<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
<scribe> scribe: LuisG
<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?
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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]