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

RE: Summary and Minutes of Silver Conformance Subgroup Meeting of 15 October 2019

From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:12:22 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
CC: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MN2PR22MB177678853860209988099E65E36D0@MN2PR22MB1776.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
Thank you David for reminding us about the EM work [1][2].

Peter talked about the Challenges document for the first hour of the main AG meeting immediately following the Silver meeting.  I was scribe for that portion. [3]

I didn’t hear David say that EM addressed all the issues raised in the Challenges document, just that there was a lot of overlap (as he outlines below).  During the AG call, I noted that Peter said that he had not reviewed WCAG-EM before drafting the Challenges document.

It does seems to me that EM follows from issues described well in the Challenges documents.  OTOH, it does seem that EM could have provided more description of the factors which informed the need for EM, and that the Challenges document is a valuable resource because of this articulation.  It also seems to me that there might be the opportunity for Silver to embrace and/or extend the approaches of EM.

[1] www.w3.org/tr/wcag-em<http://www.w3.org/tr/wcag-em>
[2] www.w3.org/wai/test-evaluate/conformance/wcag-em<http://www.w3.org/wai/test-evaluate/conformance/wcag-em>
[3] www.w3.org/2019/10/15-ag-minutes.html<http://www.w3.org/2019/10/15-ag-minutes.html>

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 10:19 AM
To: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Cc: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Summary and Minutes of Silver Conformance Subgroup Meeting of 15 October 2019

Regarding the EM which was created in 2014, there seem to be several overlaps with Peter's document.

1) Like the document Peter is working on, the EM moves away from the "every page has to conform for the site to conform" model.
2) The section on automation demonstrates that there are many pages on a large commercial site that would only get an automated crawl ... (only templates, components, sample pages, process steps etc. get a full evaluation)
3) It addresses large commercial sites that are "like a city" where things are being built and removed constantly.
4) It functionally amends the WCAG 2.0 conformance model

Hopefully, a new conformance model will emerge that will do better. Currently, I think its the best we have.

David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613-806-9005





  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C2830987b96584e9e9a5108d7530d2101%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637069188175737820&sdata=p93ly1GJDCmYtLgyxi37liObEyOIfihERoQW6e4Go0E%3D&reserved=0>

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:55 PM Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com<mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>> wrote:
== Summary ==

1) Reviewed the comments from the AGWG meeting today about the
Challenges of Conformance document.  Jeanne thought it was well
received.  A member of AGWG said that WCAG-EM addressed all the problems
in the Challenges document.  Peter reviewed WCAG-EM before the Silver
meeting and didn't see a lot of congruence. Jeanne agreed.  Jeanne and
Shawn had discussed the publication priorities after the AGWG call and
doubt that we would have time to publish it in November.

2) We reviewed where we left off last week on Conformance minimum.  We
discussed the email from Leonie about removing all levels.  Some
feedback: a) that some minimum is needed to use Silver in a regulatory
environment (a requirement), b) it didn't provide any protection from an
organization scoring all their points for one disability and ignoring
others, and c) the scoring would need to be set up so it didn't have a
top, since new methods are always being added.

3) Angela suggested looking at individual functional need areas by how
well the overall site met the needs of people in that functional need
area.  She is going to look at it in more detail.

== Minutes ==


Received on Thursday, 17 October 2019 18:12:28 UTC

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