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

Silver Minutes for Friday 25 October

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:13:05 +0000
To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ed25f084b4704da28fae473aa09f44a0@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the Silver Task Force teleconference of Friday 25 October
are provided here.

*            Discussion of what content to include in the soon to be published FPWD;
*            Discussion of how to characterize our conformance thinking;
*            Discussion about whether and how to provide any particular
              considerations in applying our guidance for people and organizations new to
              accessibility work.


Hypertext minutes available at:



                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                              Silver Community Group Teleconference

25 Oct 2019


          janina, KimD, shari, jeanne, Peter





     * Topics
         1. Updates from Content subgroups
         2. FPWD and Explainer
         3. Conformance Use Cases
         4. onboarding new people
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions

Updates from Content subgroups

   js: Split the doc between what will go into the guidelines, and another of background info

   <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pqh2BYGS_7banTivDvuagU9F6-xfd2QaJc0Q3g1TkxE/edit#

   js: Engaged in moving things around to get them correctly situated, still more to do on clear lang
   ... Progress, but more to do
   ... Have not started on Design, Develop, -- other tabs
   ... Started on the methods doc ...
   ... Still needs much work ...

   <KimD> Clear Language Methods direct link:

   <KimD> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TOFmSmTuPz6LbNV4nFf-0g_Wwx1k8TwfxzcKzNL8i_Y/edit#heading=h.6a6cnvms15ik

   js: Reviews how tools like Grammarly or Hemingway can help
   ... Discussing the example of the Rubric approach, believes it will get in FPWD
   ... Any other group reports?


FPWD and Explainer

   <jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

   js: Now moving to github ...
   ... Guidelines not updated since May, so we will remove content for FPWD

   <jeanne> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/explainer.html

   js: Comments welcome
   ... Mostly, this has been a labor of pulling bits from other docs

   pk: Can we suggest some itemds from Challenges to go into the Conformance Problems section

   js: We could do ongoing research, what is currently came from Design Sprint
   ... Peter, if you could summarize would should go in?

   pk: Also for Goals

   js: Right

   pk: Email to the list?

   js: Good!

Conformance Use Cases

   js: Regrets I was exhausted by the late Tuesday meeting ...
   ... But, I awoke Wednesday with thoughts ...
   ... How to engage AGWG to help
   ... What do we point them to so they see the bigger picture of what we're needing to solve?
   ... Aha moment was: "Use Cases"
   ... I immediately wen to Challenges for that
   ... Think we should all work on Challenges to develop our thinking
   ... Challenges really helpful for orgs that want to use the guidelines, but need them to work better

   <jeanne> Organizations that realize the value of accessibility and want:

   <jeanne> To know how they are doing

   <jeanne> Be recognized for their good work

   <jeanne> Reduce legal risk by demonstrating their conformance

   pk: Not a fan of trying to cover legal/regulatory concerns in this doc. Worry it will create difficulties, not solutions

   <KimD> I'd suggest "Show good faith by demonstrating..."

   js: Would the orgs want to demonstrate their conformance?

   pk: For all my past employers, we've all appreciated user needs, techniques, etc., etc.
   ... Believe we would all look for an understanding of techniques to measure tasks
   ... Software dev looks at tasks, open doc, print doc, etc

   <jeanne> +1 to Kim's rewording

   pk: So, are the usage scenarios accessible? internationalizable?
   ... That kind of thinking is too absent in 2.x, except about a few pages in a flow
   ... think it would be very helpful to outline these kinds of flows
   ... And how can we best make sure these flows are accessible vs have no errors from a list

   <jeanne> Show good faith by demonstrating their conformance

   js: -- suggests language edit

   <jeanne> Understand the techniques needed to measure task completion

   pk: Suggest looking at the guidelines/techniques in the context of tasks
   ... Also not a fan of "showing good faith" because intent will make it hard to get broad agreement
   ... The goal is not some conformance cert, but showing how pwds can do things

   kd: Believe that's OK for devs, but as an attorney I'm concerned that legal depts want to know how to minimize problems
   ... Showing how orgs are working on making things work is important to the borader community, not just devs

   pk: What about "act in good faith?"

   js: The doing of the work is the acting, but the results are the showing

   kd: Think act/show is roughly equal, but I think showing what's been done and that it's achieving is important

   pk: So perhaps a yardstick that one can use to assure oneself as well as show other parties
   ... Just worried that it not be all about show if no substance

   kd: Can't show without substance

   pk: But, having something that helps you know you're doing a good job helps

   kd: The legal sincerity language is helpful

   <jeanne> Helps the organization know that they are doing a good job

   js: Third audience for conformancean on ramp for orgs new to a11y
   ... Cybelle talks about that a lot

   Oops, Sorry Kim! Thought your last name was P. My bad!

   js: Any other audiences for conformance we need to consider?

   <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PsMDJ4MLmTv8WeIhtFsGj-nJDwJhuzI8ATMAS2UuWa4/edit#

   js: Looking at our audiences: Regulators; these need to know what's the minimum
   ... Regulatory: minimum, transparency, the why of it's level
   ... Civil rights side: looking for equity -- can't prioritize one disability over another
   ... Small orgs:

   <jeanne> Cost of Accessibility for small organizations.

   <jeanne> Small organizations ask for:

   <jeanne> simple checklists

   <jeanne> clear instructions

   <jeanne> low-cost testing

   <jeanne> Some testing costs can be reduced through thoughtful wording of the guidelines.

   <jeanne> Automated tests can improve accessibility for lower costs than manual testing

   <jeanne> The WAI Easy Checks can improve common accessibility barriers for a low cost.

   js: Also low cost testing to reduce manual testing

   <jeanne> Large ORganizations:

   <jeanne> User-generated and Third Party content

   <jeanne> Social media and other organizations want to manage user-generated content that minimizes legal risk

   <jeanne> Tight control or implementing Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

   <jeanne> What happens for tools like a wiki that have much more flexibility for authors to make inaccessible content?

   <jeanne> What about uploading photos, graphics and video? How to encourage or ensure accessibility?

   <jeanne> If a contract with a third party content provider requires Accessibility conformance, how does that impact the claim of the content host?

   <jeanne> Even if the site provides information or restrictions to provide accessibility, there may be restrictions on copyright that prevent changing the posting.

   pk: Need to address human judgement problem, can't do it with auto tests

   <CharlesHall> RE: note on equity. it is not just about fairness or equality or distribution of shares. it is also about ownership and having stakes in the game.

   --discussion of SC 1.3.3 and 1.4.1 that require human eval

   <jeanne> How to address situations where the criteria is about how something is described (e.g. 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics or 1.4.1 Use of Color) when the site includes user generated content

   <KimD> 5g could also include 1.1.1 Non-text Content

  <CharlesHall> RE: the title of the document as ‘use cases’. I think this is a bit of a misnomer as none of it written in the standard format(s) of use cases.

   janina: Suggest looking in APA's Pronunciation Task Forces where there's a User Scenarios and a Use Cases

   kd: Comment or direct edit?

   js: Suggested edit would be best
   ... Next is Always under development ..

   <jeanne> Always under development

   <jeanne> WCAG conformance claim is specifically defined as something that covers “one page, a series of pages, or multiple related Web pages.” Many large sites are in the 100,000 to millions of pages.

   <jeanne> Large sites are always under construction including changing the user interface. Very large web-based applications that are developed in an agile manner can deliver updates in rapid succession, often on an
   hourly basis.

   <jeanne> There may be multiple versions of the same task because of A/B testing

   <jeanne> Templates and design patterns are constantly evolving

   <jeanne> A focus on qualitative testing instead of quantitative testing would improve accessibility and allow conformance without requiring testing of every page.

   js: templates are always evolving ...
   ... Qualatative and quantitative distinction

onboarding new people

   js: Is this important? Or a distraction?
   ... Please consider and bring thoughts to the next mtg, at least Friday
   ... Cybelle has talked to people who feel overwhelmed by the level of detail
   ... We need more people, so how can we make it easier

   <KimD> +1 - it's very hard to get caught up

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

Present: janina KimD shari jeanne Peter
Found Scribe: janina
Found Date: 25 Oct 2019


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2019 13:13:13 UTC

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