- From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 20:47:34 -0400
- To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
There was no scribe for the meeting. == Summary == The question was raised why we have to have conformance at all. It isn't required by W3C anymore, but it does provide assistance to regulators who want to require minimums and accessibility advocates who want to ensure that a balance exists across different disability groups. Some members liked a subtractive method. The reason that subtractive was rejected during the conformance prototyping phase was that it is 1) difficult to expand to meet changing requirements and 2) doesn't give a good on-ramp to beginners because it starts with perfect accessibility (which the Silver research showed was a concern to many stakeholders) and then subtracts points for every infraction. Some solutions were proposed: Having a separate point system for beginners and providing some scoring for partial conformance of individual success criteria. We discussed the VPAT conformance method and the advantages and disadvantages of VPAT. Chris Law of ITI is proposing a new VPAT model, but no one in the group has seen it yet. One person proposed a dual track where organizations who wanted a checklist or to do the minimum could claim conformance using individual guidelines, and other organizations who have difficulty with the checklist method could score points through task completion testing that would demonstrate that people from the different functional need areas would be able to complete the tasks of the product or site. == Minutes == there was no scribe for the meeting. The minutes show who attended. https://www.w3.org/2019/10/22-silver-conf-minutes.html
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 00:47:37 UTC