Re: Minutes from CSUN Hybrid Meeting

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



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Mobile:  613.806.9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

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> 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
>