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

Summary & Minutes, Silver Conformance on 8 October

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:51:34 +0000
To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9a24ae58cee64becb75f848f4fb7eb64@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>
Silver Conformance minutes from 8 October ...

*            Challenges document is being updated. An update expected Friday for
              discussion in Silver, and then discussion in AGWG Tuesday.
*            Discussion on how to define a minimum baseline for Silver conformance.

Hypertext minutes available at:


                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                              Silver Community Group Teleconference

08 Oct 2019


          jeanne, janina, pkorn_, Makoto, AngelaAccessForAll, Fazio





     * Topics
         1. Challenges document comments and discussion
         2. Pulling together Bronze equivalence discussion into a proposal
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions

Challenges document comments and discussion

   <scribe> scribe: janina

   <jeanne2> Peter: We have been working on the Challenges document

   <jeanne2> ... we added a background section

   peter: Added a "Background" section to point to some original thinking of the 2.x design
   ... Conformance defined only for pages, though a claim might come for a series or multiple set of pages
   ... Notes the dictionary defines that in terms of a small number
   ... Started a section of non-web ICT
   ... Some things may not be as testable in a nonweb context
   ... More examples of specific SC that rely on human involvement
   ... Plan to get this up ahead of our Friday call

   jeanne: Talked with AGWG Chairs and note this doc is on the agenda for AGWG telecon next Tuesday
   ... Will send you the call data

   peter: Rereading conformance drove home how narrow our thinking was--only for sreally usable on small sites

   jeanne: We need to try to get this into our FPWD, so need to discuss how to do that

   peter: agree

Pulling together Bronze equivalence discussion into a proposal

   jeanne: We've been discussing bronze equivalence, or non equivalence and we need to pull our thinking into a proposal
   ... Can we determine how we want to address this? I will then ask for volunteers

   peter: Like our last discussion--where not a direct equivalence but rather a "grandfathering" concept
   ... So, not equivalent to, but "we accept as being sufficient to meet bronze"

   jeanne: My apologies if I get confused what was discussed in what meeting but ...
   ... Thought to set minimum requirements in each category per EN
   ... And people would then need additional points to reach bronze and beyond

   peter: recallin other analogies, e.g. credits transfered from community college to University

   jeanne: wouldn't need to map each ...
   ... someone has already done this ...

   <jeanne2> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sKSXs62C8Q2t5Ek8SrDC6ajBGucBzAVH0ElZpN9KajY/edit#gid=0

   peter: Notes this also maps to the cvaa
   ... cvaa maps 13 things
   ... all the regs are borrowing from each other

   jeanne: yes

   peter: I do question some of these -- limited manipulation or strength e.g.
   ... How does the page have to do with what's on the kiosk?

   <Fazio> Limited manipulation makes sense related to a mouse or track pad

   <Fazio> probably not strength though

   janina: Speaks up for becoming clear as to what applies to ua vs content providers

   peter: but even beyond that

   jeanne: it's about repeated keypress

   peter: but my at may be voice based
   ... my only point is we should discuss further before adopting

   jeanne: OK. Wasn't thinking of adopting -- just giving us a start on what goes where
   ... Was looking to help us come up with a baseline
   ... no flashing; no keyboard trap; etc
   ... login ... very much baseline

   peter: agree with establishing a core, "most important"
   ... Only concerned what we have isn't quite it

   jeanne: we need to avoid allowing people to focus soley on one disability area
   ... are we ready to have a discussion on what should be a minimum

   peter: It was your idea! :)
   ... Believe we have several groups who defined their approaches
   ... Recalling such from Jim Thatcher at some point
   ... perhaps studying our history in this to see whether there's a cohevise logical subset of WCAG that hang together and make sense as a minimum

   <jeanne2> Non-Interference Criteria https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc5

   peter: Of course we want more ...

   jeanne: Pointing again to the noninterference

   janina: suggests some should be marked with an equivalent of the old wcag 1 "until user agents"

   peter: Another minimum set might be Level A
   ... Not arguing for any particular set, just that we should look

   jenison: I'm liking A

   jeanne: but it may be biased to certain disabilities, and we need to be careful of that
   ... I do expect we'll have a strong representation from A, but I don't want to just limit us to that
   ... Looks at the Level A quickref ...

   peter: so our grandfathering might need to stop at 2.0

   <pkorn_> Am I no longer audible?

   jeanne: believe parsing is on the way out, and name-role value too complicated for a minimum

   <jeanne2> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?currentsidebar=%23col_customize&levels=aa%2Caaa&versions=2.0

   peter: Another would be to filter on what is programmatically evaluatable
   ... Another is on need for human eval
   ... Another may be on media alternative -- might draw a "who created it?" objection. Movies from the 30's? They won't be described!
   ... cost is still around 19 dollars per minute for description

   jeanne: Not sure Level A is the good minimum subset
   ... What if we tried X number for disability types; 3 for no vision, 3 for hearing loss, etc

   peter: seems arbitrary

   jeanne: but fair

   peter: not necessarily

   angela: might seem fair because of the qual number but may not provide adequate minimum to achieve access

   jeanne: OK, I'm persuaded that's a bad idea!

   <Makoto> WAI's Easy Checks https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/preliminary/

   makoto: Have a WAI Easy Test as a possible minimum
   ... they're common issues when I'm auditing pages. I see the same issues over and over

   <jeanne2> Easy CHecks:

   <jeanne2> Page Contents

   <jeanne2> Page title

   <jeanne2> Image text alternatives ("alt text") (pictures, illustrations, charts, etc.)

   <jeanne2> Text:

   <jeanne2> Headings

   <jeanne2> Contrast ratio ("color contrast")

   <jeanne2> Resize Text

   <jeanne2> Interaction:

   <jeanne2> Keyboard access and visual focus

   <jeanne2> Forms, labels, and errors (including Search fields)

   <jeanne2> General:

   <jeanne2> Moving, Flashing, or Blinking Content

   <jeanne2> Multimedia (video, audio) alternatives

   <jeanne2> Basic Structure Check

   jeanne: doesn't cover all the noninterference, but ...

   jenison what a list, though

   jeanne: yes

   janina: proposes this may be a good starting point, even if it proves insufficient

   jeanne: sees nothing for coga

   peter: wonders how we get coga in

   angela: worries they may perceive it as anothe rslight

   <Fazio> persistent labels

   jeanne: recalls part of the coga problem had been inability to evaluate with true/false test

   <Fazio> is an SC in the works

   jeanne: we're changing those rules now

   <Fazio> for COGA

   jeanne: persistent labels?

   jenison: you see the label until you click in to fill the field and the label disappears
   ... also had the concept that entered data would persist and not be required a second time again later in the form process

   jeanne: might be useful to ask coga what a good minimum might be from their perspective
   ... we need to be careful that we're not setting up some kind of new Silver A and excluding them in that

   jeanne; But we should hear from them about what absolutely everyone must do

   Fazio: how soon?

   jeanne: general feedback would be helpful at this point. this is exploratory

   <Fazio> that was David Fazio not jennisomn

   <Fazio> about the labels

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

Present: jeanne janina pkorn_ Makoto AngelaAccessForAll Fazio
Found Scribe: janina
ddInferring ScribeNick: janina
Found Date: 08 Oct 2019


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2019 13:51:41 UTC

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