Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
<shadi> Janina: new approach by Jeanne
<shadi> ...in GitHub format
<shadi> ...will explain why later
Trialing Another Approach -- Scenario 3.1 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html
<shadi> Janina: might take some of this content into the explainer?
<shadi> Jeanne: not sure yet, met the planning meeting yesterday
<shadi> ...typically use cases go into the explainers
<shadi> ...but not yet sure if there is consensus on this
<jeanne> https://
<shadi> Jeanne: task was to work on Situation 3
<shadi> ...some issues with Respec but mostly based on wiki content
<shadi> ...took introduction, problem description, key concepts and terms
<shadi> ...made each example into it's own heading
<shadi> ...otherwise no changes, except for Situation 3
<shadi> ...worked on example 3.1
<shadi> ...worked on "How ... might contribute ..." sections per example
<shadi> ...previously this was for the entire situation
<shadi> ...trying to be more specific
<shadi> ...want feedback on that
<shadi> [reads Example 3.1]
<shadi> Janina: we might not be limited to WCAG use cases
<shadi> ...focusing on a broader conformance model
<shadi> ...some situations may not be addressed by WCAG
+1 I had similar thoughts
<shadi> ...small tweak at the beginning is sufficient
Shadi: I think this is great. I like having this referred to from the explainer.
… I think there might be merit to adding more detail to the examples. Might that mean we need more examples?
… Adding more detail per example might lead to more examples, is that good?
Shadi: I like the idea of adding more details, but I'm also worried that we'll start going into solutions now.
… Maybe it's rephrasing, an example of how it could work. But now it's maybe proposing solutions that might not have consensus.
… Third, I wonder how repetitive this starts getting.
… Last we talked about flipping the sections, putting policy first.
… An example would be to provide guidance to policy makers to consider timelines.
<shadi> MaryJo: agree with a lot of what Shadi said
<shadi> ...worry a little about Maturity Model
<shadi> ...does not give specific guidance
<shadi> ...more on elevating accessibility, not so much on prioritization
<shadi> Janina: critical errors could help Maturity Model provide such guidance
<shadi> MaryJo: not currently what the Maturity Model provides
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to think about more examples
<shadi> Janina: on-going discussion, to be decided
<shadi> Jeanne: don't want to get into solutions but want to give a clear message
<shadi> ...that what we are proposing is more work rather than letting people off the hook
<shadi> ...included Maturity Model just to have it mentioned
<shadi> ...happy to rephrase that with suggestions, MaryJo
<shadi> MaryJo: will work on something
Shadi: I don't know the solution. Maybe the first bullet, rather than provide guidance, maybe say something like define critical errors that are to be avoided in all cases. Examples could include...
Shadi: I'm not sure the role of WCAG is prioritising, but it is to define critical errors
<maryjom> Suggest: Consult the W3C Maturity Model for guidance on improving organizational awareness, expertise and execution of accessibility.
Shadi: For example if SC 1.1.1 is broken down, this could help us identify critical pieces to this SC.
… If something's not accessible it's not, but at least we can say how bad is it.
… The first step would be to define critical errors, then frame it as examples.
Janina: the standard will define critical errors
… in this specific example, the organization identifies the critical errors
… explain process of how standards help
Jeanne: was intended but can work more on that
Janina: can help with word-smithing
… this group will not define what critical errors are
… but the process to find the critical errors first
… subtle shift here
Susi: criteria are on-size-fits-all but conformance is trying to be more fair
… cannot apply the same level to different types of companies
Janina: I think you are right
Janina: in terms of getting too detailed and having more examples
… only add examples that expose new things not provided elsewhere
<Susi_Pallero> The effort to be accessible needs to be directly proportional to the amount of resources and the size of the company. Move at your own pace, but move.
Shadi: I want to remind the discussion about conformance vs compliance.
… I think the standard needs to be do different things, but at the end of the day if an image doesn't have a description, it doesn't and it doesn't matter the company
… The fairness part is where policy comes in. Most policies I know don't have a concept for bugs and oversight.
… They require absolute WCAG, which we know is not feasible. Yet at the same time how can we expect this if we don't have the concept of critical errors.
… We need to put in the hooks so it can be used.
MaryJo: we accessibility experts might understand the difference between these two terms
… but most others might not recognize the nuance of this discussion
Janina: agree that difference is difficult to distinguish
… but might be relevant in several situations
… not our part to develop policies but maybe guidance
Shadi: I agree, I remember when the WCAG WG came to the realisation that WCAG is not accessibility.
… It addresses accessibility requirements but isn't accessibility itself.
… maybe that same realisation. WCAG isn't a policy, and needs to be put in the context of policy.
… Recognising that, building in hooks and guidance to build more sensible policies.
… Maybe because of shortcoming in WCAG they're not able to do more.
<Susi_Pallero> Now I completely understand! Thanks
Wilco: what are next steps?
Jeanne: more people volunteer?
Shadi: happy to help but not sure can do it this week
Janina: same here, can help word-smithing but not this week