Minutes from Silver meeting of 25 June 2019

Formatted version of minutes:

https://www.w3.org/2019/06/25-silver-minutes.html


Text of minutes:

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

25 Jun 2019

Attendees

    Present
           Lauriat, jeanne, Makoto, JF, Cyborg, AngelaAccessForAll

    Regrets
           Denis, Luis, KIm

    Chair
           Shawn, Jeanne

    Scribe
           Cyborg

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Schedule (U.S. holiday)
          2. [4]Review milestones & timeline
          3. [5]Review current conformance state
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <jeanne> s//zakim, order agenda 1,4,2,3

    <jeanne> rrsgent, make minutes

    <jeanne> scribe: Cyborg

Schedule (U.S. holiday)

    Shawn: U.S. holiday on July 4, Canada on July 1
    ... next week is a wash - after this Friday, meet again on July
    9 (Tues)

    <JF> +1 to July 9

    <jeanne> +1

    Jeanne: we need to talk about milestones and timelines from
    meeting with Alastair, some agreement needed from this group
    before it goes in the Charter

    <Zakim> JF, you wanted to comment on @ - Tests

Review milestones & timeline

    Jeanne: welcome back Kelsey (spelling?) - very excited to get
    her back, a hard and prolific worker

    Kelsey Callister: was at Baylor University, looking for work in
    UX

    Jeanne: AGWG meeting with chairs on Monday - Alastair did a
    week 5 timeline to get to CR

    <jeanne>
    [8]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X5tc7HJ0jIY_u3bLj7iT
    bxO1fxCeX1-SigpYE42Vz90/edit?ts=5d10d93c#gid=0

       [8] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X5tc7HJ0jIY_u3bLj7iTbxO1fxCeX1-SigpYE42Vz90/edit?ts=5d10d93c#gid=0

    <jeanne> By week schedule

    <jeanne> Milestones for Silver
    [9]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Major_Mile
    stones_for_Silver

       [9] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Major_Milestones_for_Silver

    Jeanne: updated Silver milestones based on that
    ... rather than editor's draft for Charter, will publish
    something we can get comments on with guidelines, methods,
    tests, so people can see how conformance would work with real
    examples - in October
    ... public editor's draft in Jan 2020
    ... developing new Silver content in March 2020, with next
    CSUN, and a year doing that. then candidate recommendations,
    maintenance and responding to comments
    ... a year for responding to comments.

    Alastair: a couple of assumptions and explanations. it is in 3
    columns: content is self-explanatory, conformance model on
    left, based on idea that we would have different people working
    on different things. we do need sample content to test sample
    conformance with. guidelines, methods to test conformance
    model. once we get past first editor's draft, it is difficult
    to say how long things will take, may involve working group
    past that point.
    ... this was a first pass to get something down in detail, and
    easier to answer questions now.

    <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to mention a few of the
    assumptions in the timeline

    John: looking at Nov 25 and Dec 2, 2019 - don't believe there
    is enough time for that, we don't even have a model at this
    point. there are discussions and drafts and people interested
    in getting involved.
    ... what does Jeanne mean about cutting off work, if cognitive
    walkthroughs not completed are they jettisoned?

    Jeanne: we would work on guidance same as AGWG, in short number
    at time, complete them, editor's draft, heartbeat drafts,
    anything that has not made it into working draft would be
    postponed to next version. next version starts right after CR,
    so they can start on that work immediately even before version
    goes to rec.

    John: appreciate year to deal with comments, but that is very
    aggressive. migration from 1.0 to 2.0 was 18 months.
    ... crystal ball is cloudy.

    Alastair: it will become clearer. we have 400 odd reasonable
    techniques in 2.x we could migrate those to Silver (6 months to
    a year).
    ... finger in the wind, but best detection we have available.

    John: under promise, but over deliver.

    Alastair: we have that discussion lined up in the next meeting.

    Jeanne: we shouldn't promise any Silver dates beyond length of
    Charter

    John: in Wiki page, depending on length of Charter, we have
    Silver rec in 2022.

    Jeanne: if candidate recommendation goes longer, it goes
    longer.

    John: agrees that we get to candidate recommendation and then
    some flexibility after that.

    Kelsey: who are we anticipating comments from?

    Jeanne: general public, W3C. 2.0 got 1000 public comments. we
    don't know what it will look like, but it could be a lot.

Review current conformance state

    Jeanne: let's talk about conformance. take a look at what we
    currently have on conformance. a lot of people are repeating
    work we already did. some creative new ideas. would like to
    give everyone a chance to get caught up on work that has been
    done.
    ... 2 major phases working on conformance. a year ago last
    summer, subgroup did basic work on structure of conformance and
    in sept to november, once we had IA solid, and did more work on
    conformance, bringing the two together. here's what we have
    already done and to recap some of the proposals which have come
    out this week. one of the things Cybele and I worked on this
    weekend, boiling down 35 pages of emails on work we did last
    year
    ... to turn it into a digestible summary

    <jeanne>
    [10]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wklZRJAIPzdp2RmRKZcVsyR
    dXpgFbqFF6i7gzCRqldc/edit#heading=h.sevi88jq0fiq

      [10] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wklZRJAIPzdp2RmRKZcVsyRdXpgFbqFF6i7gzCRqldc/edit#heading=h.sevi88jq0fiq

    Jeanne: put a lot of work to keep Wiki main page up to date to
    always find things, including a lot of the old work. but this
    is the latest of the conformance design, nothing really
    changed, but polished and organized and easier to read
    ... so people not involved with Silver can get caught up in
    broad strokes
    ... set series of goals for conformance, coming out of design
    sprint - score cards and rubrics, solving problem of
    substantially meets, and where people with large sites can show
    Silver conformance
    ... access supported, flexible method of claiming conformance.
    ... number of issues still outstanding. but let's focus on
    point system that is ...

    <jeanne> How do we set up a point scoring system that will be
    transparent, fair, and motivate or reward organizations to do
    more?

    Jeanne: how do we maintain system that is current and protected
    from gaming? migrating? methodologies? lots of issues. plus
    others raised this week.
    ... in November, we put together IA and conformance prototype
    would work with it. flattening structure of 2.x to guidelines
    and methods. methods includes tests, examples, instructions.
    tagging engine to find more easily and API to extract info for
    own purposes
    ... migrating to Silver - WCAG principles become tags,
    guidelines and SC to guidelines, tech specific criteria will
    move to methods, techniques will move to methods, and
    understanding becomes part of the Guideline Explainer.
    ... A, AA, AAA levels deleted, Silver conformance overall for
    product or project, not specific SC or guideline
    ... auto and manual testing, rubrics and distance from mean,
    task completion, etc. Jeanne walking through the document.
    ... scoring system - when I wrote this, we had rough work and
    alternate proposals. from John and Bruce. will update that.
    ... levels not by SC, but overall for project or product as
    defined by org

    John: I'll let you finish

    Jeanne: what Cybele and I did this weekend, work we did on
    points system, bringing it up to date to show how point system
    can work

    <jeanne>
    [11]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sOQ6odaK43pV4VfHSFP
    XAV7Ry1KlcGDxbyWy2Vb1d-s/edit#gid=0

      [11] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sOQ6odaK43pV4VfHSFPXAV7Ry1KlcGDxbyWy2Vb1d-s/edit#gid=0

    Jeanne: this is not something that the general public would
    see, this is done in background. public info, not hiding it,
    but not in the face of users. but on legal and regulatory side,
    there are people who are very interested in ensuring that
    system is transparent and fair, what goes on at particular
    levels are not as transparent and fair as what people are
    asking for
    ... a lot of work from last summer is how do we set up a point
    system that is transparent and fair

    <jeanne>
    [12]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMe
    sy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0/edit#

      [12] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMesy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0/edit

    Jeanne: here is the explainer for the spreadsheet
    ... the first thing we started with is to rank user needs, took
    headings content which is most complete starting guideline. we
    ranked user needs, and immediately ran into a problem, which is
    that all of them were critical. 3 is most important, 2 middle,
    1 low. ways to move that to guideline points. one thing added
    is to look at reputation points, but we didn't work that in
    detail yet. but where we said we had a lot of power and were
    clear how to do this
    ... was when we got to individual methods. when I was trying to
    move the spreadsheet we did last summer into this one, took 4
    tries. how do we express this. formulas. factors. many
    repetitions. realization was that every score has three
    components: information from guideline, information from
    method, and information from test (info is really math factor)

    <Kelsey> What are reputation points...would that be a score for
    the organization itself, rather than the digital product we're
    scoring?

    Jeanne: the guideline needs the most work. when we look at the
    methods, 3 aspects: ease of implementation (vs hard),
    effectiveness (does it work for all the user needs - can be
    full or partial and related to quality), and does it allow
    customization (bonus)
    ... method for customizing headings could be on browser side,
    Wayne Dick did presentation on how people with low vision use
    customized spreadsheets to remove white space around headings,
    that would be a browser method

    John: as content author, no control over what browser I use

    Jeanne: headings method for customization would not apply to
    content author, I will add that...
    ... we had a number of tests, proof of concept, to put numbers
    in here. took Bruce Bailey's idea that instead of numbering
    things as 1 worth 1, we use order of magnitude change between
    them, to amplify differences and make them more visible
    ... walking through spreadsheet...

    John: lots of concerns with proposed scoring mechanism,
    rewarding methods as opposed to outcomes.

    Jeanne: correct you, as result of tests, which are result of
    outcomes

    Shawn: effectiveness is incorrect, as it is written and
    proposed, it looks like associated with methods

    Jeanne: div with ARIA may not be correct

    Shawn: the point around it is less than for that example than
    that example is for the first place

    John: for screen reader user, not capturing if semantic
    structure correct

    Jeanne: that is quality test, rubric that we did 2 weeks ago

    John: how will that have an impact on scoring
    ... scoring seems to happen at page level, how do we bring that
    up to a master score. how can I get a 72, instead of a 100 or 1
    ... what if it works for some people but not all?
    ... addressing language of page is easy to do, but language of
    content inside of a page is harder to do.
    ... two SC, linked, one is hard to do, one easy to do, what is
    relationship between them in terms of points?
    ... we need to look at this in a wholistic way, when we assign
    points, where did 100 come from? how do we make that
    determination?

    Jeanne: these are all really good questions, we need to work on
    that. i'm trying to bring you up to date on where we are.

    John: I wasn't part of the work that happened, but the focus
    seems to be on methods and that is not the right thing to be
    testing and scoring.

    Jeanne: we will discuss that in the conformance group
    ... we will address proposals today and Friday
    ... we spent a lot of time last summer to look at rubrics and
    formulas in order to look at ranking SC, but everything we
    tried, 35 pages of emails, any time we said this piece of
    guidance is more important than this, we ended up with a bias
    against the group that wasn't as important.

    <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to touch on the point system and
    progress so far.

    Jeanne: we tried to rank by priority of user need, but there is
    always some group for whom that is critical. and we did
    experimenting with it here, we did not see a way to rank needs
    because it wasn't fair to people with some disabilities.
    ... given the regulatory need for this, we couldn't rank needs.

    <JF> From Jeanne's roll-up of comments and previous work:
    Techniques tell you if a particular solution was used, out of a
    possible infinite number of ways to do it, a technique
    describes one solution. That's fantastic if you're a developer
    and want to know common ways to do something correct. It's not
    useful if you want to know if something conformanc, because not
    using the technique doesn't actually tell you if something is
    non-conformant. Rules do ju

    Alastair: there will be some kick-off for the conformance work,
    some people continue what we've worked on so far, if people
    have alternate idea, run with that for a few weeks and see what
    we are going to get to

    <JF> (cont.) Rules do just that. If a rule is applicable it
    will tell you if (part of) an accessibility requirement is
    non-conformant.

    <alastairc> Cybelle: Will we be able to get to google doc
    explainer? Have some concerns that we should test our
    assumptions before people work on various things.

    <JF> A HUGE +1 for Cybele's p[oint re: assumptions

    <Lauriat> +1

    Kelsey: with outcome of not being able to rank criteria based
    on user needs, how do we avoid that? how is that practical at
    an organizational level?
    ... is that a roadblock?

    Jeanne: having a filter or tag of priorities or things, using
    easy checks as a guide - here are the things you can do first
    because they are easy to implement, not about impact on
    disability, they have a big impact and are easy to do.

    Kelsey: thought the new scoring is motivator for updates, how
    does that align with all criteria being equally prioritized

    <Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest conformance group
    starts with requirements overview, and then persues 2(ish)
    different models.

    Jeanne: trying to get rid of inherent bias, but when you look
    at the report, this disability best served by A are people with
    no vision. low vision is AA, so says people with no vision are
    higher priority than people with low vision. that is the bias
    we are working against. trying to take what we did last summer,
    and move it from november
    ... where we got to in November in conformance.

    Kelsey: that no vision vs low vision helpful to understand

    Jeanne: kick off on Friday who is working on what guideline. if
    you know you are working on a guideline, to please work on it,
    we NEED that information for conformance, we DESPERATELY need
    the info at the guidance, test, method level
    ... to have real content to test

    John: lots of assumptions here, and a lot concern me, questions
    raised that have not been directly answered.

    Jeanne: once you see previously work laid out, you see
    assumptions, you realize how much we need data - guidelines,
    methods and tests, in order to test assumptions. instead of
    just debating
    ... this is why writing guidelines is PARAMOUNT
    ... to test assumptions