AG Meeting 26 May 2020 -- 26 May 2020

<JakeAbma> scribe: JakeAbma

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List#2020_Scribe_History

Conformance Challenges Update https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/

Rachael: some concerns on challenges doc
... we have a two way approach, first survey, then discuss in call

<Rachael> clarify the draft/work-in-progress status of the document;

<Rachael> clarify the scope of this document within the broader context of evaluation conformance;

<Rachael> clarify the forward-facing focus; and

<Rachael> remove absolutist characterizations of the current conformance model.

Judy: sometimes the doc was misunderstood
... working drafts are cited as work in progress
... needs to be cited as so (work in progress...)
... for this working document, the consensus tp bublish is not consensus on the content of the document by the group

<Rachael> The survey is at:

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/conformance-challenges-05-21-20/

Judy: some characterization of wording is not how the WG would publish the content

<JF> +1, thanks for the summary

Judy: would like the group to look at it in detail, see what changed

<brucebailey_> thanks to Rachael for narrative walk through, here is the link on the listserv

<brucebailey_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2020AprJun/0398.html

<Fazio> +1JF

JF: hope we extend the survey, no time between Friday and Tuesday morning

Rachael: we can as an option, we can also do a CfC instead

JF: like it extended

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/conformance-challenges-05-21-20/results

<Rachael> document: http://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-update-ac/conformance-challenges/index.html#sotd

<Rachael> Current text: Further, if pages are limited to rendering images that come from a fully vetted library of images that have well defined ALT text, then issues with poor ALT text can be minimized if not entirely eliminated.

<Rachael> Suggested: Further, if pages are limited to rendering images that come from a fully vetted library of images that have well defined ALT text, and these images are always used in similar contexts (i.e., a store inventory) then issues with poor ALT text can be minimized if not entirely eliminated.

<brucebailey_> +1 to davids edit

<laura> +1 to david’s rewrite.

<Chuck> +1 do dm rewrite

<alastairc> +0 don't mind either way.

<PeterKorn> +1

<AWK> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<CharlesHall> +1 but ‘similar contexts’ could be weak

<KimD> +0 - have not reviewed

<brucebailey_> also, thanks to AWK for edits he caught

<JF> +0

<sajkaj> I note what David adds is similar to Appendix A, #2

<kirkwood> +1 to davids rewrite

<Rachael> 1) Disagree with the removal of ", both so that sites can use these mitigation approaches now, and also" on line 25 of the original.

<alastairc> I've done (4) and (7)

<PeterKorn> I will hold my comment until after Judy

Judy: teh documents aim was for SIlver, not specifically for 2.x or current conformance model

<JF> +1 to Judy

PC: happy with the draft as is, tips are welcome, moving forward there's more time to work on the document

AWK: my recall was this was potentially for Silver but not per se only

<bruce_bailey> fwiw, glad to see the doc being topic of conversation

<Chuck> +1 comfortable to remove, discuss later

<AWK> 1

<Ryladog> +1

<Rachael> 1) Disagree with the removal of ", both so that sites can use these mitigation approaches now, and also" on line 25 of the original.

<AWK> +1

<sajkaj> +1 and let's make it an issue on github

<JF> +0

<david-macdonald> +1 (we could copy and paste helpful advice to separate if we wish)

<Fazio> 0

<kirkwood> 0

<Rachael> Proposal: Remove the text but log an issue for later discussion

<Peter_Korn> +1

<alastairc> +1

<bruce_bailey> thanks, +0 -- would rather have that edit in

<laura> +1 to make an issue

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Rachael> 2) Line 80 of new version - "expressly chartered to develop a new conformance model that should help to address these challenges" - why "should"?

<kirkwood> +1

<CharlesHall> isn’t ‘will help to address’ also redundant to ‘should’?

<Rachael> proposal: ...expressly chartered to develop a new conformance model that will help to address these challenge

<kirkwood> +1 AWK

<mbgower> +1

AWK: there's no guarantee we will apply all issues but take them into account

<kirkwood> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<AWK> +1

<david-macdonald> +0

<Francis_Storr> +1

<JF> +0

<sajkaj> +1

<Chuck> +0 on change should to will

<Ryladog> 0

<Fazio> 0

<Rachael> plus 1 to change should to "will"

<Detlev> 0

<laura> +0

<alastairc> CharlesHall: Two aspects, whether the scope (requirements) of Silver would cover everything raised, and assuming that it is possible to overcome (success).

<alastairc> +0

<bruce_bailey> +1 to change should to will

<Peter_Korn> +0 And I double checked; it was should before these most recent changes.

<Rachael> 3) Change on line 94/95 of new version says "However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free, and it is equally difficult for such sites to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page" - I think that this should be made more to the point: "However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free, and as a result no large, complex sites can claim full conformance as a result of having no accessibility defects on any

<Rachael> page"

AWK: the change softened a little bit, but after 12 years we don't have conformance claims for large sites that they 100% are conformant

JF: Deque had concerns with this statement

<Peter_Korn> Please note, we do have definitions of both large, complex, and dynamic.

<bruce_bailey> @JF do you have any examples of large/complex sites making public conformance claims?

JF: concerned around the this as the claim

AWK: if we say today no large complex software is bug free, we're saying you can not make a conformance claim

<JF> large websites: Websites with thousands of pages, let alone hundreds of thousands or more.

JF: the way it's written right now, we question the claim of large complex sites

<bruce_bailey> @JF do we have examples of large complex sites claiming full conformance?

<alastairc> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free, and large, complex sites can struggle to claim full conformance as a result of having no accessibility defects on any page https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Wdi1fgcx/image.png

<alastairc> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free, and large, complex sites can struggle to claim full conformance as a result of having no accessibility defects on any page

<Chuck> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free, and authors of large, complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<AWK> I'm fine with Chuck's edit

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Peter_Korn> We have lost "dynamic"

<JF> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Detlev> +0

<mbgower> +0

<david-macdonald> +1

<JF> +1 to re-adding dynamic

<Rachael> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free, and authors of large, complex dynamic sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<Ryladog> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Chuck> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free, and authors of large, dynamic and complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<JustineP> +1

<Judy> +1 with dynamic

<ShaneW> +1

<Fazio> +0

<kirkwood> +1

<Peter_Korn> Oxford comma?

<Rachael> +1 if you agree to use Chuck's language (revised)

<JF> +1

<mbgower> +0

<Jennie> +1

<AWK> +1

<bruce_bailey> commas make sentence hard to parse

<Peter_Korn> "... large, dynamic, and complex sites..."

<bruce_bailey> can change to two setences?

<AWK> +1 to oxford comma!!

<sajkaj> +1

<Peter_Korn> "... As a result, authors of large..."

<bruce_bailey> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free. Authors of large, dynamic and complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<Chuck> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free. Authors of large, dynamic and complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<Peter_Korn> I think we need a "therefore" at the start of the s3cond sentence.

<Chuck> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free. As a result, authors of large, dynamic, and complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<sajkaj> +1

<Peter_Korn> +1 to Chuck's latest

<kirkwood> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<JF> +1

<AWK> +1 Good setencers

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Stefan_> +1

<Chuck> As a result, authors of large, dynamic, and complex sites have struggled to make absolute claims conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<Chuck> As a result, authors of large, dynamic, and complex sites have struggled to make absolute claims of conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<JF> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free. <strike>As a result</strike> <ins> Equally</ins>, authors of large, dynamic, and complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<sajkaj> +1 to Likewise

<bruce_bailey> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free; consequently authors of large, dynamic, and complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<AWK> As a result, authors of large, dynamic, and complex sites regularly have accessibility defects on pages and have struggled to claim conformance.

<Rachael> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free. Equally, authors of large, dynamic, and complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<Peter_Korn> +0 to JF. Mildly prefer earlier language, but am fine with your suggestion

<Judy> +1 Chuck

<Rachael> Please write either "as a result" or "equally"

<alastairc> Equaly

<Peter_Korn> "As a result"

<sajkaj> As a result

<laura> “Equally”

<JF> equally

<bruce_bailey> +1 for As as result

<Francis_Storr> "as a result"

<AWK> Mild preference for as a result

<Detlev> don't care

<david-macdonald> don't care

<KimD> Prefer "similarly"

<JustineP> As a result

me no care

<GN015> As a result,

<Judy> +1 similarly but can live with

<bruce_bailey> +1 for similarly

<Peter_Korn> Still prefer As a result over similarly as well.

<JF> This is a working draft... I can live with any of the proposals

<Rachael> However, to date, no large, complex software has been bug free. Similarly, authors of large, dynamic, and complex sites have struggled to claim conformance with no accessibility defects on any page.

<mbgower> +1 to similarly

<kirkwood> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<JustineP> 0

<AWK> 0

<Chuck> +0

<laura> 0

<Ryladog> 0

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Francis_Storr> 0

<alastairc> +1 as it isn't just bugs

<JF> +1 similarly but can live with any choice

<Peter_Korn> +0. Can live with either of 3 options; still prefer "As a result"

<GN015> +0

<Rachael> ine 236 of new - "It is difficult to validate every possible publishing permutation " - this waters down the concern too much. It is beyond difficult. How about "It is difficult, or sometimes impossible, to validate every possible publishing permutation"

<bruce_bailey> +1 for this edit

<JF> +1 to AWK

<Chuck> It is difficult, or sometimes impractical, to validate every possible publishing permutation.

Janina: maybe change impossible to impractical

<kirkwood> i+1 impractical

Janina: as the world / technology changes so fast

<bruce_bailey> is difficult stronger than difficult ?

<Chuck> It is difficult, if not impractical to validate every possible publishing permutation.

<bruce_bailey> oops, is impractical stronger than difficult ?

<bruce_bailey> +1 to making stronger

<Rachael> It is difficult, if not impractical to validate every possible publishing permutation.

<bruce_bailey> -1 to impractical

<mbgower> -1

<Peter_Korn> Impossible better than impractical better than difficult, but can live with any of those.

<Peter_Korn> +1 infeasible.

<Ryladog> +1 to feasible

<sajkaj> +1 for infeasible

<bruce_bailey> It is difficult, or maybe infeasible, to validate every possible publishing permutation

<Fazio> +0

<Chuck> It is difficult, and may be infeasible to validate every possible publishing permutation.

<AWK> +1 infeasible

<kirkwood> +1 infeasible

<alastairc> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<Peter_Korn> +1 to Chuck's revision

<Detlev> prefer impractical

<JF> +0

<Nicaise> +1

<mbgower> "not feasible"?

<Chuck> It is difficult, and may not be feasible to validate every possible publishing permutation

<Rachael> ak Chuck

<JF> +1 to plain language (ref: Detlev's cm,ment)

<Peter_Korn> +1 to Chuck's second variation as weak.

<bruce_bailey> add comma ?

<bruce_bailey> It is difficult, and may not be feasible, to validate every possible publishing permutation

<Fazio> Is infeeasible a word?

<sajkaj> +1 to bb's formulation

<Francis_Storr> +1 to "not feasible"

<Fazio> not feasible would be betteeer

<kirkwood> +1 to bb

<Chuck> +1 to BB

<JustineP> +1 to "not feasible"

<Rachael> It is difficult, and may not be feasible, to validate every possible publishing permutation

<sajkaj> Just checked, infeasible is in the dictionary

<mbgower> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<JF> +1 to may not be feasible

<bruce_bailey> +1

<AWK> +1

<Fazio> +0

<JustineP> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<CharlesHall> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<laura> 0

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make conformance difficult to assure.

<bruce_bailey> scribe: bruce_bailey

AWK: difficult edition similar to last edit

<Peter_Korn> +1 to making this parallel. This gave me some of the most heartburn when we first looked at these edits.

AWK: a company may have a diverse portfolio, could go beyond difficult

<sajkaj> Infeasible again?

<Chuck> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data may make absolute conformance claims not feasible.

AWK: so add similar language, could be not feasible to ensure

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make conformance difficult, or not feasable, to assure.

<sajkaj> +1

<AWK> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<sajkaj> Section 3

Judy: just to make sure context is correct, this is wrt conformance of 3rd party material?
... we had some discussion that might disregard current allowance for 3rd party content

Rachael: yes, this is in the 3rd party content section

Peter Korn: agree w Judy that this is not exactly the same as wcag 3rd party exemption

scribe: so what do you do? it could be infeasible situation

Judy: In most contracts, there would be opportunity to revisit contract language

PK: could be legacy situation

<laura> +1 to Judy. build it into the contract agreement from the start.

JB: agreed, could be a difficulty with business process
... but lets look at perspective from PWD
... increasing have to do everything through digital interface, so exception to accessibility for business process is very troubling

<Glenda> +1 to what Judy is saying

JB: from PWD such an absolute statement needs to be considered

<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to remind us that law and precedent allows change, even in copyright in many jurisdictions

JB: the partial conformance allowance with WCAG is there for good reason, but this might be too large a barn door

JaninaS: agree this is a huge and looming issue
... copyright is an example, as most laws allow altering for PDW but not for general public
... so it is not feasible to serve up two version, and to ensure only PWD get accessible version

AWK: statement of partial conformance is just a specialized version of non-conformance

<alastairc> vq?

AWK: want to make sure we address this situation, use of 3rd party data streams may go beyond mere difficult
... just looking to acknowledge that fix could easily be more than difficult

PK: I want to emphasize that we could advocating for a shared responsibility model where the burden does not just fall on the publisher

<Glenda> Sharing the responsibility with the Publisher & the Content Provider…could be tricky. Just because we write something in a W3C document…doesn’t mean we will change the way a Court of Law and Lawyers tackle this. From what the Lawyers in the field tell me, it is VERY difficult to go after the 3rd party provider (in a courtroom setting).

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to suggest a mitigation

<PascalWentz> @bruce_bailey what does PWD mean?

DavidM: the document is on the edge of what i feel comfortable with, the implication is something to the effect that wcag conformance model is not great

Alastair: i dont have text, the term assure is doing a lot of work

<Peter_Korn> @bb: with the CVAA, we found a balance between these two things by saying that if a movie / tv show had to provide CC (because it was broadcast after a certain date), then streaming on the web of that same movie had to have CC

Alastair: there can be things one can do to mitigate 3rd party content

<Peter_Korn> @bb: what the CVAA didn't say is that a streaming service HAD to add CC if it wasn't there originally.

Alastair: my reading of that is to test with 3rd party content included, and that effort can change day to day
... the mitigation is around business process

<Peter_Korn> @bb: I'm not saying that the CVAA's balance point is the correct balance point; just that is an example of one. Whereas here all of the burden falls on the publisher/website.

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make it difficult to assure 3rd party content is accessible without business or contract processes in place.

Alastair: can we add a sentence around mitigation and business process?

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make it impossible to assure 3rd party content is accessible without business or contract processes in place.

AC: might say impossible to ensure without those process in place

Judy: Those are the sorts of considerations that went into 2.0 and 2.1 and why those statements of partial conformance went into 2.0 and 2.1
... i understand those are all difficult from a business process, but as they are increasingly used, PWD face increasing obstacles, and so in the past we have sought a balance across stakeholder groups

<alastairc> Suggested full paragraph: "Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make conformance difficult, or not feasible, to assure without business or contract processes in place."

Judy: this document is trying to move away from absolute statements

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask: Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make

Judy: for a fcpwd, pushback seems a little unusual; plenty of material for debate and discussion, but need balance for impact

<Peter_Korn> What about making this an issue on the doc., and publish with this language?

<Chuck> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make absolute conformance claims infeasible.

Chuck: i had proposed earlier
... our earlier language was about conformance claims and not conformance itself, and i did try to take out the absolutism

<Rachael> Option 1: Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make conformance difficult, or not feasible, to assure without business or contract processes in place.

Chuck: i do like recent changes, and can live with it

<Rachael> Option 2: Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make absolute conformance claims infeasible.

<Peter_Korn> I'm less thrilled with the length of option #1; bringing in "business or contract processes" at the end makes the sentence unwieldy.

<Peter_Korn> Would go with option #2 as starting point, and remove the word "abolute"

<kirkwood> option 2

Rachael: we will be word smithing more

<JF> Opt. 2

<AWK> Option 2

<laura> option 1

<alastairc> Prefer to include the mitigation in #1, but could be more elegant

<Fazio> 2

<sajkaj> +2

<JustineP> 2

Rachael: please vote for 1 or 2 as starting point

<Peter_Korn> (I don't know what an "absolute conformance claim" is vs. any other, non-partial, conformance claim)

<Detlev> don't really care

<mbgower> 2

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make absolute conformance claims infeasible.

Rachael: more votes for option 2, so start with that one.
... pls suggest edits

<Chuck> +1 to live with

Rachael: can people live with it?

<Peter_Korn> -1 - remove please "absolute"

<JF> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Fazio> +0

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make conformance claims infeasible.

<alastairc> full?

Rachael: pk does not like absolute

<JF> @Peter would you accept 'accurate' instead of 'absolute'?

<Fazio> +1 to Peter

<Chuck> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make full conformance claims infeasible.

PK: i do not know what an absolute conformance claim is ?

<Ryladog> complete

<Fazio> is it necessary

<AWK> +1

<Chuck> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make accurate conformance claims infeasible.

AWK: can we say full (as opposed to partial)

<kirkwood> +1 full

<Peter_Korn> Prefer "full"

<Peter_Korn> Another option, "complete"

<sajkaj> +1 full

<Chuck> +1 full

<AWK> +1 full

JF: how about accurate conformance claim?

<Fazio> -1 to anything

<laura> full

<Ryladog> +1 to full

<mbgower> full

<Fazio> feels unnecessary

<Peter_Korn> Complete has meaning in contrast to "martial"

DavidF: we are adding stuff that is not necessary

<Chuck> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make conformance claims infeasible.

<sajkaj> +1 to David. It's tautology

DavidF: conformance claim is a conformance claim
... unnecessary word is not needed, so better to leave it out

<sajkaj> +1 [none]

<Peter_Korn> +0 - could go with "conformance claim" or "full conformance claim"

<alastairc> +1 full, as the partial claim was aimed at 3rd party content!

<Chuck> +0

Rachael: +1 to full or +1 to none

<Fazio> +1 to none

<JF> +0

<Detlev> 0

<laura> +1 to full

<mbgower> +0

<AWK> +0 - only possible confusion is that this is in a section about partial claims

<Francis_Storr> +1 to none

Rachael: voting is very even

<Peter_Korn> Well, I do have a mild preference for full...

<Fazio> is that a .5?

<Rachael> +1 full

<kirkwood> +1 to full

<Chuck> +1 can live with full.

Rachael: having "full" seems clearer for people not familiar with conformance claims
... can anyone not live with including full? DavidF?

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party data can also make full conformance claims infeasible.

DF: can live with

Rachael: -1 if cannot live with

<kirkwood> +1

<CharlesHall> currently, §5.4 Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content, states "all parts that we do not control". Perhaps this is more clear than “third party data”.

Rachael: not seeing -1, charles?

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party content can also make full conformance claims infeasible.

CharlesHall: reacting to phrase third party data, seems very specific, and maybe misunderstood
... all parts we cannot control is pretty clear

<Peter_Korn> "content" is an improvement; we can also file an issue.

Rachael: might need a new pull request

Judy: this reflects my concern with current word-by-word editing
... statements of partial conference is carefully worded but from the past, probably premature for Silver
... the wording that i see people trying -- i cannot tell if it is bypassing current guidence

<sajkaj> +1 to content

<Chuck> +1 to content

<CharlesHall> +1 to content

Rachael: As Alastair noted, this is in section labeled 3rd party content

<kirkwood> +1 to content

<Francis_Storr> +1 to content

<Peter_Korn> +1, especially as it is parallel to the title of the challenge.

<AWK> +1 to content

<Rachael> Copyright, commercial agreements, and similar constraints that restrict the ability to modify or impose requirements on third party content can also make full conformance claims infeasible.

Rachael: edit for data instead of content seems to be in context
... we seem to have consensus, acknowledging Judy concern for absolute language

<Rachael> Proposing to get crisper on the definition of “large website” and stay consistent how the definition is used throughout doc where the term occurs.

Rachael: AWKs last edit was just correcting a typo
... Back to Nicaise comment from survey

Nicaise: We need a definition for "large"

<JF> +1 to Nicaise - our definition of 'large' would leave out a large number of "really big" websites

Nicaise: one definition in terms, then challenge 3 seems to change meaning

<alastairc> Current definition: "Websites with thousands of pages, let alone hundreds of thousands or more."

PK: When we first starting, we were leaning towards very large websites
... conversation with WG pointed out that challenges are for merely large sites, but problems do grow with scale
... dont think we need strict definition for large

JF: i am struggling with this definition
... site with 999 pages is not large?

<Peter_Korn> @JF - to be precise, because the word is plural, you wouldn't be "large" until you are over 2,000... :-)

<Fazio> +1 JF

JF: appreciate need to pick up very large sites, but we still need sufficient definition

<kirkwood> I too am concerned about the number

Gundula: i would like to ask what is "page" in this context

<JF> +1 to Gundala - Single Page Apps

<CharlesHall> +1 to JF plus, ‘page’ is outmoded for single page web apps

Gundula: dynamic websites might only offer up one page, but user sees great variation

DF: ADA has out for "undue hardship"
... companies went to court to argue to argue that they did not have resources
... courts rules that individual department or offices when agencies or parent companies have considerable resources

PK: okay with removing definition or revisiting after fcpwd

<JF> +1 to Peter's p[oint about US Supreme Court

PK: it feels inappropriate to me for us to try and influence what the supreme court might say

<alastairc> Do we need to change the definitions as part of this update? Can we make an issue for later?

DF: i am just using SC as example of someone trying interpret current wording

<Fazio> II wasn't at all implying legal interpretation

Judy: We understand that there are a lot of concerns with the different business processes and policies

<JF> +1 to Judy - plus there are i18n considerations as well

Judy: i am seeing an effort to bring some of those potential policy considerations into this document rather than just addressing what is accessible

<Fazio> Just pointing out common misinterpretations due to wording

Judy: i keep seeing proposals to revise current conformance model, which is not in scope for this document
... people change large to very large or large and dynamic and we do not have those dividing lines. we need to keep some separtion

Rachael: we need to keep some focus, we have 3 choices

<Rachael> 1. Option 1: Continue to define large 2. Acknowledge the definition needs work and postpone fixing it 3. Remove the definition for time being

<alastairc> Option 2, stay focused on this set of changes

<david-macdonald> #3

<Peter_Korn> +1 to either 2 or 3, with filing an issue on it.

<Chuck> Yes

<kirkwood> option 3

JF: choices seem the same
... survey response time is just too short

<Fazio> +1 JF

JF: what if someone likes multiple option?
... i would consider 2 or 3, so need to punt or drop
... would like to see this issue as survey question

<Judy> [JB: What I've been hearing during the call seems to be a combination of "very large" + "dynamic" + "maybe also third party"

Chuck: i like option 3. this document is not going to normative define large

<Judy> [JB: What I've been hearing during the call seems to be a combination of "very large" + "dynamic" + "maybe also third party"]

<Ryladog> 3, +1 to Chuck

<alastairc> Noting we have a LIVE document, so anything punted means the live document is not udpated.

Chuck: in a non-normative document, some ambiguity serves our purpose

<Peter_Korn> Please note that the document as published today has a definition of large. It feels right to file an issue to address it (and then either leave it in as-is, or remove).

Pascal: what exactly is a page?
... are we using wcag definition or something else

<alastairc> Pascal: this is defined in WCAG, and the document relates to WCAG.

<CharlesHall> Web page a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent

Judy: i have been hearing different versions of this discussion, and what i have heard is not just large but very large, and very large with dynamic and maybe also 3rd party content

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk about pages (briefly)

Judy: would like to see this document just use very large, and focus on other work

<Peter_Korn> @PascalWentz - please note that WCAG DOES define "web page".

Alastair: this is basically a document about wcag conformance model
... it is long standing that conformance model does not work well for single page application and very large dynamic site
... the definition of large is not important

<Chuck> +1 remove definition

<Rachael> removing defintion and adding issue

<Nicaise> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<sajkaj> +0

<Fazio> If we table it, how that effect further development?

<david-macdonald> +1 remove defn

<Detlev> +0

<JF> +1 to removing for now, until we re-visit as a larger group

<Peter_Korn> +1 to putting in an issue to address; +0 for leaving it in or taking it out for this update

<JakeAbma> +1

<kirkwood> +1

Racheal: remove definition of large

<PascalWentz> +1

<Rachael> large websites; Websites with thousands of pages, let alone hundreds of thousands or more.

<Fazio> Will it complicate other issues related to large sites?

<alastairc> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-update-ac/conformance-challenges/index.html#key-terms

<Rachael> document: http://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/conformance-challenges-update-ac/conformance-challenges/index.html#key-terms

<mbgower> -1 leave in place and open issue

<Laura> +1 to leave in and make an issue.

DF: if we table this now, will this throw a wrench into our work later?

<CharlesHall> Key Terms contains 3 definitions. removing first or all?

MikeGower: i do not want to remove the definition

<Rachael> leave in place and open issue

MikeGower: beter to leave in place and open an issue

<Judy> +1 to leaving in place and adding an issue

<Peter_Korn> +1

<Chuck> +0, no objections to leaving it.

<Laura> +1

<david-macdonald> 0

<alastairc> +1

<JF> +0

<Fazio> +0

<sajkaj> +1

<CharlesHall> +1 to define later

<Nicaise> +1

Rachael: people can live with that
... coming back to JF issue from top of call, lateness of survey

<JF> -1 to that

Rachael: instead of traditional CFC, we could have survey to function as CFC

<scribe> .. new survey would be open to end of week

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: if we get no 's or comments we come back to this next tuesday

JF: i am hearing that plan is just to keep this survey open
... many people just saw the survey this morning
... not sure about having one more survey

Alastair: we have fcpwd sitting live right now
... anything which is not about current changes should be treated as new issues

Judy: W3C does have concerns about document as is, as well as representation of doc status in public settings that have already been made
... so JF are you asking that definitions be worked out?

JF: i realize that it is a living working document,
... so ready to go to CFC or not, i just cannot say
... i am asking for more time to address comments

Rachael: so (1) extend survey for another week, when this edit is very time sensitive
... or (2) we can move to CFC, and if anyone says no, we come back next tuesday
... or (3) a hybrid approach
... this is a very targeted up date to the document sitting out there

DavidM: i am all for making those changes

Nicaise: i am okay with CFC in a couple days
... remarks are make-or-break

<Chuck> +1

<david-macdonald> +1

<Judy> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

<Nicaise> +1

<AWK> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Peter_Korn> +1

<Ryladog> +1

Rachael proposes new survey closing Thursday.

<Laura> +

<Rachael> proposal: Survey that will act as a CFC closing Thursday night.

<mbgower> +1

<Laura> +1

<Chuck> Proposal: A survey which also acts as a CFC, that closes on Thursday.

RESOLUTION: New survey to act as CFC to close Thursday with todays changes

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-05-content-usable/results

Rachael: We have two other surveys we did not get to

<Rachael> The Objectives and Patterns presented here supplement the Success Criteria presented in the WCAG accessibility guidelines and address those user needs that are not fully met in accessibility guidelines.

<alastairc> Updates to conformance challenges from today's meeting should appear in the preview soon, and you can see the diff here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commit/43cdeb87d23e8ef719ebafc072b58d7d9ca7d94b

<Rachael> ...The Objectives and Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are patterns that could not be included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification and are intended as advice to help address user needs that may not be met otherwise...

Rachael: very few responses
... any objections?

DavidM: i had other edits

bruce asks for more time

<Chuck> +1 another week on content usable.

we will give more time to content useable

- DRAFT -

AG Meeting 26 May 2020

26 May 2020

Attendees

Contents

Conformance Challenges Update https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output