<Peter_Korn> Now?
<scribe> scribe: jeanne
jeanne: I saw there were comments in the Challenges document
Peter: Silver meeting with AGWG
to talk about the challenges meeting. I set a deadline of the
10 October, assuming the AGWG meeting would be 15
October.
... review it with Silver Friday meeting on 11 October.
... there are edits from people with W3C accessibility
experience who are experiencing similar challenges
... we are trying to also talk aobut challenges with WCAG
success criteria
... adding a 4th challenge about applying conformance to
software (mobile) applications
... we won't be done done, but it will be a much richer
document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xqYWtUOc_kn-owXsrWiTY8qh0sF_KgbkyxvHWvPSA9s/edit#
jeanne walks through the explainer proposal
Peter: I recommend changing the name of the conformance - user to conformance - evaluator and conformance - backend to better describe it.
[discussion of where to put the Issues]
Jeanne: I think we should put the Issues in the Design Decisions
Janina: The most important thing this Explainer needs to do is justify why we are moving away from the WCAG Conformance
Peter: We need to be clear that WCAG has challenges
Janina: After 20 years experience with the WCAG spec, we want to bring accessibility standards closer to the reality of what people with disabilties experience when things work.
Angela: I think that will resonate with people with work to put the standards into practice. Silver will help people get to where they need to go.
editors draft from the charter https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/
editor's draft from the prototype work https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/EdDraftPrototype/
Peter: I think I would consider a
different work equivalence. I would recommend
grandfathering
... whatever SIlver conformance is, someone who meets WCAG 2.1
could get credit, the way that people who transfer from a
Community College or Junior college get credit for their
previous classes, but they aren't equivalent.
... I think we need to feel comfortable with the point scoring
system. It doesn't address the challenges we are capturing in
the challenges document.
Discussion outside the meeting: Moving away from 100% compliance 100% of the time. One of the proposals is to have statistical sampling of sites, the way that Japan requires. Makoto sent out an email with details. It's an interesting starting place. Another is to not require 100% for the guidance (success criteria) that don't have a big impact on the user experience. An unlabeled
image of a logo in the footer has a very different user impact than an unlabeled image link in the navigation. It's hard to set it up so that everyone isn't blatantly cheating, but I don't want to try to make it cheat-proof. I personally think it is more important to get it right for the organizations that are trying to improve accessibility than to prevent cheaters. It's impossible
to absolutely prevent cheating, anyway.
<Peter_Korn> Sigh. My audio output has died again.
<Peter_Korn> Need to have a timer that reminds me to reconnect 45 min into each meeting.
<Peter_Korn> One more time with feeling!
Janina: I heard a recommendatation at TPAC that recommends writing a summary email
Peter: I heard Jeanne say that you want to leverage the testing that people are already doing to do user testing. Comparing task completion rates with people without disabilities and disabilities. I would call that Functional Accessibility Testing.
Jeanne: We need to move away from an assumption of checkpoint testing of every item on every page. We won't get rid of that, because that works for small organizations. But we need a different model for organizations that are large organization or are doing a lot of accessibility testing already and want to be able to leverage that testing to claim conformance.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ bring accessibility closer/ bring accessibility standards closer/ Succeeded: s/ disabilties experience./ disabilties experience when things work./ Present: jeanne janina Makoto Peter_Korn AngelaAccessForAll Found Scribe: jeanne Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne Found Date: 01 Oct 2019 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]