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

Hi, Detlev:

Thanks for this response. What you're saying strikes me as exactly the kinds of challenges we need to capture in the mind of anyone coming along and reading the use case, i.e. it shouldn't just be about problems with radio buttons.

So, some thoughts on how we might useful generalize and still tease out this important discussion:


  *   The phrase "such as" comes to mind, eg. There are multiple ways to markup a rating selection and each of those markup options has its own accessibility considerations well documented by WCAG.
  *   The kinds of problems that result from NOT following WCAG accessibility support guidance can result, when radio buttons are used, in challenges such as you describe in your email.
I especially like this radio button as an example because automated testing would flag that there's a problem.

Hth

Janina

From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:09 AM
To: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>; Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Use case regarding the impact of issues in secondary content on the assessment of 'substantial conformance'


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


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