Minutes from Tuesday 16 February

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

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            Review of comment tracking; To be updated regularly
*            Much discussion of what Silver & Gold conformance might require
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/02/16-silver-minutes.html

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

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Task Force & Community Group

16 February 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Chuck, JakeAbma, jeanne, Jemma, jennifer_strickland, JF, joconnor, JustineP, kirkwood, Laura_Carlson, Makoto, mgarrish, mikecrabb, Rachael, sajkaj, sarahhorton, Sheri_B-H, SuzanneTaylor, ToddLibby, Wilco

   Regrets
          Shawn

   Chair
          jeanne

   Scribe
          sajkaj

Contents

    1. report from editors on Github Issues
    2. report on extended Acknowledgements proposal
    3. start discussion on Silver and Gold levels

Meeting minutes

  report from editors on Github Issues

   js: Notes Shawn on vacation this week ...

   <jennifer_strickland> I wonder, when we use the reactions in Zoom, do screen reader users get any indication?

   <Fazio> prsent+

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Issue_Processing_Report

   js: found this approach instructive; plan to update weekly

   js: Note that clicking on link brings up latest from github on that issue

   js: Notes some Silver issues predate FPWD and are not closed

   js: Some may be quite old

   js: Notes that comments on FPWD began before actual publication; Using Nov 1 as a start date

   js: reviews stats ...

   <Jemma> It is a good idea to link to github url with filters since they will be updated automatically.

   js: Requests "action ready for survey" flag on items coming out of subgroups looking for async approval

   <Fazio> i like it

   df: Nice salient labels in github; clean table -- very nice

   js: trying to make it easy for github newbies

  report on extended Acknowledgements proposal

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2021/02/09-ag-minutes.html#item02

   js: Requesting status update on extended acknowledgements

   rm: Checking whether followup email was sent ...

   js: Will there be CfC?

   rm: That's the email

   js: Concerned another CfC after names are attached ...

   mc: Suggest now for principles and good to keep it separate from actual names

   mc: Notes this is typically chair perogative, not group consensus

   rm: don't expect CfC on namess

  start discussion on Silver and Gold levels

   js: It's a major area not addressed in FPWD; but we've promissed to do so in the next working draft

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

   js: Notes currently 4 options; Are there others?

   js: #1 that Bronze is like 2.x A/AA

   js: reads out the others ...

   js: Notes all are variations on each other--same terms

   rm: speaking of A/AA/AAA is a comparative

   rm: testing usability is intended across life-cycle

   <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to clarify some terms when jeanne is done

   rm: maturity model will be outpuf of that subgroup

   sherie: Notes we'll want to say "maturity model" at a particular level

   js: recommendation yet?

   <Fazio> +1

   sherie: probably 2, but not edetermined yet

   ja: concerned re need for AT testing

   <Jemma> +1 to Jake's AT testing question

   <JF> +1 to Jake: Testable, measurable and repeatable

   ja: believe premature which to choose because we don't yet know what the meaning of all of these is yet

   ja: isn't too early for silver/gold? shouldn't we trial some of these approaches?

   js: Clarifies we're not looking to make a decision today but to start discussing options to help maturity model understand where to go

   df: we're actively discussing options

   ja: also thinking maturity model might apply in 2.x as well

   ja: at testing, usability testing, tech testing are maturity model by definition

   ca: Is this doc ready to share?

   ca: not ready, but just to get reflection on the concepts -- is it OK to share this not yet ready doc around?

   js: all our docs are public

   js: It's always an option to discuss W3C around your organization; one should just be clear that the doc is a work in progress

   jf: recalling new clients always trip over A vs AA ...

   jf: not seeing anything that incentivises striving to go beyond bronze

   <kirkwood> please send me the link as well with understanding.

   jf: concerned that going above bronze is going to be too hard from a regulatory pov

   jf: believe it's especially a problem for medium small orgs

   jennifer: clarifying that human testing is still necessary -- manual testing to be compliant?

   js: manual is currently in bronze

   js: responding to jf that silver can't be used to artificially increase scoring that qualifies bronze

   js: one must first achieve bronze

   <JF> Bronze = A, AA Silver and Gold = AAA

   js: bronze intended to be understood as minimum; remaining metalics are more

   js: it's all a work in progress, of course

   jema: understand silver requires extra effort

   jema: notes a cg working to make AT testing more achievable

   js: didn't realize that, very exciting

   <Wilco> Yeah, ARIA-AT https://www.w3.org/community/aria-at/

   js: would make Silver far more available to small orgs

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to Jeanne

   jf: +1 to jema; just concerned about scaling

   <jennifer_strickland> +1 to jf

   jf: concerned silver/gold become like today's AAA -- basically unused

   jf: we need a mechanism that works inside the organizations processes

   ja: there are other approaches than our current bronze/silver/gold; higher scoring should increase your metalic

   ja: If one improves the product, shouldn't it get better than bronze? If the site is really really a11y?

   ja: a prefect website -- but without the specific AT/usability testing; and without maturity model; still only bronze? Doesn't seem right

   <JF> +1 to returning to score

   ja: Seems we're defining ways to test; not the quality of the web product

   rm: tried to capture jake's proposal in option #5; please fix if I got it wrong

   wilco: agree with Jake

   <JF> +1 to Wilco

   wilco: find it peculiar that one metalic is about the product; but others about how one tests against the product

   wilco: it's OK to give guidance about how to organize the processes of achieving higher quality product; but we shouldn't mix the two

   wilco: else we're setting the bar too low

   js: all this came of current pass/fail not getting desired results

   js: we needed to do more for inclusive design

   js: assisting regulators on doing more without requiring it

   <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about Jake's observations of no change

   ca: agree that meeting bronze MAY indicate already achieved Silver -- but doing the testing is the validation

   ca: the validation step advances the bar

   ja: yes, that advances the maturity of the processes

   ja: it's helpful for additional product testing, but doesn't improve the product

   js: let's not be saying "perfectly" ...

   jf: where's the scoring?

   js: already part of bronze

   jf: If inuderstand the discussion; we have two different things and we need to recognize that we're measuring two different things

   js: believe we have

   js: notes the base remains bronze before you can even consider silver; then again before can consider gold

   df: Notes EU moving toward a maturity model kind of approach

   <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask that this document is a "space station view" of the proposals

   ca: Notes doc is intended to trigger discussion -- and it's doing that!

   ca: obviously much more to add to the doc; but far enough along for good considerations to come out

   jennifer: still concerned about manual testing esp if requires AT

   js: Lots that doesn't need AT; eg. useful alt; even today

   js: but asking whether products work with AT is a different level

   jennifer: we need to make sure the barest minimum works for everyone; and the higher metalics build on the experience toward a great experience

   jennifer: maybe not every screen reader; but should test with a screen reader

   js: Chair hat off -- there are many situations where AT is malbehaved

   js: some will work, and others not even when product built to spec

   js: the AT may not follow standards and can cause problems

   js: We don't want companies coding to support specific AT

   <JF> A technical standard is an established norm or requirement for a repeatable technical task. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes, and
   practices. (source: wikipedia)

   js: Was a very important issue i18n, because related AT could behave so differently

   <Wilco> A very substantial part of AT work has no standardisation for it.

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say standards

   jennifer: perhaps we need be more explicit about this

   jennifer: considering one AT that doesn't currently handle dl correctly

   <JF> HTML5's design principle was users over authors, authors over implementers, implementers over code purity

   js: to be continued!


    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>