Re: Minutes from CSUN Hybrid Meeting

Hi Gregg

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

Yes that is right...

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 Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:15 PM Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
> *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
>>
>
>