2x
    could be point based, iff A sc are 10K points each, AA 100 pts
    ea, and AAA single pnts.


      [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2019Jun/0045.html

    <jeanne> Cybele's proposal on Friday addressed the measures we
    SHOULD be making that would prioritize while being fair.

    Bruce: JF's work is great. The inherent problem, do all
    difficult things and then not do anything for SC 1.1.1 then
    still meet "bronze". We need different "currencies" or points
    toward gold, silver, bronze.

    Point system is for most discrete goals. Then other currencies
    for other levels of accessibility

    JF: Bronze, Silver, Gold , how are they different?

    Lauriat: The range for bronze was a range. Points are points.
    Number of points builds up to a level

    You can't build up in one category and meet a "bronze" overall

    <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i think adding
    additional “currency” addresses concern Leonie raises

    <bruce_bailey> i think we do need distinct categories of points

    <bruce_bailey> i do not recall categories of points being
    discussed before

    JF: we want to move from good to excellent, and show progress.
    How do we distill points ?

    <bruce_bailey> @jf i am not hearing anything about my concern
    about points for hard stuff overwhelming points for easy stuff
    (like alt tags)

    <jeanne> Bruce, that model was developed at TPAC last year from
    an idea by Alastair.

    Bruce: We need points and categories that don't convert to
    other areas / things.

    Charles: I'm unable to cover my topic with time remaining.

    <bruce_bailey> I regard Alastair's points towards
    bronze/silver/gold as what I am saying about the need for an
    additional currency.

    Cybil: I'm not going to address what I did previous week.
    ... step levels , there are many ways to look at this. Good,
    better and best. If compliance is not end goal, what is being
    rewarded? maturity models , program implementations, etc.

    <bruce_bailey> I see Alastairs model as saying that a site does
    not earn points towards Silver without meeting Bronze.

    <jeanne> Measurement alternative proposals:

      [12] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMesy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0/edit?ts=5d2419e7#heading=h.8v4ivoroyy0s

    Process development, what does the org have to do to become an
    accessible company?

    <KimD> +1 to Cyborg

    Gold: Not everyone achieves, but companies that are moving
    toward that goal...
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2019 14:57:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:46 UTC