W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > April 2021

Silver minutes from 16 April

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:14 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3a38273b540040a1bc60e91be9ee8092@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Friday 16 April are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            A series of reminders; our daylong F2F on the 29th; issue processing
              requests and clarifications, etc;
*            Discussion of various steps in getting an outcome score
*            Discussion of Conformance Option #13 from Japan
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/04/16-silver-minutes.html

===========================================================
   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Task Force & Community Group

16 April 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          AngelaAccessForAll, Azlan, ChrisLoiselle, Francis_Storr, jeanne, Jemma, jennifer_strickland, JF, KimD, Laura_Carlson, Lauriat, PeterKorn, sajkaj, SuzanneTaylor

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          jeanne, Shawn

   Scribe
          sajkaj

Contents

    1. reminder of upcoming meetings
    2. reminder of survey
    3. drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues
    4. agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting
    5. Bronze Silver Gold options
    6. agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting
    7. drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues
    8. Bronze Silver Gold options
    9. Option #12
   10. Option #13

Meeting minutes

   <jennifer_strickland> It's my first week at MITRE and my brain is kaput.

   js: Put the 29th in your calendars! oAM, 1PM, and 5PM Boston!

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021

   <Chuck> janina: The new calendar tool from W3C may be useful now.

   <Chuck> janina: Live now.

   <Jemma> w3c calendar can also have a link to the minutes

  reminder of upcoming meetings

  reminder of survey

   <jeanne> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2021Apr/0060.html

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-weekly-responses-survey/

   js: A survey for us all

   js: This is issue processing

   ca: I created, and is next Tuesday's agenda, 20 April

   ca: Link in first question that will pull up items with a draft response to consider in the telecon

   ca: Request is to agree with all, or choose other and make a comment regarding your concerns or proposed changes

   ca: Notes he's crafted the 4 in the current survey

   <Azlan> I cannot access the survey

   js: Asks whether everyone can access the survey, especially people in via CG?

   <jennifer_strickland> Where is the survey, please?

   <SuzanneTaylor> I'm getting "Not Allowed"

   ca: Also asks any CG people to check if can access ...

   rick: Can access everything!

   <Azlan> Thank you

   jennifer_strickland: Seeing the survey but no response options ...

   ca: Do you see instructions in a link?

   js: Yes

   ca: So, one must use the link to go forward

   ca: Either accept all, or make comment with specifics

   pk: Looking at survey and IBM comments ...

   pk: Is there plan to break up their doc like was done with ITI?

   ca: Yes, this is just one item where we were able to get to a response already

  drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues

  agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting

   js: Invites people to look at ...

   <jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/status%3A%20needs%20proposal

   js: Current list of issues ready for a proposed response draft

   js: Recalls Alastair reviewed the process in some detail at our Tuesday AM call

   js: Important that declining to agree should include reasons

   js: And always remember to be respectful and professional in our responses.

   ca: Especially with persons outside W3C, but really always

   js: Notes that Chuck has labeled his responses as "draft,"

   ca: That's important and we should be sure to do that

   js: Also, when begin working on a comment, remove label that says "needs proposal" and assign it to yourself.

   js: If you run into a permissions issue, send your github nick to cooper@w3.org

   <jeanne> send requests for Github access to cooper@w3.org

   js: Reason for removing "needs proposal" is to avoid more people taking up the same issue response draft with no coordination

   js: Please keep looking at the "needs proposal" sort, and help us with proposal drafts. This will help immensly

   js: This should also help support more asyncronous participation

  Bronze Silver Gold options

  agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting

   <Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021

   js: We have agenda for bronze/silver/gold meeting ...

   js: We are taking comments assigned to editors relating to conformance and breaking it down for b/s/g discussion

   js: we'll start with testing discussion

   js: we will break this into topics athey'll be available in advance and will be posted in advance

   <jeanne> Session 1

   <jeanne> Context of meeting and short summary of AGWG and Silver Merge plans

   <jeanne> Testing comments and building blocks of testing

   <jeanne> Session 2

   <jeanne> Building blocks of scoring

   <jeanne> Session 3

   <jeanne> Requirements of what we want in Conformance and how to assess the proposals for Conformance

   <jeanne> Options of Bronze Silver Gold document

   js: Notes it's all on the agenda page which will continue to get updates

   pk: Double checking that BSG options is the Google doc with some low teens number of options?

   js: Yes!

   js: We're up to 13!

   <JF_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#

   Jemma: Sounds very good, but will be missing the sessions, trying to understand link between 1st and 2nd sessions ...

   js: Notes one may have different tests for html vs a mobile app

   js: But once test is in hand one evaluates how one does passing the tests

   js: At the outcome level you get a score number that is averaged from individual tests

   <PeterKorn> Dropping for my conflict...

   js: Reason for extra scoring level is for the ability to make all scores averagable in a fair manner

   js: Idea of outcome level is more related to outcome

   janina: Please re-explain!

   <jeanne> Testing happens at the technology level

   <jeanne> Scoring is at the Outcome level

   rick: Yes, also not understanding yet, can we get one sentence summaries of the pieces? I could volunteer to work on that

   js: We should re-examine the explanations that Rachael did

   <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#tests

   <Lauriat> Tests provide ways to check that methods and techniques have been followed. Tests include step-by-step instructions on evaluating the method based on the technology being used. Tests may vary by technology
   as needed. Tests specify the unit being tested and the approach to scoring for that test.

   js: reads from link ...

   <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#test-scoring

   <Lauriat> Each method includes information on how to score individual instances of the test. The testing results for methods inform the rating of the related outcome.

   <SuzanneTaylor> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#outcome-rating

   <ChrisLoiselle> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#conformance-levels and https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#outcomes-structure

   js: Recalls good example re XR

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#captions

   js: Looking at speech and nonspeech audio ...

   js: Run test at the tech level it's for, then a translation process level that brings into a rating that would be comparable to an unrelated guideline like plain lang

   <Chuck> janina: Rating/score might be a useful distinction to make

   rick: Volunteers again to try and help make it a bit more newbie friendly

   js: Accepts and will forward anything useful that comes up

   <Lauriat> +1, thank you, Rick!

   jf: Is this good time to dive into scoring details?

   js: No, not just now

  drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues

  Bronze Silver Gold options

   <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/

   js: Asks SL to lead discussion ... Are there ones we haven't yet reveiwed

   sl: I believe 3 to go

   sl: Believe we stopped at 11

   sl: So maybe 2

  Option #12

   <Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.juk4rs86lt47

   <ChrisLoiselle> I can do it

   js: Believe it came from PK

   sl: Ah, yes and we wanted to review with him present ...

   js: Postpone?

   sl: Let's start with 13

  Option #13

   sl: Makato did walk us through the results so we've had a start

   <ChrisLoiselle> Option 13 it is. Option 13 from Results of the Attendees Survey - Japanese Webinar on FPWD

   sl: This was outcome from a Japanese conversation Makato translated into English for us

   <ChrisLoiselle> WCAG 2.x Level AA too difficult, prefer something more like - A → Bronze AA → Silver [something higher] → Gold

   sl: Suggesting Level A approx = to Bronze

   sl: Then items in AA would be Silver; and a higher standard Gold

   <Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kX6DnXftI9VSrK9wgTTOqlkFp9KE4OCGxQqgDiAUcTc/edit#heading=h.fc4xg3cwwi2o

   sl: One pro is that AA is too hard to meet in Japan

   sl: Hoping for a more feasible standard

   sl: But why would be a question we woult to have an answer for

   sl: Some cons ...

   sl: Fairness with categories unaddressed

   sl: Could be addressed by reducing minimum scoring for Bronze

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that this could be addressed by changing minimum score for bronze

   js: There has been conversation whether 3.5 is the correct number for achieving Bronze

   js: It was arbitrary at first, and intended to get the conversation going

   js: Subgroups weren't necessarily consistent

   js: Some groups included AAA at 4; others addressed AA at 4

   js: Mainly because we ran out of time for publication deadline

   js: We have discussed in discussing how to handle AAA; one outcome was to reduce the score--phps 2.5

   js: That would support AAA at 4 at outcome

   js: Theoretically we could also address some of the Japanese concerns that way

   js: Thought it doesn't address Bronze = A

   sl: Moved could be addressed to 'issue to work through'

   sl: and we need to know why AA is to hard in Japan, so we can solve the right problem

   <ChrisLoiselle> for Option 13 : Issues to Work Through - Could be addressed with the FPWD by reducing the minimum point score for Bronze. - Identify the barriers that some geographies have in implementing WCAG - AA -
   Needs looking more into what makes WCAG 2.x AA too difficult to meet

   <Chuck> janina: Was it because they were not able to get a translation of the spec? Couldn't get ARIA into japanese? that might find a sponsor to resolve.

   <ChrisLoiselle> Janina: Screen readers not translating to Japanese and not knowing what to do? Was that topic part of this?

   <Chuck> jeanne: That's on the "accessibility supported" conversation.

   <Chuck> jeanne: A good question we need to get to, but not today.

   sl: Looks more an overall complexity of getting to AA -- can't tell exactly why? Alkl or nothing? In which case not a problem as long as scoring takes that into account

   sl: We'll work with Makato to understand this better

   Jemma: Recall because hard to understand as written

   sl: So we may already be making good progress on this, but we'll double check the details

   azlan: The difficulty is from the engineering point of view, correct?

   azlan: Are the outcomes difficult? Isn't that what matters?

   <jeanne> +1

   sl: +1

   ca: Not so sure the survey was engineering based

   <Jemma> yes, they are accessibility evaluators

   <Jemma> in Japan

   sl: A reason to dig deeper--to avoid making assumptions on the why

   <Zakim> JF_, you wanted to note its not always about AT

   jf: Notes not always about AT; some things don't require AT e.g. captions

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).



----------------------------------

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
Received on Friday, 16 April 2021 19:09:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:52 UTC