Use case regarding the impact of issues in secondary content on the assessment of 'substantial conformance'

On behalf of the conformance subgroup, Janina has asked me to generalise 
a use case that I inserted into the google docs
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/

...based on the discussion at the end of these minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2021/01/21-silver-conf-minutes.html

My use case appears after point "4. The solution should leverage 
automated tests..."

I am in two minds whether generalising the case I have submitted is a 
good idea though. I personally like use cases to be specific (i.e. not 
generic) since the thoughts of us WG members as to whether or not issues 
described would - or should - prevent conformance hinge on an assessment 
of criticality for different types of users, and I believe that 
assessment may well depend on implementation details.
So, just generalising the case and talking about issues in primary and 
secondary content, and the question whether it should make a difference 
when issues can be detected automatically, may gloss over critical 
instances of actual user experience and in turn, put a blur filter on 
the assessment of criticality that should guide us in 'drawing the 
lines' when setting the tolerance levels in our new conformance concept.

For example, in the use case proposed (a feedback process where merely 
selecting a radio input unexpectedly submits the feedback form with no 
option of undo), I would imagine that there might be people with 
cognitive issues who really freak out when they experience that what 
they intended as a mere tentative selection of a radio control has been 
interpreted as activation (submission of a user rating) without any 
chance of reversal. For others, this will be trivial, they will think of 
it as a drop disappearing in an ocean of anonymous feedback. I also 
believe that (most) AGWG members discussing a revised conformance 
concept should have no difficulties appreciating technical details on 
the level included in my case.

Best,
Detlev


Am 08.01.2021 um 21:12 schrieb Sajka, Janina:
>
> Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
>
> Friday 8 January are provided here.
>
> ===========================================================
>
> SUMMARY:
>
> *            FPWD transition request has been sent.
>
> *            Discussion of adjustments to meeting times and dates; a 
> poll is
>
>               forthcoming
>
> *            Brief subgroup reports
>
> ===========================================================
>
> Hypertext minutes available at:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2021/01/08-silver-minutes.html
>
> ===========================================================
>
>    W3C
>
> – DRAFT –
>
>                          Silver Task Force & Community Group
>
> 08 January 2021
>
>    IRC log.
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>
>           AngelaAccessForAll, CharlesHall, Chuck, Francis_Storr, Jan, 
> jeanne, Jemma, KimD, Lauriat, mgarrish, PeterKorn, Rachael, sajkaj, 
> sarahhorton, shari, SuzanneT, SuzanneTaylor, uxjennifer
>
>    Regrets
>
>           Bruce, David, Sukriti, Todd
>
>    Chair
>
>           jeanne, Shawn
>
>    Scribe
>
>           sajkaj
>
> Contents
>
>     1. update on publishing
>
>     2. Meeting schedule time changes for 2021
>
>     3. update on publishing
>
> Meeting minutes
>
>    <uxjennifer> +
>
>   update on publishing
>
>    <Chuck> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/303
>
>    ca: Transition request for FPWD has been forwarded
>
>    ca: Track progress at above link
>
>    ca: Anticipating new issues emerging as a result of moving to FPWD; 
> suggest time to discuss
>
>   Meeting schedule time changes for 2021
>
>    js: SSeveral requests to change time and day
>
>    js: Of course we eventually move to AGWG's Tuesday 11AM Bopston time
>
>    js: That puts Silver plus AGWG participants on the phone from 9:30 
> AM to 1:00 PM Boston with a brief 30 minute break (perhaps)
>
>    js: But there's also the challenge of participation across North 
> America, Europe, and Japan
>
>    js: Asking for discussion ... We will follow with a poll
>
>    <Jemma> It would be a good idea to have one meeting only.
>
>    js: So, for now, let's narrow down what's in the poll
>
>    <Chuck> janina: SInce we are heading to an 11am on tueday's in 
> boston, how about same hour different day?
>
>    <PeterKorn> +1 to that idea
>
>    sj: Suggests 11AM Boston some other day of the week because we're 
> going to that time on Tuesdays anyway
>
>    sl: Suggests a rotating time schedule
>
>    <Jan> Doesn't 11:00 a.m. Eastern put a burden on our Asia participants?
>
>    sl: Was original idea of two meetings at disparate times
>
>    <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to propose maybe a rotating time?
>
>    sl: Notes it could be a bit tricky to track what week
>
>    <Chuck> -0.0001
>
>    ca: Slight objection to rotating; perfers consistency
>
>    <Lauriat> +1 to not wanting to over-complicate things. :-)
>
>    ca: Prefers early in the day -- even though I'm Mountain Time!
>
>    <KimD> +1 I will not be able to meet at changing times.
>
>    rm: Suggests a non 11AM time to share the pain
>
>    <Jemma> It is 4:14am in Japan now.
>
>    sj: Notes a later day Boston time is problem for Europe
>
>    <CharlesHall> proposal: shorter meetings, more frequently, and 
> distributed
>
>    js: Originally, we didn't have much Euro participation
>
>    <Lauriat> Note: we've also had periodic interest in Australia and I 
> think India, so I don't want to completely discount other time zones, 
> even if we focus on the current participants.
>
>    <Jan> It's 7:15 p.m in the UK right now.
>
>    js: Notes Friday Euro participation low for just that reason
>
>    <CharlesHall> and 4:15 in tokyo
>
>    pk: Given importance of Makoto's contribution suggesting 10AM Boston
>
>    <CharlesHall> additional proposal: take advantage of our W3C Slack 
> community
>
>    Francis: Willing to do 6:30 Pacific to help with Makato
>
>    pk: 7AM would make biggish difference for me -- also have late meetings
>
>    ch: Shorter meetings, less frequently
>
>    ch: Suggests using slack
>
>    js: Please explain
>
>    ch: Allows nonsynchronous
>
>    js: How does that help as a substitute for a meeting?
>
>    ch: Not substitute, just another option
>
>    cl: Likes the idea of a recording one can audition asynchronously
>
>    sl: Sill not understanding what slack would contribute that we 
> don't already have
>
>    <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to mention meeting minutes, 
> resolutions, and summaries emailed out.
>
>    <KimD> +1 to SL - I think we're covered with email
>
>    ca: Also not opposed but don't understand the value add
>
>    <CharlesHall> we have that channel – #silver-wcag3
>
>    rm: A dedicated slack channel would aggregate text conversations; 
> could keep audio recordings limited to participants
>
>    sj: asks about slack accessibility?
>
>    pk: disappointing
>
>    <CharlesHall> to that point, Slack is now owned by SalesForce
>
>    Jennifer: Suggests MS Teams ...
>
>    <CharlesHall> Slack has a dedicated accessibility team
>
>    js: Notes use of non sanctioned tools within W3C work is an issue
>
>    <CharlesHall> sorry, i have to drop :(
>
>    <Chuck> Janina: Issue is that there may not be much support 
> difference with what Zoom provides.
>
>    sj: suggests similar to Zoom
>
>    pk: except that captioning is builtin; whereas on Zoom it's an add
>
>    <uxjennifer> Peter is correct. Zoom uses Otter.ai as the add-in to 
> support captions & transcript
>
>    js: That could be a big advantage with hearing disabilities people
>
>    rm: Seeing better captioning and better screen reader integration 
> in Teams
>
>    jennifer: Teams would be everything in one place; but con is 
> everything on one platform
>
>    Jennifer: Would be willing to ask about Ms possibly donating for 
> W3C use
>
>    <Jan> captioning abilities for zoom: 
> https://www.washington.edu/accessibility/videos/zoom/
>
>    js: Suggests not just yet, but phps
>
>    js: We should simply check whether or not there's already 
> conversation about Teams
>
>    kd: Likes much of the a11y support in Teams even though not usually 
> an Ms fan
>
>    js: Let's get back to the when focus ...
>
>    js: There's also still the proposal to more times of shorter duration
>
>    <Chuck> janina: Issue with shorter meetings is setup and followup 
> time that isn't helped by having a shorter meeting, and issues with 
> meaty topics.
>
>    <Chuck> janina: And we didn't resolve the large topic.
>
>    <KimD> +1 - shorter meetings may be less effective
>
>    <shari> i agree with janina
>
>    sj: Notes setup and post actions aren't helped by more frequent 
> shorter mtgs; and often we need time for discussion
>
>    dk: Rotating would not work for me; Keep Tuesday is best for me
>
>    dk: Really don't want to make it harder for Makoto
>
>    dk: Maybe a different day with the same Friday time might get more 
> Euro participation
>
>    Susanne: +1 to same time as Friday and keeping Tuesday
>
>    <Chuck> janina: There's merrit to keeping tuesday and moving friday 
> to another day, so that not eating into weekend.
>
>    <Chuck> janina: The only real choices are Thursday and Monday's, 
> given that other days run into other calls.
>
>    <Jemma> just let you know that there are w3c ARIA and ARIA AT 
> meetings on Thursdays.
>
>    <Jemma> mainly Thursday afternoon.
>
>    <KimD> +1 to Thursday at roughly this time (could be later too for me)
>
>    pk: More likely to have more conflict midday than at early 8AM Pacific
>
>    <PeterKorn> This time on another day is more likely to have 
> periodic conflicts for me.
>
>    <PeterKorn> 8am PT / 11am ET or 9am PT / noon ET would be the best 
> choice for me generally.
>
>    js: Looking at moving this meeting earlier; believe we have enough 
> for a poll
>
>    <Jan> But - is the AGWG time out of bounds for Japan?
>
>    js: Please look for a link to the poll!
>
>    <PeterKorn> I need to drop now.
>
>    <PeterKorn> Thanks. Also Happy New Year.
>
>    <Chuck> not a lot from multiple people, but a huge amount from one 
> person
>
>    Jennifer: Asks about our level of Asian participation? If not, 
> would a friendlier time garner more participation?
>
>    js: It's always been an issue; mostly in support of Australia; but 
> never a lot of additional participation
>
>    js: Makoto participates, even though it's 11:30PM for him
>
>    jennifer: wonders whether we tried for long enough?
>
>    js: for about a year
>
>    jennifer: OK
>
>   update on publishing
>
>    <Chuck> janina: Conformance group has added in scope out of scope 
> and timeline data to the top of the wiki. That's captured in an email 
> to the silver list and AGWG.
>
>    <Chuck> janina: I added a parenthetical to our scope statement.
>
>    <SuzanneTaylor> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XlT8IWlD9crki24ILyzbmQUjxZzl0Cv5jGa8m5gmQRo/edit?usp=sharing
>
>    susanne: Also did Errors; but currently in Google Doc
>
>    susanne: Expect something ready for hearbeat wd
>
>    js: Notes fpwd has more items covered, ie intellectual property, etc
>
>    js: updated working drafts are not the same level of attention
>
>    js: but always announced
>
>    js: Just not as many blogs and commentaries, etc
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> Janina Sajka
>
> Accessibility Standards Consultant
>
> sajkaj@amazon.com <mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
>

-- 
Detlev Fischer
DIAS GmbH
(Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH)

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.dias.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites

Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2021 09:09:36 UTC