Re: Minutes from CSUN Hybrid Meeting

> On Mar 15, 2023, at 10:33 PM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote:
> I'm ok with the test unit being View instead of Web Page, Views allows more explicit distinction of new interfaces at the same URL which is good. Although I confess an ongoing affinity to "Web Page", (i.e., the way cars are still measured in "horsepower" a hundred years after horses are no longer used in transportation)

I think the subtlety is that 
You can EVALUATE  at  component, view, page, process or any other thing
But you CLAIM at the   "URL and all components it needs to render the content at that URL"  (e.g. images, javascript, etc.) (Which is basically the definition of a Web Page — but since we have web-apps at a URL I 

I suggest we say 
EVALUATIONS or ASSESSMENTS or TESTS can be against any level of aggregation  (e.g. components/items, views, pages, processes, sites)
But
CLAIMS are made against  "URL or set of URLs and all components it needs to render the content at that URL" 
With "NOTE: if a URL is part of a process then any claim for that URL must be true of all URLs in the process."  (e.g. the URL with the lowest level of conformance in a process defines the level of claim that can be made for all of the URLs in the process.)

> I like the idea of critical errors causing a failure of all views of a process (as in WCAG 2.x)

I presume you don’t just mean critical errors — but you mean something like the NOTE above. 

------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us



> On Mar 15, 2023, at 10:33 PM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Rachael 
> 
> After 20 years of being active in face to face meetings, it was a bit surreal to be reading the minutes after the face to face without being able to attend, as I'm caring for my wife with ALS. However it was great to read through the good minutes and slide decks. I think there were important directions starting to solidify. I have a few basic thoughts as I read through:
> I share the opinion that Bronze should basically encapsulate WCAG 2.X AA (and perhaps some other additions) rather than being somewhere below the WCAG  2.x AA  threshold. 
> I liked the discussion about prerequisites in option 1 (without it being a level)
> I share the concern about the cost of counting passes and adding them all up. I would rather see accessibility budgets used on documenting failures rather than using up precious budget counting and evaluating things that already pass in order to get a %
> I share the emerging thought of combining Option 1 and 2 (and simplifying)
> I share concerns about ensuring 3.0 is easier to understand than WCAG 2.x  and hopefully easier to test.
> I like 3.0 having functional needs up front labelled with a heading. In WCAG 2.x we have a more ambiguous approach of listing these types of needs in the "Intent" and "Benefits" sections of the Understanding which requires a bit of digging
> I'm fine with the terms and categories of Guidelines, Outcomes, Assertions ( all as normative) and Methods and Test Sets (non normative). "Outcome" is simpler and easier to understand than Success Criteria.
> I'm ok with the test unit being View instead of Web Page, Views allows more explicit distinction of new interfaces at the same URL which is good. Although I confess an ongoing affinity to "Web Page", (i.e., the way cars are still measured in "horsepower" a hundred years after horses are no longer used in transportation)
> I like the progressive aggregation of granular building blocks "items, views, user processes, and aggregate". 
> In the straw poll I'm fine with 2 or 3  (2) Continue with concept of recommended priorities but base on “activities” aka at a more granular level (3) Drop idea of recommending prioritization above bronze
> I like the idea of critical errors causing a failure of all views of a process (as in WCAG 2.x)
> I like the concept of "Testable" applying to both qualitative and quantitative tests and the idea of items moving from qualitative to quantitative incrementally as testing methodologies mature and automation improves.
> Thanks to all for the hard work and good progress at the face to face.
> 
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>  
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> Mobile:  613.806.9005
> LinkedIn 
>  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>   
>   Adapting the web to all users
>             Including those with disabilities
> 
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
> 
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 8:33 AM Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L <rmontgomery@loc.gov <mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The minutes from Monday’s meeting are at: https://www.w3.org/2023/03/13-ag-minutes.html
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you to all who attended and special thanks to our sponsors:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Our meeting room was sponsored by the CSUN Conference
>> Non-room costs sponsored by Jay Mullen
>>  
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Rachael
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Rachael Bradley Montgomery, PhD
>> 
>> Digital Accessibility Architect
>> 
>> Library of Congress
>> 
>> Email: rmontgomery@loc.gov <mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>