<sajkaj> date 12 nov 2020
<sajkaj> scribe: sarah
JS: Working through principles,
marking wording concerns but trying not to resolve them
... Concern about group label
Jeanne: Request from W3C managers
not to use term "substantial conformance"
... They do not want term to gain stickiness
... Change name on wiki to "Conformance Subgroup" on wiki
PK: What about note in section 5 of FPWD draft?
Jeanne: Good to follow up on that
PK: Troubled given that term came
from research, brought it to FPWD, caused sub-group
... Term is in use, we could get a handle on it
JS: Concerned about calling "Conformance" because could be seen to conflict with Bronze, Silver, Gold model
Jeanne: Call it "Conformance Issues", smaller, continue to address issues as we identify them
PK: Suggests another iteration of
conformance challenges note, not solutions
... Dropping Friday meetings, two poles that talk about
conformance, not efficient
BB: Need conformance WG, ongoing, this group's focus in on the phrase "substantial conformance", used in agreements, settlements
Jeanne: No objection to the work and focus of the group
WF: AG approved term to be used in draft, labels work that needs to be done
<PeterKorn> sarah: Think we should call ourselves whatever will allow us to do the work, and then do the work that needs doing. If this is a speed bump, we should respect that there are issues larger then our ken
<PeterKorn> sarah: and we can accommodate them, and do our work. So votes we suggest our name. "Conformance Issues" is fine.
<PeterKorn> q
PK: Can make change to placeholder, would like term to reflect solutions focus of group
<bruce_bailey> addressing challenges w conformance ?
PK: Continue work, put placeholder subgroup name
Sarah: Call us "Conformance Solutions" now and keep working
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask how to make it clear we are not working on 3x scoring
Bruce: A general name seems to include bronze/silver/gold
Sarah: Thought we were looking at conformance more broadly
JS: Intent is to look at other
conformance models
... Common to have more than one way to satisfy, this group is
exploring other options
PK: Not suggesting there is
alternate model, if we find ways of bringing what we are
exploring into B/S/G
... Looking at lens of history, WCAG 2 conformance starts with
page and moves to site, WCAG 3 trying to think more site
wide
... What you can tolerate looking at a page, what you are
prepared to tolerate in a large site
... Would rather not predispose but rather look at what are
solutions to challenges, then say what the answer is
Sarah: Don't see what keeps us from including B/S/G in discussions
WF: Are we looking at alternative approaches?
PK: Alternate suggests there
should be two
... Try to get through principles?
JS: We will stop using "substantial" and use "TBD"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit
PK: Use comments to suggest edits
<PeterKorn> Substantial Conformance should set a high, but achievable, accessibility bar. Substantial Conformance must not be SO WEEK that IT excuses or blesses fundamentally inaccessible websites.
Group reviewed and made edits
BT: What is the level of conformance if 1st party and 3rd party have different B/S/G levels
PK: Wants broad agreement on
principles rather than jumping into solutions
... Current thinking model, page doesn't conform regardless of
where content comes from
... Need something better than partial conformance idea
<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/#Challenge-3
PK: Solution might be that site conforms, 3rd party content may/may not conform, here's the owner of that content
Peter shared several examples
<bruce_bailey> As an FYI, here is a link to WCAG 2x statement of partial conformance
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-partial
<bruce_bailey> +1 to not combining "partial" with TBD conformance
WF: 3rd party is vague term,
needs clarification; likes principle
... What does "partial substantial conformance" mean?
PK: Core issue is places 3rd party content out of scope, trying to say it has to be dealt with directly
JS: Reaction to WCAG 2
Jeanne: Didn't address in WCAG 3, want to see it discussed
<PeterKorn> Substantial Conformance should be designed with 3rd party content in mind; it shouldn’t simply be exempted through a mechanism like “partial conformance” from WCAG 2. The language of a Substantial Conformance assessment might nonetheless call out any 3rd party distinctions.
JS: Will cancel two weeks from today
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 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/options/other options/ Succeeded: s/Don/Don't see what keeps us from including B/S/G in discussions/ Default Present: PeterKorn, bruce_bailey, John_Northup, sajkaj, Detlev, Jeanne, sarahhorton, Bryan Present: PeterKorn bruce_bailey John_Northup sajkaj Detlev Jeanne sarahhorton Bryan No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: sarahhorton Found Scribe: sarah WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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]