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

Summary and Minutes of Silver Virtual F2F Tuesday Part 2

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 22:40:40 -0400
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7033285f-18ab-1124-0047-9b7abd45da6e@spellmanconsulting.com>
We had a snafu with the IRC logging (the old UTC midnight problem), and 
some of the minutes were not captured in an attractive way.  We do have 
the logs, however, and I have pasted the relevant log into this email, 
for those who want to read the missing minutes.

== Summary ==

ACT Tests: How do we structure our ask of ACT? What from the existing 
ACT work can we bring over to 3.0? What can we expand upon?  Can we 
leverage the Applicability section of ACT for use in Silver Task 
Completion testing?

  * ACT Rules Format: https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/
  * ACT Rules: https://act-rules.github.io/rules/

We want to schedule several joint calls with ACT, now that we have 
content that we can work with. Prior to this, we would meet, but we 
couldn't get far without content.  We may also want to include people 
familiar with the WCAG-EM tool.  We reviewed Rules structure and the 
WCAG-EM tool (which covers scope, sampling, and reporting -- not 
testing).  The rules are WCAG agnostic and cannot be filtered by SC, but 
can be page-searched for SC number.  They are technology specific and 
appear to be mostly HTML and ARIA.

Task Completion Testing:  How to create a framework for Task Completion 
Testing?  We started with definitions and discussion of different terms 
to use.  We want overall test results better to reflect people with 
disabilities experience based on what they're trying to do. We discussed 
scope and clarified that tasks cannot be scope, only logical subsections 
can be a scope for purposes of conformance.  We agreed that there can be 
tasks in the scope, but the task cannot be the scope.  Some cautioned 
that we have to be careful not to allow companies to put in a phone 
number to call instead of web accessibility.  Should we base it on the 
standard development life cycle?  Some said that they let the site owner 
define the task, and the tester only cares about the functional 
outcome.  We need to define a list of what the user would be doing to 
apply toward conformance, so it can be repeatable.  UXPA Usability Body 
of Knowledge uses high-level tasks, broken down to subtasks - referenced 
on usability.gov

We want to include the path of approach (for example, a login process 
before performing the task) as part of the whole task completion.  There 
may be alternate paths that may be more accessible to some than others.  
We also need to talk discovery of any alternate paths.  Repeatability is 
important for those with legal responsibilities.  Scalability is 
important to industry.  We want to support both users and content creators.

Challenges document: We are being asked if we have questions we want 
asked as part of publishing the Challenges 
Challenges is being published by AGWG, not Silver, but the feedback that 
Challenges gets may be useful to Silver. What questions would we want to 
ask?  There is a list of existing questions.  There was off-topic 
discussion about the Challenges document.  There was a suggestion that 
it be reformed as a Roadmap document.  Two questions  were suggested:

  * Given the challenges we have identified, what is the priority that
    the reviewers think we should address them in?
  * Are there specific success criteria in the appendix that should be
    significantly revised and in what priority?

== Minutes ==

(missing from the start of Part 2 to the middle of the Task Completion 
discussion.  See the Text of Minutes section following this section for 
the IRC log <https://www.w3.org/2020/03/10-silver-irc> of the missing 
discussion.  )


=== Text of Minutes ===

    agendum 4. "ACT Tests" taken up [from jeanne]
23:03:49 [sajkaj]
23:04:24 [sajkaj]
    sl: How to structure our ask of ACT
23:04:56 [sajkaj]
    sl: What from the existing ACT work can we bring over to 3.0?
23:05:14 [sajkaj]
    sl: What can we expand upon?
23:05:24 [JF]
23:05:40 [sajkaj]
    sl: ACT has an applicability concept, as do we in Silver.
23:05:40 [Jennie_Delisi]
    Jennie_Delisi has joined #silver
23:06:04 [Jennie_Delisi]
23:06:20 [sajkaj]
    sl: Understand that it's highly specific on a per rule basis and
    described for how it applies
23:06:33 [david-macdonald]
    david-macdonald has joined #silver
23:06:52 [sajkaj]
    sl: We will certainly need to facilitate people tunneling into
    guidance that pertains
23:07:05 [jcraig]
23:07:06 [sajkaj]
    sl: It should also facilitate us exposing tech gaps
23:07:11 [CharlesHall]
    CharlesHall has joined #silver
23:07:18 [sajkaj]
    sl: Restating page for apps, vr, etc
23:07:20 [CharlesHall]
23:08:02 [kirkwood]
23:08:04 [sajkaj]
    sl: A gap might be if platform didn't support lang definition;
23:08:28 [sajkaj]
    sl: Expect we have much to teach each other
23:08:41 [jeanne]
    ACT Rules Format: https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/
23:08:41 [Lauriat]
    ack JF
23:09:04 [sajkaj]
    jf: ACT rules format might template some of our other testing
23:09:21 [sajkaj]
    jf: Believe it would even apply to a cognitive walkthrough
23:09:42 [sajkaj]
    jf: Because we're asking a series of yes/no questions in a walkthrough
23:09:45 [sajkaj]
    sl: Agrees
23:09:57 [JennC]
    JennC has joined #silver
23:10:18 [sajkaj]
    sl: Some rules are automatable and others aren't, but structure
    supports repeatability
23:10:30 [sajkaj]
    jf: Critical
23:10:54 [sajkaj]
    sl: They've done lots of work since we last talked, we need to know
23:10:57 [jeanne]
    q+ to say that some tests will be yes/no, but not to require all
    tests to be yes/no.
23:11:05 [sajkaj]
    sl: Next is to learn what we can reuse and map that out
23:11:12 [Lauriat]
    ack jeanne
23:11:12 [Zakim]
    jeanne, you wanted to say that some tests will be yes/no, but not to
    require all tests to be yes/no.
23:11:36 [sajkaj]
    js: We should have yes/no wherever appropriate, but not all our
    tests will be binary
23:12:03 [CharlesHall]
    act rule design: https://act-rules.github.io/pages/design/rule-design/
23:12:10 [sajkaj]
    sl: Don't believe ACT inherently requires binary; believe it guides
    through making judgement calls
23:12:29 [sajkaj]
    sl: Ex: alt for whether it provides equivalent experience
23:12:48 [sajkaj]
    sl: How well, how close to equivalent might be scaled
23:12:51 [david-macdonald_]
    david-macdonald_ has joined #silver
23:12:52 [sajkaj]
    jf +1
23:13:09 [sajkaj]
    jf: Even complex questions can be broken down to simple binary
23:13:22 [sajkaj]
    jf: So, it's how we structure and string together
23:13:33 [jeanne]
    Not all comple questions can be broken down to simple binary and get
    valid results
23:13:46 [jeanne]
    s/Not all comple /Not all complex
23:13:52 [JF]
    CAn you provide an example Jeanne?
23:14:22 [sajkaj]
    sl: Believe we can reuse both very granular but also more in depth
    exploration toward test results
23:14:52 [jeanne]
    @JF, Simplified navigation comes immediately to mind
23:15:00 [CharlesHall]
    +1 to using the rule design
23:15:47 [sajkaj]
    lucy: Are we stopped because we have no ACT people on the call?
23:15:57 [sajkaj]
    sl; If you're in ACT, please speak up
23:16:18 [sajkaj]
    lucy: Notes Mary Jo has been regular participant in Silver recently
23:16:53 [sajkaj]
    lucy: Walking through their questions without their assistance has
    been a profitable exercise for me
23:17:11 [sajkaj]
    sl: We have an example, but it's quite old
23:17:27 [sajkaj]
    js: Let's schedule a joint call with them.
23:18:09 [sajkaj]
    js: In the past we were stopped in our joint attempts because we had
    no content, we do now
23:18:14 [Chuck]
    q+ point of order that need not be scribed.
23:18:33 [sajkaj]
    sl: Probably schedule a series of calls
23:18:59 [CharlesHall]
23:19:00 [david-macdonald_]
23:19:09 [Lauriat]
    ack CharlesHall
23:19:38 [sajkaj]
    ch: Would be worth scheduling to have someone familiar with EM
    reporting tool
23:19:48 [sajkaj]
    js: Know whom to ask
23:19:55 [Lauriat]
    ack david-macdonald_
23:20:28 [sajkaj]
    dm: Working with aCT on Canadian Gov study ...
23:20:40 [sajkaj]
    dm: I can talk some about that ...
23:20:53 [sajkaj]
    dm: There are about 60 rules now applying to 2.x SC
23:21:02 [sajkaj]
    dm: about 10 test cases, very granular
23:21:50 [sajkaj]
    dm: Applicability is whether the test case is applicable to the rule
23:22:08 [Rachael]
23:22:57 [sajkaj]
    dm: Ex test would be about filename
23:23:27 [sajkaj]
    dm: then what rule is applicable, expected outcome, whether it passes
23:23:44 [sajkaj]
    dm: They are trying to build automatable tests
23:23:55 [JennC]
23:24:07 [sajkaj]
    dm: Mostly Wilco adding tests
23:24:11 [Lauriat]
    ack JennC
23:24:24 [sajkaj]
    zakim, who's here?
23:24:24 [Zakim]
    Present: jeanne, sajkaj, ChrisLoiselle, Laura, Jennie, kirkwood,
    Lauriat, Lucy, alastairc, Makoto, Chuck, JF, stevelee, KimD, AndyS,
    PeterKorn, mattg, Rachael, Detlev, Fazio,
23:24:28 [Zakim]
    ... Jennie_Delisi, jcraig, CharlesHall
23:24:28 [Zakim]
    On IRC I see david-macdonald_, JennC, CharlesHall, Jennie_Delisi,
    KimD, Chuck, JF, mattg, Fazio, AndyS, RRSAgent, maryjom__, Zakim,
    jon_avila, jeanne, Lauriat, kirkwood, jcraig,
23:24:28 [Zakim]
    ... sajkaj, MarcJohlic, MichaelC, Rachael, achraf, alastairc, yatil,
    AWK, trackbot
23:25:06 [JennC]
23:25:10 [sajkaj]
    jc: Have a pointer to this
23:25:27 [david-macdonald_]
23:27:01 [sajkaj]
    sl: re alt-text == filename -- what's the logic?
23:27:15 [sajkaj]
    dm: If you start on JC's page ...
23:27:50 [david-macdonald_]
23:28:13 [sajkaj]
    dm: Contains the rules -- about 60
23:28:20 [sajkaj]
    dm: Click on context
23:28:22 [Lauriat]
23:28:47 [Chuck]
23:28:52 [sajkaj]
    dm: Will get dail incl linkage
23:29:05 [sajkaj]
    lucy: Are they filterable by SC?
23:29:07 [sajkaj]
    dm: No
23:29:13 [sajkaj]
    dm: They're wcag agnostic
23:29:28 [sajkaj]
    dm: They borrow from multiple standards
23:30:13 [sajkaj]
    js: Can you talk us through Image has Accessible-Name?
23:30:29 [jeanne]
23:30:57 [Chuck]
23:31:30 [jeanne]
    ack chuck
23:31:42 [sajkaj]
    ch: These seem ml specific?
23:31:45 [sajkaj]
    dm: For now
23:31:49 [JF]
    +1 yes
23:32:12 [sajkaj]
    dm: Effort is to get all the automated tools gathered on one page
23:32:16 [JennC]
    +1 yes for the purpose: harmonisation
23:33:09 [sajkaj]
    dm: Responding to trying to get consistent rendering despite
    browser's tendency to render differently
23:33:37 [sajkaj]
    sj: Quips it's also very today, not just the 1990's
23:34:06 [Lauriat]
    Applicability: The rule applies to HTML img elements or any HTML
    element with the semantic role of img that is included in the
    accessibility tree.
23:34:38 [Chuck]
    q+ lucy
23:35:06 [Lauriat]
    ack lucy
23:35:33 [sajkaj]
    lucy: Do I understand we're asking whether their struct is
    applicable to our needs? Not necessarily the actual rules?
23:35:47 [sajkaj]
    lucy: Believe we want their structuring
23:35:50 [sajkaj]
    sl: Agreed
23:36:11 [sajkaj]
    sl: Expect we will be able to reuse their rule content
23:36:33 [CharlesHall]
    +1 to use of rule design
23:36:46 [sajkaj]
    sl: Hope is that we'll be able to reuse
23:37:05 [PeterKorn]
    PeterKorn has joined #silver
23:37:08 [PeterKorn]
23:37:28 [jeanne]
23:37:29 [CharlesHall]
    WCAG-EM Report Tool
23:37:35 [david-macdonald_]
    Website Accessibility Evaluation Report Generator
23:37:52 [david-macdonald_]
23:38:33 [sajkaj]
    dm: Walks through the form ... ...
23:38:48 [sajkaj]
    dm: Notes it's highly 2.x based
23:39:39 [sajkaj]
    dm: It helps you gather up structured samples and also random samples
23:39:55 [sajkaj]
    dm: At the end a report
23:40:01 [jeanne]
    This is a tool for the spec that we based representative sampling on.
23:40:20 [sajkaj]
    sl: Walks one through generating a report, but not through the
    actual tests/
23:40:22 [sajkaj]
    dm: yes
23:40:47 [sajkaj]
    js: It's a tool for the spec that we based Silver conformance on
23:41:12 [sajkaj]
    js: That's why it should sound familiar! We've been talking about
    the sampling part
23:42:38 [sajkaj]
    sl: Shifting to how to create a framework for defining a task and
    scoring task completion
23:43:01 [sajkaj]
    sl: Perhaps we might discuss how we might do it, what it means to
    get this task defined
23:43:19 [sajkaj]
    sl: Maybe there are better terms, but this is our best to date
23:43:39 [sajkaj]
    sl: We want overall test results better to reflect pwd experience
    based on what they're trying to do
23:44:07 [sajkaj]
    sl: A tiny image in the corner that does nothing and has no alt text
    is not really an impediment
23:44:23 [sajkaj]
    sl: On the other hand the image that is a buttn and brings up the
    menu is a big deal without alt
23:44:25 [CharlesHall]
    useful resource on how to identify top tasks (analysis)
23:45:01 [sajkaj]
    sl: Using we've been saying "tasks" is to cover tech other than just web
23:45:21 [sajkaj]
    sl: Pizza shop: find how to call; hours; menu; etc
23:45:40 [sajkaj]
    sl: For Google Docs there are tasks about formatting, sharing, etc
23:45:53 [PeterKorn]
23:45:57 [Chuck]
23:46:11 [sajkaj]
    sl: How do we guide people to defining their tasks. How do we help
    NY Times do this?
23:46:19 [Lauriat]
    ack PeterKorn
23:47:08 [Fazio]
    Likert scale
23:47:10 [PeterKorn]
23:47:15 [sajkaj]
    pk: Jumps back to unlabeled icon out of the task flow -- want to
    make sure we agenda defining what pieces matter, and which don't;
    should help us realign with clear lang, COGA, etc
23:47:49 [sajkaj]
    sl: Agree, but let's hold off for now until after the definition.
    But, yes, it also applies to defining scope for conformance and may
    depend on a particular path through the page, for instance
23:48:07 [Lauriat]
    ack Chuck
23:48:10 [sajkaj]
    sl: there may be parts of the page that interfere--things in the
    environment that arn't directly related
23:48:18 [Lauriat]
    q+ Lucy
23:48:29 [sajkaj]
    ch: Should we base on standard development life cycle?
23:48:32 [Fazio]
    That's the first question we ask UX research participants: "How
    would you expect to perform this task"
23:48:50 [sajkaj]
    ch: Would it pertain to sw dev?
23:48:58 [Fazio]
    Then we walk them through our intended process flow
23:49:40 [Lauriat]
    ack Lucy
23:49:44 [sajkaj]
23:49:48 [sajkaj]
    ch: maybe
23:50:06 [sajkaj]
    lucy: we let the owner define how to build the task; we only care
    about functional outcome
23:50:33 [sajkaj]
    lucy: believe our job is to define success
23:50:51 [sajkaj]
    sl: But we need to define what we need in order to explain what
    we're asking people to do
23:51:12 [sajkaj]
    sl: Person running the task is perhaps not the person who defined
    the task
23:51:20 [sajkaj]
    sl: One may need to explain to a colleague
23:51:53 [sajkaj]
    lucy: OK, just don't want us to get bogged down by what should be
    accomplished by one visit to http://123.456
23:52:22 [sajkaj]
    sl: Need to define a list of what the user would be doing, in order
    to define conformance
23:52:36 [sajkaj]
    lucy: prefer actions and/or activities to the term task
23:53:10 [sajkaj]
    ch: Think I understand the concern incl with the vocabulary; but
    there's history here
23:53:30 [sajkaj]
    ch: Author defines scope -- a better term is fine -- but it's a
    common term in the field
23:53:38 [jeanne]
    q+ to clarify scope
23:54:29 [Fazio]
23:54:57 [sajkaj]
    sl: We need a way to explain what blocks a user doing some thing on
    a page -- we need to be able to explain this thing here is a big
    problem, but this over here is annoying and time consuming, but not
    a showstopper
23:55:15 [sajkaj]
    sl: Really don't like to go more granular because that takes us back
    to element based
23:55:37 [sajkaj]
    sl: e.g. there may be three ways to accomplish a particular task,
    which may require different action paths
23:57:01 [Jennie_Delisi]
    UXPA Usability Body of Knowledge uses high-level tasks, broken down
    to subtasks - referenced on usability.gov
23:57:06 [Lauriat]
    ack jeanne
23:57:06 [Zakim]
    jeanne, you wanted to clarify scope
23:57:06 [sajkaj]
    ch: If I recall you can't start at an arbitrary point ...
23:57:28 [sajkaj]
    js: We had considerable discussion about scoping
23:57:50 [sajkaj]
    js: It has to be a logical subset, but can have various tasks, but
    it's not the scope itself
23:57:51 [Lauriat]
    ack Fazio
23:58:32 [sajkaj]
    df: Do a lot of tasks with user testing, when I work with orgs we
    work through the steps involved in achieving a particular outcome --
    a task
23:59:04 [CharlesHall]
    +1 human task(s) are about getting to the outcome
23:59:06 [sajkaj]
    df: Having the author define this puts the onus on the author to
    identify their functional outcomes


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                    Silver Virtual F2F Tuesday Part 2

10 Mar 2020


           KimD, Jennie_Delisi, PeterKorn, CharlesHall, AndySomers,
           Lauriat, Fazio_, Rachael, sajkaj, JF, jeanne, kirkwood


           Shawn, jeanne

           kirkwood, Rachael


      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Setting up a framework for task completion testing
          2. [4]What feedback would Silver like to ask for from
             publishing the Challenges document?
      * [5]Summary of Action Items
      * [6]Summary of Resolutions

    <jeanne> scribe: kirkwood

    Jeanne: befor call starteddavidtalking about a resource

    DavidF: usability testing versus accessibility testing posted
    to slide share


       [7] https://www.slideshare.net/DavidFazio1/designing-for-users-with-disabilities-presentation-135931732

    DF: slide 14 is where the word document is

    Jeanne: i can’t interact with it

    SL: downloadable version?

    DF: I can email

    Jeanne: put in silver folder

    JF: put somewhere we can look at it.

    DF: silver folder good idea


       [8] https://drive.google.com/open?id=1j7gY-jwEn4vp2hPCJqEArufqmPXJgGj6

    Jeanne: I’ll get you one

    LG: what is the main poihnt

    SL: How we can set people up to create these tasks for scope
    ... setting up framework for tsk completion setting


    SL: criticality would be part of this conversation
    ... from getting from point A to Point B rules around heading
    where diret path may only bring you only through one part of
    heading struxture
    ... just part of a complet heading structure
    ... if overall is a bunch of nonsense may cause issue
    ... animations you cant stop or flashing at bad rate even
    though separte still part of envirnoment preventing you from
    moving forward

    JF: underscoredc current concern areound scoping. we can’t do
    component testing because it is sum of components
    ... concerned about scoping creating rosier then reality

    SL: what do need to take into account

    JS: the scope can’t be the tasks
    ... heres the NYTimes ap for you we are testing
    ... the scope has to be a logical subsection of the product
    ... taks are part of scipe

    JF: individual components will pass example given

    JS: scope is a logical subsection of product

    Janina: need to take whole county rich and poor

    JF: starts at H3 all H# but skippin H2 all fails

    SL: not talking components in isolation

    LG: scares me, alternative path is the path of travel. we know
    by dominoes this doesn’t pass
    ... can be gamed.

    Jeanne: not saying thaty

    <Chuck> early regrets. I must go.

    SL: for an assessment need to do we need to define what users
    are trying to do and what outcome is
    ... how do we create a structure so we can guide, assess, and
    express results of test
    ... so we can ensure we aren’t testing compnents in isolation
    ... rather than real experience

    LG: need to have an equal experience not alternative experience

    SL: not sure how this applies here

    LG: scape to read article not experience

    SL: thats exactly what we want form first entry point every
    path navigate to arrive at it

    LG: each path should be equaivlent

    SL: something we can talk about diffent paths such as making
    bold in google docs test ability on all paths to make
    acce3ssibile such as voice command which might not be
    accessibile to everyone

    <CharlesHall> i think of path to (approach) versus path through
    (actions). as similar to multiple ways.

    LG: not all methods to take paths may exist

    SL: not all equivlent
    ... keyboard shortcut example to select bold versus voice
    amount of steps

    LG: check how applied to see how succeed. not significnatly

    SL: i think we are actually agreeing

    LG: also need to talk discovery

    SL: back to top level discussion
    ... mulitple paths and steps to completion
    ... need to be careful about not chaing to technology, device,
    applicaiton websit

    LG: using recognized techniques not a recognizable techniques

    Jennie: one challenge, when one has completed a set of tests
    and vlidadates or retests need to use sme measurement of scope
    especially with legal. repeatablity is very important
    ... would be concerned that 3 people testing would have
    differnet results

    LG: use path of travel in scope

    Jennie: complaint comes into my office saying this issue is not
    adddress. where would path exist for those to retest

    LG: think need to expand scope

    SL: ro add to point of repeatability


    SL: waling through decision tree are many ways to accomplish

    DF: WCAG and Silver are diffenernt conformance odels are we
    moving away from that?

    SL: diffent conformandcde model than 2.x yes that is corrent.
    but repeatability has subjectifvity and get away from attmepts
    of black and white. through equivalency
    ... discussed keyboard equivalency

    DF: never going to have black and white answers, judgement
    calls frustrating or complet barrier

    SL: we have that doay

    <CharlesHall> shawn made my point

    SL: we have these types of situations not just pass fali
    ... this is passing but could do better
    ... trying to get language for that

    JF: I’d be careful about stance, can’t scale for industry
    ... if we make it hardr to do evaluation
    ... won’t be adopted

    SL: repeatability of tests themselves

    <JF> we need 3 things: measurability, testability,

    SL: repeatbility of test results
    ... hope we can narrow down

    LG: gesture to complicated

    JF: if we can't repeat test can't sue

    <Fazio> +1 JF

    LG: the result could have happended. keystroke 3exqample. test
    was repeatable the results wernt

    JF: if you cn’t prove an assertqation after fact don’t have a
    leg to stand on
    ... support users and content creators

    <KimD> +1

    SL: if you produce certian test results, we should have
    evidence on how to get results, target deviation for differnet
    ... structure to provide evidence for results

    <KimD> +1 because the different results could be because 1
    tester used JAWS and the other NVDA

    LG: originally was tested for one group not another

    <JF> Exactly Jennie

    Jennie: from a content creator, and emplyee with diwsability
    side. issue gets brought to court has to hear argument being
    sid from both siedes and make a judgement. to see if testing
    done is sufficient i’m concerned language isn’t going to
    support this. need to make it tight for all parties involved.
    ... for example alt text yes/no
    ... where we get grey is the quality of alternative test


    <CharlesHall> +to thresholds not being grey area

    SL: exactly what we are trying to do

    JF: if we don’t emerge with a standard that the indudstry cn
    use they wont pick it up
    ... need stick not just a bag o carrots
    ... needs to work for everyone

    SL: we absolutely do
    ... we need to make sure usability of standard is a major
    ... for strucrture scope and tasks we need to break down to
    create structrue
    ... meeting with ACT group is imortant
    ... to define how to go through testing as well

    DM: my understanding one stpe away form ACT theres EM framework
    is not same crowd
    ... seven step model of defining scope
    ... don’t think ACT has been setting up an audit

    SL: not what i was saying
    ... can reuse dstructrue framework to apply at higher level to
    wlak through process of soing higher level t3est and
    specifiying ceope


    SL: can use at a higher level

    DM: can look at process

    Jeanne: written proposals are welcome

    SL: doesn’t need to be comprehensive
    ... shoot us an email

Setting up a framework for task completion testing

What feedback would Silver like to ask for from publishing the
Challenges document?

    Janina: peter on?

    PK: yes

    <sajkaj> Latest of Challenges is here:


       [9] https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-redesign2/conformance-challenges/index.html

    PK: thank you. basically we are hoping to soon get review
    approval to publish first wokring darft of challenges document
    ... what specific questions would like to see accompany first
    working draft for ongoing wok

    <sajkaj> Here come the questions ...

    <sajkaj> 1. Are there additional challenges not described in
    our document?

    <sajkaj> + Are there additional Success Criteria from WCAG 2.x
    that should be added to the list of challenging SC in Appendix

    PK: questions are have we found all of challenges what is
    missing, misstate wrong inaccureate

    <sajkaj> + Are there additional considerations that should be
    noted or corected among the SC described in Appendix A?

    <sajkaj> + Are there similarly additional Success Criteria, or
    additions or corrections to those enumerated in Appendix B that
    should be noted, or otherwise described when applying WCAG 2.x
    SC to ICT?

    <sajkaj> + Are the enumerated challenges in Appendix A and/or
    Appendix B suggesting certain patterns that should be called
    out and described?

    <sajkaj> + Are there aspects of our document that are incorrect
    or insufficiently defined?

    <sajkaj> + Have we overlooked some aspect in our analysis that
    should be addressed?

    <sajkaj> 2. What approaches to you believe are most promissing
    to explore in constructing a more comprehensive conformance
    model for WCAG 3.0?

    <sajkaj> 3. What do you believe are the most promising
    approaches for WCAG 3.0 conformance to address or ameliorate
    the challenges described in this document?

    PK: what are the approaches

    JF: had some concerns in previous format, majority were
    addressed, what would like to see. concern outlines why doesn’t
    ... wrong hands would make look like can’t meet today
    ... need to demonstrate solutions are avaialble
    ... concerned about timing that would live in TR rather than
    our own wiki for example

    <AndySomers> COMMENT: The FAA has a Human Factors resource, I
    am looking through it here for ideas on the stumbling blocks we
    are discussing. Here's a link:

      [10] https://www.hf.faa.gov/webtraining/Intro/Intro1.htm?tabid=349

    <sajkaj> Not rec track -- Note Track

    <david-macdonad> is this the latest draft?


      [11] https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-redesign2/conformance-challenges/index.html

    <Rachael> scribe: Rachael

    Peter: To be clear, this document isn't saying that WCAG is
    broken. Its talking about places where the conformance model is
    difficult to practice.

    John: When you get into a court of law, that is a real use
    case, a real scenario. We all know this. You have collected in
    one place. In the hands of the uninformed, it could pose a

    Peter: I hear you. This is not an indictment of WCAG. It is
    providing detail of something well known in the community -
    that perfection isn't achievable. To argue against recognizing
    the fact is concerning to me.

    John: Its the presentation not the content that I have concerns

    david-macdonad: Is this the latest draft? It seems several
    versions back.
    ... I had addressed some of those concerns and I was reasonably
    satisfied but maybe this version is an earlier version.

    Peter: The version that ends in conformance challenges redesign

    <JF> For clarity: my (our) concern is not about the content,
    but a) how it was being "presented" to the uninformed public,
    and b) the lack of any potential solutions.

    Peter: I know this doesn't have the authors list trimming yet.
    ... but it did change the acknowledgements section and does
    have what we discussed. When we talked, there was an
    outstanding question that had been raised. We hadn't heard back
    but can reopen that question to address those concerns before
    the next survey. I believe you have the action.

    Jeanne: Can I interrupt? We have moved off topic. What feedback
    can we ask for from this?

    Lucy: In academia, when we ask for something that has
    challenges in it, we ask for a roadmap instead of a challenges

    Peter: I am trying to process that.

    Lucy: You've done a good job capturing the challenges but we
    should reformat it as a roadmap. What are the priorities and
    how can we research these and address them?

    Peter: We have two questions. One focused on model and one
    focused on content

    <CharlesHall> @ Peter / Janina, the C.1 acknowledgement section
    has an incorrect conflation of attribution, Charles Hall
    (Oracle). we are Charles Adams (Oracle) or Charles Hall (MRM)

    Peter: for example one might be to insist all videos are
    captioned before we accept them. What are strategies for an
    author trying to create an accessible website to fix issues

    Lucy: I think we need to look at this as what would a grad
    student looking for their next thesis be asking?

    Jeanne: When we put out a document, we ask for feedback. Peter
    has come to us asking what questions does Silver have after
    reviewing this document. I have thought of 2 but can't remember
    them. Will come back. What Lucy said about priorities. What do
    you think the priorities are for the challenges?

    Peter: Can you expand on that?

    Jeanne: Given the challenges we have identified, what is the
    priority that the reviewers think we should address them in?
    ... if we can't get to all of them in Silver, what are the most
    ... WCAG 3.0 not Silver.
    ... We could ask if there are specific success criteria in the
    appendix that should be significantly revised and what

    Peter: That is a great one.

    Sean: We are at time.

    <KimD> +1

    <CharlesHall> +1

    <AndySomers> Hear hear

    <AndySomers> +1

    <Jennie_Delisi> +1 for chairs!

    Janina: Cheers to our chairs for running this so well



    <kirkwood> thanks for taking over scribing Racheal!

    <kirkwood> ahem.. Racheal/Rachael

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2020 02:40:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:47 UTC