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://
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://
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://
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://
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!