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

Minutes of Silver meeting of 18 June 2019

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:37:34 -0400
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6f70777c-c969-b4d4-ad96-06f56e39d552@spellmanconsulting.com>

Text of Minutes:


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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

18 Jun 2019


           chrisloiselle, CharlesHall, JF, KimD, Lauriat, Chuck,
           Makoto, Jan, Cyborg


           Shawn, Jeanne



      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Report on the writing process
          2. [4]Color Contrast
          3. [5]Content Process Revisions
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions


       [8] https://docs.google.com/document/d/10zDtAvu0vP4BpZ4yYqupj7nDfk1jPNnbnHmnby_AGn8/edit

    <scribe> scribe: Chris

    Jeanne: Friday's call was about timeline and whether or not we
    were going to meet timeline

    Chartering may not happen for Silver

    Shawn: Timeline isn't solid enough to declare charter

    Jeanne: Community Reports have been provided...
    ... AG working group members should join that call today if

    Shawn: Project Management / conformance model topic should be
    discussed , Jeanne agrees.

    Jeanne: conformance needs to be completed. Possibility to split
    group. Conformance and Content two separate groups. People can
    join one or both.

    Shawn: We want to take advantage of enthusiasm on conformance ,
    diving and conquering may lead to good progress.

    <CharlesHall> re: chicken / egg dependency. we need to have
    enough testable guidelines available in order to conduct
    usability testing on the conformance model.

    JF: Migration from 2.x into silver template is not possible due
    to conformance model is not there...where does it lead us?
    ... Does content mean migration piece ? Or task based content?

    Shawn: For example, cognitive walk through can't be met until
    conformance model. Groupings we can start to build up. We can
    take some of those and write those as examples for conformance
    model work.

    Jeanne: Cognitive walkthrough is a piece of content that we
    need to get to next level.

    concrete examples are needed

    one example was hard to do , color contrast, a , aa, aaa
    levels... we picked this because of the issues related to
    conformance and content.

    Shawn: Conformance aspect is reasonable request to be in place,
    Jeanne agrees.

    <CharlesHall> the points / scoring / result aspect should be
    validated as a baseline before the cognitive walkthrough or
    task-based evaluation can be tested as an extension of that

    CharlesAdams: The migration aspect of moving color contrast has
    found barriers. The conformance model wasn't clear thus issues
    arose in full migration.
    ... Lack of understanding of conformance model was one of the

    Shawn: We need to move forward on both migration and
    conformance. JF agrees, but states issues in migration will
    occur until conformance model is set.

    JF: Conformance model based on techniques , i.e. metrics and
    points associated with [...] , may not be right way to go about
    conformance model. I.e. alt text vs. aria-label and which is
    best in eyes of end user.

    Shawn: It needs to reflect the outcome of the user, outcome

    Jeanne: can't all be outcome based , automated testing would be
    ... Anything else on migration?

    Shawn: Additional calls - when those times are will hopefully
    be easier for all (international members included)

    CharlesAdams: Should I talk to my migration issues?

Report on the writing process

Color Contrast

    CharlesAdams: two related issues. 1) Tests are written to test
    against different levels, a, aa, aaa. Hard to implement per our

    Jeanne: Did you think about writing different methods?

    CharlesAdams: I took existing methods on wcag ...2) methods
    themselves are based are on wcag 2.x aa, aaa , lack of
    understanding on conformance model itself.
    ... Other barriers: WCAG technique tests - Copying and pasting
    from testing technique into our document , does not preserve
    formatting , highlights, etc. Formatting for tests from wcag
    goes into preserving existing test hierarchy.

    A lot of work to copy actual tests over. Not all tests were
    ported over. If an anchor is possible, that would benefit as a
    reference point.

    Jeanne: There should be anchors for links and we can look into

    <jeanne> It is #tests

    CharlesAdams: Research material linking was not possible as
    couldn't find the research links.

    Color contrast information that talks to bold text , if / then
    statements were introduced and writing tests in our template
    was a challenge.

    should we consider this font standard part of a different
    migration rather than color contrast?

    CharlesAdams: email sent to Shawn and Jeanne in terms of
    hypothetical solutions. Process has evolved

    Jeanne: #tests is the link

    for the technique

    <CharlesHall> some research is in the “B2. Informative
    References” section of the Recommendation doc:
    [9]https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#informative-references. others
    are in the Resources section of the Understanding Docs, like:

       [9] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#informative-references.
      [10] https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/use-of-color.html#resources

    Shawn: Material design team at Google did some research. There
    is a ton of variables associated with...CharlesAdams: I ignored
    research as it was a migration process from WCAG vs. scope
    creep of other resources.

    Cyborg: migration is to show the benefit of silver. creating
    new tests as well as migrations. I.e. emerging technology ,
    which will come up in the future in work of migration itself.

    There should be the ability to note, "drop it in bucket" and
    come back to it rather than re-research the issue when it comes
    up again later in process.

    Jeanne: key thing is the methods that we can work with.

    CharlesAdams: Copying current methods or creating new methods?

    Jeanne: Write a method that associates A, AA, AAA and group
    them. If new type of test is needed, then write it. If
    opportunity for cognitive walk through, rubric, then take it.

    Cyborg: Mapping exercise and abstraction of methods may help.

    What does "opportunity mean" in terms of creating a new test or
    new method?

    I.e what is the purpose of writing the test in your head? write
    that process down.

    Jeanne: Cybil do you want to talk to your topic?


      [11] https://docs.google.com/document/d/10zDtAvu0vP4BpZ4yYqupj7nDfk1jPNnbnHmnby_AGn8/edit

Content Process Revisions

    Cyborg: This is content creation process. Goal is to be able to
    provide ability to create content for others. Chuck and I spoke
    to the fact that users are one of the 4 "groups" that relate to
    supply chain of content creation.

    a reviewer should be able to understand if this is "ready"
    before they post live. Access U work contribute to this. This
    definitely needs to be tested against migration goals. This may
    be in a form if that works.

    <CharlesHall> link to “Guideline Explainer”?

    Cyborg: first piece is to define user, then test, then method,
    then write the guideline explainer.

    JF: Tests go into methods. Scoring methodology based on
    methods? Seems wrong. We aren't going to have a fixed score.
    Sites change etc.

    Jeanne: We know we will have to write this on the high level
    and move the content. Please hold question for conformance

    JF: In wcag , all tests are pass / fail currently. Primary
    reasoning to move to silver is to deal with this situation.
    Copying over pass / fail tests, ignores that accessibility sits
    somewhere in the middle.

    CharlesAdams: I'm experiencing what JF is talking to.

    Jeanne: We expect the progress to happen while moving forward
    to this , rewriting the first 6 is iterative process based off
    of feedback on process document.

    CharlesAdams: I will still take approach and discuss challenges
    and ways of overcoming.

    Cyborg: Should JF's questions and concerns be talked to in
    content creation process for section #5 in terms of
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2019 17:37:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:45 UTC