<jeanne> present?

Jeanne: we had a busy meeting on Tuesday and worked through some difficult things
... wanted to review 3.4 since we were in the middle of that when the meeting ended

<Lauriat> Link to that part of the Requirements draft: https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#technology-neutral

<Cyborg> can we please put the link up again?

<jeanne> 3.4 "Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the document structure but are not required to understand guidelines."

<JF> +1 - I think that's right

Jeanne: are we still good with this? are there any comments?

<bruce_bailey> +1, that is what I remember

<Cyborg> +1

<Lauriat> +1, that looks great to me!

<jeanne> +1

Jeanne: the discussion was about how do we talk about technology specific and technology neutral

+1

Jennison +1

jeanne: anyone opposed?

<Cyborg> reposting for Charles: 3.4 "Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the document structure but are not required to understand guidelines."

shawn: shall I drop that into GitHub?

jeanne: yes, and I have other changes...will email them to you

<Charles> +1 on 3.4

jeanne: let's move onto the proposal that John started and that Raquel was working on about being able to use Silver in a regulatory environment

<jeanne> 3.6 REgulatory Environment

<jeanne> "Guidelines are worded to apply across varied technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the document structure but are not required to understand guidelines."

<KimD> +1 to 3.4

Review and finalize 3.4

<scribe> scribe: LuisG

Rachael proposal for 3.6

<Cyborg> what is 3.6?

jeanne: this came up out of discussion on Tuesday

<jeanne> "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment" or "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment"

jeanne: we tabled it to today

JF: one of the concerns is that process by which we're measuring conformance needs to be repeatable to work in regulatory environments
... everything needs to be a testable statement and everyone could run the same test and get to the same conclusion
... our guidance being adopted in regulatory environments...we need to capture some of the... ???
... if we don't make our next generation guidelines work, they'll stick with WCAG
... if they don't continue to work on WCAG if they're working on Silver, there will be a divergence

lauriat: if someone makes a mobile app, people follow guidelines from the platform instead of WCAG

JF: I don't disagree...they're going to look at the best technical guidance they can find. right now the U.S. doesn't say we need to follow WCAG, just judgments from the DOJ
... in the UK, they're saying the most current guidance
... the WC3 has spent a lot fo time and effort to get various governments to get us using the same accessibility standard so we don't have fractured standards
... whether we like it or not, the regulatory problem is for us

jeanne: I think the only issue is how. I wouldn't want to put a testable statement in a requirement of how we do that since there are a variety of ways to approach it.

<Cyborg> can we address how regulation is incompatible or in conflict with Silver goals? Are those in conflict? If so, how?

<Cyborg> I agree with what Jeanne just said.

<Cyborg> I like what Kim just said too.

Kim: speaking as a non-practicing attorney. the most important information to give legislatures is transparency. it's not our job to tell them what they need to do; just give them information so they know how to use it

<Lauriat> +1

Kim: we need to empower legislative bodies on how to interpret the guidelines we generate

Lauriat: like Jeanne said, we're in agreement in wanting to support regulatory environments
... it sounds like on Tuesday we wanted to express that as a requirement in Silver so it's clear to others

jeanne: that was my understanding

<Cyborg> what about adding language from what Jeanne and Kim said into 3.6

JF: I can agree on principle, but it gets back to "he says; she says"
... we need a way to break that stalemate somehow

Lauriat: we have that now...it can all come down to opinions for each WCAG Success Criterion

Cyborg: How can we deal with this in 3.6 so that others join in this process, the answer has been added to the requirements because the regulatory environment as a potentail conflict feels a little trope-ish
... I think Kim's response is really clear. Could we add that language to 3.6?

JF: I think you're right...we need something. One of the overarching goals is that we'll support it. If we can agree to it as an overall concept, I'm comfortable with that.

<Cyborg> what about support the regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent?

Jennison: sounds like we've landed in a good place.

<Charles> for later review: in the US regulatory space, there is now precedent for the evaluation to be conducted AND interpreted by an expert. see Gomez v GNC: https://www.adatitleiii.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/121/2018/09/GNC-Decision-S.D.-Fla..pdf

JF: We're in early stages, so we don't need the one true answer.

Lauriat: Can we go with what Jeanne pasted earlier?

<Lauriat> "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment" or "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment"

<JF> Guidelines MUST support use in a regulatory environment

<Charles> +1 for working the availability of intent

<Cyborg> what about support the regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent?

<KimD> How about something like "Silver is mindful of future adoption of it's guidelines into law and supports that environment."

<KimD> Actually, like Cyborg's better

<Cyborg> Suggestion: Silver guidelines will support the regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent.

Jeanne: Apologies, we removed the "must"s and "should"s

<KimD> +1 to Cyborg

<bruce_bailey> +1 to present infinitive

JF: We have clients that come to us and ask "are we in the law or are we out of the law?"
... we need a black and white line of "this is good" or "this is bad"

Lauriat: This is helping us work through conversations that will come up when we bring it to the rest of the working group... ??

<Cyborg> i thought the good/bad was based on methods, rather than guidelines

Lauriat: so I think this is valuable for us to work out a requirement that speaks to that need in a way that doesn't make us do what WCAG does

JF: I agree. You're right...I'm stress testing you now because we're going to have those questions later on.
... I'm all for the guidelines being technology agnostic. At some point, engineers want to know what the problem is and how to fix it.
... so we need at some point to have black and white answers. Or is the answer truly gray?

Cyborg: I thought that came in the methods so they could have that clear specificity rather than the guidelines.

JF: yeah, right now we're writing the guidelines on how to write Silver.
... so yeah, we need to have a bullet point that says what we produce will be useful in the regulatory environment
... we don't need to be more specific than that; we're just putting together requirements for what silver needs to look like

KimD: I think Cyborg's suggestion covers that

JF: I can live with that for now

Laurat: +1

<AngelaAccessForAll> +1

<jeanne> The Guidelines support the regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent.

<Lauriat> [drafty draft] Regulatory environment: Support the regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent.

<bruce_bailey> +1

<KimD> +1

<jeanne> +1

Charles: We have a couple of other requirements that state...and we specifically wordsmithed it as "future technology" and things that are yet unknown
... do we need to do something similar for the regulatory environment?

Lauriat: No idea

<johnkirkwood> +1 but I have a difficult time with the wording of regulatory environment, often regulations are to meet the guidelines.

KimD: If we cover that with the intent and transparency, we should be good.

JF: All we're saying is we recognize that requirement and we'll be mindful of it while building Silver
... I believe the methods is the testable piece. the regulatory environment could say "you need to meet these methods" or "you need to get this many points"

<johnkirkwood> regulations usually say must meet WCAG 2.0 AA I find no?

Lauriat: someone would express if they met a regulation by the testability of the method they used

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention that regulation different than courts

bruce_bailey: Regulatory environment i think of as being US Access Board and then there's lawsuits under the ADA which doesn't have a website standard

<KimD> +1 Bruce, we are confusing terms

<johnkirkwood> yes. exactly, what Bruce is saying

<johnkirkwood> agreed

bruce_bailey: I think agree to what johnkirkwood is saying but maybe we should clarify legislation vs regulations, etc.

<bruce_bailey> legislation vs litigation

jeanne: and not too US-centric

<johnkirkwood> yes

Charles: some regulation comes after the standard

Cyborg: not being a lawyer, how that plays out is that there would be a requirement to do something like WCAG 2.0 AA or similarly Silver silver level. But the issue of lawsuits would come up and then it would be about meeting a person's needs
... and whether or not there was harm
... if Silver has that as part of how it's different from WCAG 2.0...requiring greater effort in customization, etc. for meeting individual needs, then it would support that person in the human rights based legal complaint as well
... that's another reason to not rely on pass/fail testing

<KimD> +1 to Cybel

JF: There needs to be some measureability beyond "it works for you"
... there will always be edge cases.
... we recognize it can't be a binary solution. I'm just saying this will be an important part of what we produce and if we want to see it adopted, we need governments to adopt it. They need to be able to rely on it, so it can't be too soft.

Cyborg: So if we grandfather in WCAG 2.0 AA as Bronze, then governments might say you need to meet Bronze and companies won't move on..

Jeanne: We have no control of what governments decide to regulate. We want to improve things for PWD as best we can. Be as transparent with how we're deciding things as best as we can.

<Charles> totally agree that current legal environment is about the barrier found by a human and not about meeting a standard. so what happens when an author meets Silver (perfectly) but there is still a barrier?

<KimD> +1 to Jeanne - no ability to know or control what governements/states/countries will adopt.

KimD: Governments are already free to adopt and modify WCAG 2.0 and they do
... and they put their own spin on it

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest: Guidelines can be used in developing regulation and resolving litigation.

Lauriat: Getting back to the requirements. Is there something we should add related to supporting those that need to do those types of things

bruce_bailey: That's what I was suggesting. I pasted something in...

Jeanne: +1

<Cyborg> Kim? comments on Bruce's 2nd sentence? +1 for me

Luis: +1

<Lauriat> Support the regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent. Guidelines can be used in developing regulation and resolving litigation.

Charles: is the intent so that we're covering both development and enforcement of policy?

bruce_bailey: yes

lauriat: I think that helps

<Cyborg> Kim?

JF: +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

JF: It finds the right balance

<jeanne> 3.6 The Guidelines support the regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent. Guidelines can be used in developing regulation and resolving litigation.

<Charles> +1 as long as we don’t lose the “clarity and intent”

lauriat: and defines thing. I think "regulatory environment" didn't really define it. this helps clarify

KimD: Conceptually, I think that's good

Jeanne: This is what we currently have...

<KimD> +1 but will need more editing eventually

<Cyborg> no it wasn't me - Kim

bruce_bailey: Could use a little more wordsmithing

jeanne: what's the rough area to improve? should we work it now or take it offline

KimD: I think it's an offline conversation

<Cyborg> is it about evidence?

Jeanne: you willing to have a call with me to work it out for Tuesday?

<Cyborg> wondering about adding the word evidence....to the litigation part?

lauriat: going to put this wording in github for now so we don't lose it

<bruce_bailey> some of it is just being repetitive

bruce_bailey: some of it is that it's just repetitive

JF: yeah, we're just documenting the intent of where we are today

Cyborg: Does saying something about "evidentiary use" help?

KimD: I think our guidelines needs to say that the intent is that it'll help when developing regulation and then intent during litigation. When there is question about a statute, you look for intent for what it's supposed to do.
... so we want to say what our intent is and what the guideline is supposed to do

thanks, bruce! :)

<Cyborg> +1 to moving on

jeanne: I want to propose a new requirement...anyone else want to propose one first?

New proposal

jeanne: something I thought was important was the idea we've been talking about for a year.
... we want to incentivize people to do more than the minimum. I'm proposing...without any wordsmithing

Jennison: It's more the "use of the guidelines" than the guidelines themselves, correct?"

<jeanne> The Guidelines incentivize and reward organizations for doing more than the minimum.

<Cyborg> instead of "more than the minimum", can we use "reach for a higher bar of inclusion"?

the guidelines themselves aren't going to incentivize to go beyond...if an org uses the guidelines, they would be incentivized

Cyborg: to focus more on the positive, maybe shift to "reach for a higher bar of inclusion"

<Charles> wouldn’t that require naming or quantifying what the incentive is?

jeanne: seems a little slangy

<jeanne> The use of the Guidelines incentivize and reward organizations to reach for a higher bar of inclusion.

<johnkirkwood> +1 Rewarded for creating an optimal experience. ??

jeanne: that would be the "how"

<Cyborg> optimal doesn't really exist, it's an ongoing process...

charles: I think the word "incentive" is going to mean different things to different places

lauriat: maybe use "motivate?"

JF: I'm with you Charles

<johnkirkwood> agree with positive rather than miinimum bar, Rewarded for creating an optimal experience ??

Cyborg: part of getting to higher place is recognizing where you are and the struggles you're having

<Cyborg> The use of the guidelines incentivize and motivate organizations to acknowledge their gaps and reach for a higher bar of inclusion.

<Charles> but what is the reward?

Lauriat: I think we want something squishier than "optimal" but better than "minimum"

<Cyborg> suggestion: The use of the guidelines incentivize and motivate organizations to acknowledge their gaps and reach for a higher bar of inclusion.

Jennison: It needs to be delightful

JF: Maybe "acknowledge gaps and strive to be more inclusive of a larger audience?"

Jennison: There you go

KimD: that's good

<Cyborg> strive to meet the needs of a more inclusive audience

<Cyborg> is that what you said

<johnkirkwood> diverse audience

<Cyborg> strive to be more inclusive.

<johnkirkwood> more DIVERSE audience

<AngelaAccessForAll> diverse and inclusive?

Charles: and the other part about "larger" and "more" is comparatively to WCAG

<Cyborg> inclusive and intersectional audience?

Charles: I'm stil struggling with the first part of it
... if we're saying "incentivize and motivate" what is the incentive?

<AngelaAccessForAll> to guide and encourage?

JF: it's to do more than motivate..it's to guide

<Cyborg> motivate and direct?

bruce_bailey: That's better. The guidelines are promoting doing more than the minimum

<Lauriat> The use of the guidelines motivate and guide organizations to acknowledge their gaps and strive…

<Cyborg> motivate and provide direction?

<Cyborg> assist?

Charles: Is the intent to help them do more by providing more informative content

<Cyborg> support?

<JF> The use of the guidelines motivate and guide organizations to acknowledge gaps and strive to be more inclusive of a more diverse audience.

JF: That's where the "guide" comes from

Lauriat: I think this is closer to where we want to be

<Cyborg> The use of the guidelines supports and motivates organizations to acknowledge gaps and strive to be more inclusive.

Lauriat: as opposed to change what we're trying to say

<johnkirkwood> Guidelines Encourage the inclusion of the most diverse audience.

Jeanne: maybe call it "Motivation"

KimD: could it be called "Intent" instead of "Motivation?"

<Cyborg> that was Cybele not KimD?

Lauriat: I think the main point is to give orgs a path to do more than the minimum

probably Cyborg instead of KimD...I'm not great at replacing

<Cyborg> organizations a path toward greater accessibility?

<jeanne> 3.7 MOtivation: The use of the guidelines supports and motivates organizations to acknowledge gaps and strive to be more inclusive. Give organizations a path toward greater accessibility.

<bruce_bailey> +1

<AngelaAccessForAll> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<jeanne> +1

+1

<Cyborg> +1 for now

<Cyborg> The intent...

<Cyborg> The intent is to give organizations a path toward greater accessibility

<jeanne> 3.7 Motivation: The use of the guidelines supports and motivates organizations to acknowledge gaps and strive to be more inclusive. The intent is to give organizations a path toward greater accessibility.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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/scr4ibe?//
Succeeded: s/repetative/repetitive/
Present: AngelaAccessForAll Charles Cyborg JF Jennison KimD Lauriat LuisG Shawn bruce_bailey jeanne johnkirkwood kirkwood
Found Scribe: LuisG
Inferring ScribeNick: LuisG
Found Date: 22 Feb 2019
People with action items: 

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.)