- From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:15:43 +0000
- To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <dcd8eecc2980410eb02d2472a83604d0@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>
Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Tuesday 1 December are provided here.
===========================================================
SUMMARY:
* There's progress resolving FPWD objections; but publication before January is
unlikely.
* Subgroups are requested to developing scoping statements
* Majority of today's call discussed Silver Requirements issues as we
want to publish our Requirements document draft along with the FPWD
===========================================================
Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/12/01-silver-minutes.html
===========================================================
W3C
- DRAFT -
Silver Task Force & Community Group
01 Dec 2020
Attendees
Present
Chuck, Fazio, JakeAbma, JustineP, Lauriat, MichaelC, Rachael, Wilco, bruce_bailey, jeanne, joconnor, sajkaj, sarahhorton
Regrets
Francis
Chair
Shawn, jeanne
Scribe
sajkaj
Contents
* Topics
1. Update on Silver publishing
2. Requirements document issues in Github
* Summary of Action Items
* Summary of Resolutions
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribe: sajkaj
ca: Chairs continue to work on objections to Silver FPWD
... Believe we're close!
js: Can say more about "close?"
ca: Draft responses organized and according to required process, next W3C management review
js: Then people review the responses and decide whether to accept, or to continue to discuss, so not close to publication!
ca: Indeed!
Update on Silver publishing
ja: Is there any pattern that might summarize issues people raised?
ca: Issues are all public; some have to do with attribution; some with openness of the process
js: Notes not related to content or to conformance, but rather to process
ca: Yes
ja: OK, thanks!
bb: So do not expect publication this year?
ca: Highly likely
Requirements document issues in Github
<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ARequirements
js: Desire to publish Requirements draft along with the FPWD, means addressing in the github logged issues
... Suggest taking up 188 first ...
... Michael did a wording clarification
<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/188
js: Asks Rachael re communication with Lisa ...
rm: Thanks for reminder ...
js: Notes Steve Lee filed the issue, asks RM for suggested procedure
rm: Have scoped requirements; but not scoped success to cover COGA
<Rachael> Current text for 4.1 Multiple ways to measure
<Rachael> All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale,
task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included.
<Rachael> 4. 1 Broader disability support
<Rachael> All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale,
task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular attention to the needs of
low vision and cognitive
<Rachael> accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.
<Fazio> I would say needs aren't best met by
rm: That's the proposed resolution. Comments?
sl: Supportive of adding wording to indicate our intended support; but one reason we didn't include it as a hard requirement was the challenge of measuring success. So, wondering how people feel about that now?
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about measuring success
df: Worried that we not imply 2.x is somehow inadequate
<Fazio> +1
ca: +1 to DF suggest last sentence end at "... SC." Drop the 2.x
<Rachael> Proposal: All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding
scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular attention to the
needs of low vision and
<Rachael> cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria.
js: Asks SL if this meets his concern?
sl: Mulling
ca: Notes my proposed edit not aimed at SL's concern. Still mulling that, too
js: Were I writing the transition request, I would indicate we've added approaches to meet that requirement. At the moment, it's just one, we'll have more later.
mc: If implementable by conformance claims, it should meet that ...
js: Reframes the question ...
... Rereads 4.1 dredraft
mc: Must be testing procedures for every outcome ...
... Must be true/false for all; but maybe others, too
... Make sure to trim examples to where we believe we will actually have examples
js: Asks SL ...
sl: Think so ...
... Concern more about when we publish that someone might say you didn't meet X, so don't publish yet
mc: We need that for CR transition; that transition requires we show that
<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to suggest we be clear this is a CR
<Chuck> sajkaj: I think this is important, I think we need to be clear that we put ourselves on a trajectory to make these 2 fit together at the point we go to CR, or exit CR. Either way, it's not something we intend
to meet NOW.
<Chuck> sajkaj: Only when we think were finished that we have to demonstrate this.
sl: Think this helps, so let's go forward
<Rachael> Proposal: All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding
scale, task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular attention to the
needs of low vision and
<Rachael> cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria.
js: Asks for +1/-1 with reason ...
<bruce_bailey> +1
<Chuck> +1
<jeanne> +1
<JustineP> +1
<mikecrabb> +1
+1
<JakeAbma> +1
<Wilco> +1
<Sheri_B-H> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Rachael> +1
df: concern on "do not tend to fit"
... perhaps phrasing "to better meet"
<jeanne> All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale,
task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular
<jeanne> attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility.
josh: believe it's important to get this right. we know nothing we have is perfect; but we need characterize appropriately
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to propose: This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs can be better met with a broad testing
<Chuck> +1 to Rachael's proposal
<Fazio> +1
<jeanne> All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale,
task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular
<jeanne> attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs can be better met with a broad testing approach.
+1 but suggest "broader" would be more grammatically correct
<JustineP> Consider person-first language: the needs of individuals with low vision and needs related to cognitive accessibility
<Rachael> Maybe: This includes particular attention to accessibility for individuals with low vision, cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broad testing approach.
<Rachael> This includes particular attention to accessibility for individuals with low vision, cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broader testing approach.
<jeanne> All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale,
task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular
<jeanne> attention to accessibility for individuals with low vision, cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broader testing approach.
<Fazio> that wasn't so hard :)
<Chuck> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
js: requests the yeas and nays
<jeanne> +1
<Lauriat> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
<Fazio> +1
<JustineP> +1
+1
<Rachael> +1
<Wilco> +1
<Fazio> I think it's enough
<Fazio> :)
<JakeAbma> +1
RESOLUTION: To propose the following change to the Silver Requirements Multiple Ways to Measure:
<jeanne> All Silver guidance has tests or procedures so that the results can be verified. In addition to the current true/false success criteria, other ways of measuring (for example, rubrics, sliding scale,
task-completion, user research with people with disabilities, and more) can be used where appropriate so that more needs of people with disabilities can be included. This includes particular
<jeanne> attention to accessibility for individuals with low vision, cognitive and learning disabilities, whose needs can be better met with a broader testing approach.
js: Finishes this one, next 189 ...
<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/189
js: Reads the issue ...
<Lauriat> "Support various stakeholders in understanding what their responsibility is within the web technology ecosystem. For example, people writing web content can understand what their responsibilities are, and
what aspects are the responsibility of the browser, assistive technology etc."
<Lauriat> Alternate as a requirement: "Clarifying responsibilities The supporting documentation makes it clear where responsibility lies for meeting each guideline. For example, whether it is something a designer or
developer needs to do, or whether it can be met by relying on assistive technology, or a combination of both."
<sarahhorton> +1 to making it a requirement
js: Notes we're doing this, but making it more visible and explicit is likely a good idea
... Leaning toward design
... Because tech changes, and AT changes so quickly that responsibility might shift
... If we keep it in methods, we can respond to tech changes
wf: If it can change, we probably don't want to make it normative
... maybe it's not even clearly in one group
... eg, if browsers don't do it, then content authoring would be required to ...
sh: Suppose I got enthusiastic if we could provide guidance based on roles ...
... Who's responsible for what would be useful ...
... who within a dev team needs to take ownership
js: We call them activities -- old conversation -- but do that in the HOWTO for each guideline
... Possible we could add AT and browser issues; but might need to put those in methods because may be OS specific
<Fazio> +1 to Chuck
ca: Concerned that listing this as requirement is overpresecribing
... Like our current vague approach on this
<JustineP> Good point, Chuck
<Lauriat> +1
<jeanne> +1 Chuck
js: Notes this issue came from the Design Sprint ... there was conversation re importance of holding responsibility -- had examples of failures
... Holding AT and browsers accountable was a case made there
... so goal became nonnormative methods to measure whether WCAG 3 was being met
... So that it could be made visible which UA were making the effort
<jeanne> ?
ca: Design principle seems to be the middle ground
+1 to ca
<sarahhorton> -1 to requirement since what I'm after is in the how-tos
<Fazio> I'm not a fan of assigning responsibility
<jeanne> "Support various stakeholders in understanding what their responsibility is within the web technology ecosystem. For example, people writing web content can understand what their responsibilities are, and
what aspects are the responsibility of the browser, assistive technology etc."
df: We provide info on how to make things better -- we should be careful about going further
js: This is the "accessibility supported" conversation which was put to beyond the FPWD
df: So, open whether we should, and if so, how
... maybe the next draft?
js: We can ask
df: Requires careful attention
<Lauriat> +1, I like punting this until we have more concrete examples in our work.
ca: Favor postponing
rm: Agree
<Rachael> Maybe a future version?
RESOLUTION: We want to postpone addressing this issue until we have more concrete examples in our work. It has been the plan to address Accessibility Supported issue in the next version of the draft.
<Rachael> -1 to commiting to it in the next version. We may iterate very quickly. I suggest "...in a future version of the draft."
js: Brief update -- Conversation this week with Chairs regarding scoping statements from subgroups. Please follow up
... Asking subgroup leaders to please begin discussing that
... Also, please note we WILL meet Fridays in December
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. To propose the following change to the Silver Requirements Multiple Ways to Measure:
2. We want to postpone addressing this issue until we have more concrete examples in our work. It has been the plan to address Accessibility Supported issue in the next version of the draft.
[End of minutes]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Present: Chuck Fazio JakeAbma JustineP Lauriat MichaelC Rachael Wilco bruce_bailey jeanne joconnor sajkaj sarahhorton
Regrets: Francis
Found Scribe: sajkaj
----------------------------------
Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2020 17:32:24 UTC