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

RE: MInutes of the Silver meeting of 9 July 2019

From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:02:51 +0000
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MWHPR22MB060587B8AC8029F5A890B37CE3F00@MWHPR22MB0605.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
During yesterday’s call there was a bit of a sidebar about how 2.x SC map to different categories of user needs.  The most comprehensive attempt to do that (which I know of) is in Annex B, Relationship between requirements and functional performance statements, of EN 301 549.  That work is public facing, but as best I can tell, is only available in a PDF format (152 pages, 2MB).  See:

Annex B is mostly a ginormous table with ten categories of disability types, with each and every provision characterized as having a primary or secondary relationship against those ten FPC.  In the PDF file, Annex B starts on page 88.  You will want to read that page for the explanation of the abbreviations used in the ginormous table.  The Level A and AA WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria start at the bottom of page 90, the next to last row, and SC 1.1.1 is listed as “ Non-text content”.  You will find SC 4.1.3 in the next to last row on page 91, listed as “ Status messages”.

If anyone thinks it would be helpful to that data excerpted into the wiki or Google sheet, please ping me off list, and I will take a stab at exporting it.

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 10:57 AM
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: MInutes of the Silver meeting of 9 July 2019


==Text of minutes==


      [1] http://www.w3.org/<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C89abddb2bdb144cf991e08d70546f6fd%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636983674670867945&sdata=0p0AGYCwQ1QhGA4n6aUIWfuto77P4OHfqqKUWm2J1P4%3D&reserved=0>

                               - 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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2F1EXw5W6SuMXk7mrFN33hHVQuCn0DhKysXmUCKNML3SKg%2Fedit%23gid%3D108726882&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C89abddb2bdb144cf991e08d70546f6fd%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636983674670887962&sdata=jF9AeUn6m2xPWSkBlT4IWuHpPxHDayn9To95%2FoKf560%3D&reserved=0>

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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2F1EXw5W6SuMXk7mrFN33hHVQuCn0DhKysXmUCKNML3SKg%2Fedit%23gid%3D108726882&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C89abddb2bdb144cf991e08d70546f6fd%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636983674670897970&sdata=EVUMu7qs%2F5Wt0w7FxTHi8eVZiL6pkk4nftHpnPpwPg8%3D&reserved=0>

   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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2F1EXw5W6SuMXk7mrFN33hHVQuCn0DhKysXmUCKNML3SKg%2Fedit%23gid%3D108726882&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C89abddb2bdb144cf991e08d70546f6fd%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636983674670907978&sdata=OD4Jr3zIT1VLDF%2BBx%2FOyqMVm8EX6zjunmdbQSnZYjmY%3D&reserved=0>

   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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fpublic-silver%2F2019Jun%2F0045.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C89abddb2bdb144cf991e08d70546f6fd%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636983674670927991&sdata=T6LmEUgaFQZKNrixLTPLMplbGJESCHRWRdTAj%2FTGWT8%3D&reserved=0>

   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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fpublic-silver%2F2019Jun%2F0045.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C89abddb2bdb144cf991e08d70546f6fd%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636983674670938003&sdata=HrvTEeVPFypPrNVjGBFjxXHKLxSfG84jbxdFypMpV%2FE%3D&reserved=0>

   <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<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMesy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0%2Fedit%3Fts%3D5d2419e7%23heading%3Dh.8v4ivoroyy0s&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C89abddb2bdb144cf991e08d70546f6fd%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636983674670948007&sdata=wkKdROBJMvFvuyzrLqbLS1xr9Se7r9uYR5YnY6sc6Wc%3D&reserved=0>

   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 16:03:51 UTC

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