W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > March 2020

RE: Minutes of Monday Part 1 of Silver Virtual Meeting

From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 19:00:40 +0000
To: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>, Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MN2PR22MB177683F668077632872B9DF6E3FE0@MN2PR22MB1776.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
> All participants were asked to try out the scoring on a site or product of their choice for the next session.

I figured out pretty quickly that I would not be able to score anything in a way that was similar to the way Jeanne demonstrated scoring BAD against 2.1 Headings.

In the federal space, we are encouraged to use adjectival ratings for evaluating would-be-contractor (offeror) bid responses to SOW/RFP.  This is not my area of expertise, but I took a stab at it for 2.1/2.2/2.3:

I happily defer to the chairs if this is worth any time (or not) when we re-convene.

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 12:03 PM
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Minutes of Monday Part 1 of Silver Virtual Meeting

Instead of our 2 day Face to Face meeting at the CSUN Assistive Technology Conference, we are having a virtual meeting in 4 2-hour blocks.  For those who want to join, the times, remote access, and agenda are on the meeting page at:

== Summary of Monday Part 1 ==

The starting Introduction for new attendees was a high level review of the Silver Requirements<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsilver%2Frequirements%2Findex.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C9c422a3a73544797d0a808d7c443b5d7%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637193667412814493&sdata=R8YmrchbXtgUYPRvItXnjP%2FsQEj%2BwX83rx9tS8Jpll0%3D&reserved=0> with particular review of the Design Principles.  We highlighted:

  *   Support the needs of a wide range of people with disabilities and recognize that people have individual and multiple needs.
  *   Support a measurement and conformance structure that includes guidance for a broad range of disabilities. This includes particular attention to the needs of low vision and cognitive accessibility, whose needs don't tend to fit the true/false statement success criteria of WCAG 2.x.
  *   Improve the ability to support automated testing where appropriate and provide a procedure for repeatable tests when manual testing is appropriate.

We walked through the sections of the Editor's Draft (ED)<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2FED-changes-25Feb-js%2Fguidelines%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C9c422a3a73544797d0a808d7c443b5d7%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637193667412814493&sdata=rRJlgARD7BUAGamPxdlsSKK91dZRDMjWJIAIt%2BVrE5w%3D&reserved=0> and Explainer <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Fsilver%2FED-changes-25Feb-js%2Fguidelines%2Fexplainer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C9c422a3a73544797d0a808d7c443b5d7%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637193667412824448&sdata=fJG2r%2BXDM4jc8He5gRfc7syVg3c0kW4ddjwD2Nj1ow8%3D&reserved=0> to point out high level changes made in response to AGWG comments.

We briefly looked at the most recent round of comments on the Editor's Draft<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F94845%2FFPWD-AGWG-20200219%2Fresults&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C9c422a3a73544797d0a808d7c443b5d7%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637193667412824448&sdata=CQATal5tC6Vfb7HF0smDG20u6kJ9e6KgXG9i9qj8a4I%3D&reserved=0>.   The key issues that need to be resolved are to:

  *   Understand the scoring
  *   Determine what is normative and what is informative

We started working through the Scoring Example<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1LfzTd_8WgTi0IUOOjUCRfRQ7e7__FRcnZow4w7zLlkY%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C9c422a3a73544797d0a808d7c443b5d7%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637193667412834406&sdata=nC9Tji5%2FRlb70rmkCEIA3Myl2j%2BAQBZs%2BHw%2FYhUzeqY%3D&reserved=0> section by section.  We didn't finish, but had some good discussion on the following topics:

  *   How formal do we want the declaration of scope to be?  A list of URLs, screens, functional activities, task completions? We want to be flexible, but not wide open.
  *   In the digital publishing industry, referring to pages or screens is confusing.  We may want to put more detailed examples of the variety of types of products in the Explainer. We may want to add ebooks to the list of examples in the document.  We want to be clear and obvious what the interaction is between the terminology and technology.
  *   There is a variety of uses for these guidelines, and the necessity of giving the owner of the product significant flexibility of describing what the intent of the product is.   As we try to support the various uses of this work (such as an app, a book, specific chapters, kiosk, mobile app, and more) we need to ensure that authors and owners have the ability to make those descriptions.
  *   Representative sampling presents a challenge in selecting random pages or screens. WCAG-EM provides guidance that can assist with that. WCAG-EM has a great deal of depth, and we are only giving the highest level overview.
  *   There is a mis-match between the normative guideline for headings and what we are measuring for tests.  That is because the guideline is the last part to be written in the new content process and the normative guideline in the Heading example is more of a placeholder that needs to be updated.
  *   Should failure techniques of WCAG 2.x be an automated failure in WCAG 3 regardless of the score?  This is an important issue that needs more discussion and testing.
  *   The scoring is complex now, because we have to accommodate a lot of different stakeholder priorities, user needs, and technologies. Once we hammer out the details, we will be able to present it more simply.
  *   Some guidelines will be scored by number of instances of a condition, some will be scored (like Timing or Keyboard) by page or screen or site.  WCAG 2.x scores by page, but also uses instances in a less obvious way.  Image alternatives is often about individual instances.
  *   Images on a control are more important than image descriptions, how do we account for that?

All participants were asked to try out the scoring on a site or product of their choice for the next session.

The next session will be at 4-6pm ET.  World clock for your time zone<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeanddate.com%2Fworldclock%2Ffixedtime.html%3Fmsg%3DMonday%2BSilver%2BMeeting%2BPart%2B2%26iso%3D20200309T16%26p1%3D43%26ah%3D2&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7C9c422a3a73544797d0a808d7c443b5d7%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637193667412834406&sdata=SgnI4qjM68r%2FFxrPQmPu2k%2FZSlQnZo33p6OnABc%2B07I%3D&reserved=0>.

== Minutes ==


Received on Monday, 9 March 2020 19:01:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 17 March 2020 10:22:07 UTC