Meeting minutes
Chuck: Welcome.
Chuck: Any new members? None.
Chuck: Announcements? None
Chuck: Any new topics?
TPAC Review
Chuck: None.
… will share screen.
Chuck: Slide Deck from TPAC and Minutes.
… next steps. Individual Activity: Participants try out testing WCAG 3
… Chairs: Try flipping % passes and fails
Group activity explained on slide.
… questions?
… Conformance models to explore
… first one is Required plus %:
… Level 1: Required outcomes;
… All levels above level 1 are based on %
… Second model is Levels: Each of 4-5 level is clearly defined; Each level has a required set of outcomes (preselected to balance functional needs)
… third model is Hybrid: Level 1: Required outcomes; All levels above level 1 include % AND a subset of required outcomes for that level
… fourth model is Required plus functional need %: Level 1: Required outcomes; All levels above level 1 include % AND a minimum % requirement for each functional need
… AC put together doc with pros & cons.
Review Conformance Model Options
AC: work in progress.
… https://
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on NAs
Gregg: id something is N/A does it pass
AC: N/A count as pass is
Kevin: with counting failures N/A don't count as much.
<alastairc> counting fails turns the numbers around, but it doesn't affect NAs as such. You either have to count them as part of the whole, or not.
<mbgower> Is that occurrences of a fail, or number of requirements not met?
Gregg: are failures non-passing of an outcome?
<alastairc> Not instances, outcomes
Chuck: yes.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on option 2
Graham: How would counting failures work with number 2?
Ac: this isn't instances. It is whether an outcome is met or not.
<ChrisLoiselle> question on this slide vs. w3c/
Chris: Slide 49. How does it relate to AA, AAA and A?
… terminology mapping question.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on how it relates to A/AA etc and pre-req / baseline
AC: we are trying to settle terminology.
… Required is what we had like combo of pre requests and baseline.
… Somewhat different than A. AA, AAA.
<Detlev> has bronze / silver / gold been dumped for good?
<alastairc> Detlev - no, we're just not naming that yet.
Graham: #2 puts us back into the situation that we are in now.
… where people get discouraged.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on option 2
AC: it is an obvious con on option 2.
Graham: could have a subset of things.
… hybrid of 3&4.
Deciding on outcome formatting
Chuck: GitHub Discussion
AC: we went thru various options.
… Revising existing structure
… Finding a need to organize content by a higher grouping
… We have been referring to those as outcomes but we suggest better aligning the language since the technical format we decided on isn’t an “outcome”
… Suggested way forward:
… Outcomes: Plain language, user-oriented statements of the desired outcome; grouping the guidelines
… Guidelines: Technical statements to meet each outcome
… example: Outcome: Users can see which element has keyboard focus.
Guidelines:
… Present
… Not obscured: The focus indicator is not obscured or partially obscured (more than 50%, TBC)
… Persistent: The focus indicator persists while the element has focus, but does not persist after the element loses focus.
… Distinctive: The keyboard focus indicator uses a style that is distinct from the style of other controls, so that the item in focus can be distinguished without reference to the non-focused state.
… Sufficiently visible: According to the specific method (below), the indicator must be visually discernible whilst navigating.
<dan_bjorge> +1 to detlev
<Graham> 100% - that was my recommendatiuon - requirement!
Detlev: don't understand why guideline is better that requirements.
AC: they are not phrased as outcomes.
<sarahhorton> Requirements that produce the outcome
<Rain> +1 they are written as requirements, and requirements is nice and clear
Julie: outcome is a little confusing.
<julierawe> "Guidelines" is confusing
AC one concern with it,
GreggVan: I'd like to speak for using guidelines.
<sarahhorton> Silver had guidelines > outcomes > methods/requirements
<Chuck> did we lose me?
GreggVan: guidelines allows some things to be required or and somethings that are not testable.
… could have minimums are required and other are things that you can do.
<kevin> +1 to minimum - I like this slightly better than "prerequisite" although I do get that "prerequisite" is trying to say something slightly different
<Graham> Required, recommended - simple and straight forward language. Required are for a pass, recommended could (not necessarily) then be used for further scoring if we use one of those models.
<Graham> Detlev is bang on with terms that work in my mind, literally just said the same!
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on examples not include assertions - so it's a good piont
Detlev: seems counter intuitive. Could use requirements, recommendations, and assertions.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask if we must stick with one "word" as a description?
Ac: Somewhat baffled . guidelines has been used for many, many, years.
Chuck: does it have to be a one word?
<kevin> -1 to multiple words
<Detlev> @AC yes sure but for a higher level
Dan: has different meaning in WCAG 2
<Rachael> +1 to GreggVan
Gregg: like outcomes, guidelines , requirements, recommendations, and assertions.
<alastairc> In WCAG 2 the "guidelines" are the groupings for sets of SC.
Gregg: 3 kinds of guidelines: requirements, recommendations, and assertions.
LO: Guidelines may not be the best term. Some people don't think that they are definitive.
<Jennie_Delisi> I think this points to putting more than word, per Chuck's option, if possible.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest we don't title the list of things on the face of the spec.
RM: ice if we had a term for the differences. Liked Gregg's comment.
<Detlev> +1 to ljoakley
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to react to ljoakley
Ac: suggest not putting a name on the face of the spec for this.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say if we name it for ourselves and just ourselves, I'm ok with any options mentioned, favorable to requirements
Kevin: we are aware that legislators will sue. Challenge against w3c rec. but recognition that they are standards.
AC: maybe we can work on this without giving this a name.
<Glenda> another word to consider “Standard”
Rain: Maybe use use a simple header.
<Detlev> +1 to Rain
Rain: experiences with people in the wild are direct experiences. Need to explain things on a basic level. General population perspective is valuable.
<Chuck> +1 to proposed resolution, which I will test after queue
Rain: put this on our list of topics.
<alastairc> We do have a glossary in development.
Graham: let's create a glossary for the time being.
Chuck: need to have some level of consensus.
<Rain> +1 to structure of sentence and technical statement below it
<wendyreid> +1
<ljoakley> Rachael 1+
<Chuck> +1
<Graham> =1
RM: what of you think of the structure of the sentence.
<Graham> +1
<Detlev> the hundred plus outcomes so far collected are fairly fine-grained - so will they move up in granularity?
<Chuck> draft RESOLUTION: For the next publication, we will use "Outcome" (user-focused outcomes) to group the requirements and assertions. We will explore terminology for the requirement/assertion level in future.
Gregg: Guidelines is in the name of our document
<wendyreid> +1
<Graham> +1 (but we must link to a glossary of terms)
<julierawe> +1
<Rain> +1
<ljoakley> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Rachael> +1
<alastairc> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<GreggVan> +1!
<Jennie_Delisi> 0 only because outcome often equals results
<kevin> +1
<Chuck> +1 (and agree with Graham)
<sarahhorton> +1
<dan_bjorge> +1
Laura: +1
<filippo-zorzi> +1
<Francis_Storr> +1
<scott0> 0
<ChrisLoiselle> 0
<Jen_G> +1
RESOLUTION: For the next publication, we will use "Outcome" (user-focused outcomes) to group the requirements and assertions. We will explore terminology for the requirement/assertion level in future.
<kirkwood> +1
Julie: pull request for outcomes.
<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to that statement Julie made.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on PR, we'll need to overhaul that
Kevin: I'm looking at it now. We can make changes going forward.
Outcome Breakouts
Chuck: 3 separate groups.
… Group 1: Refine outcome and guideline organization
… Group 2: Refine outcomes statements to match agreed upon format
… Group 3: Categorize as Required and Enhanced to help with testing conformance and forming subgroups
… We are still at exploratory for this exercise
… We need clarity and consistency but not perfection
… Editors will combine the results
Gregg: Group 3 doesn't make any sense.
Chuck: we are deciding at the if the "thingy" is required or not.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on bronze / pre-req / required
Melanie: How does this relate to bronze, silver, gold?
… (explains history)
… Kind of dropped them.. Not trying to recreate a, aa aaa.
<ChrisLoiselle> bronze, silver, gold, a, aa, aaa , pre req, baseline, enhanced - is there a mapping reference that compare of all these? I know this is iterative.
Melanie: we are so far away from WCAG 2.
<ChrisLoiselle> w3c/
Melanie: way more in baseline for WCAG 3
<julierawe> I have to drop for a work meeting. Have a good week, everybody!
RM: A future activity would be a mapping.
<MJ> I have to drop off for a meeting but will rejoin in 30 minutes.
Chuck: 1 & 3 are self explanatory.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to answer Chris's questions, briefly.
<alastairc> w3c/
Chuck: correction: 2 & 3 are self explanatory
AC: we have grouped prerequisite an baseline together.
… they are in required/
<ChrisLoiselle> thanks.
AC: any questions?
<Chuck> Group 1: https://
<Chuck> Group 2: https://
<Chuck> Group 3: https://