<scribe> scribe: Chuck
Jeanne: Angela did a plain
language pass on editors draft last week. I finally got in on
Sunday. I don't think there's anything in there that changes
the meaning.
... She smoothed things out and made it easier to read.
... Next, I went through comments that Peter sent me. Some of
these crossed... he also sent corrections similar to
Angela's.
PK: I saw your edits. I haven't
had a chance to compare them to everything I asked for, it
looks like everything that got carried forward. I need to
compare before I head home today.
... I want to see if there's any missing text that should be in
there.
Jeanne: We can do that during the
call, get this handled. As much as we can tonight so we can go
forward. I'd like to merge them into the new branch I have
going forward.
... I did get the pull request of Andy's work. I'm going to
merge that into the new branch. I'd like to merge these into
the new branch. Somewhere I have an editor's draft that
has...
<jeanne2> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-comments-korn-js/guidelines/index.html#scoring-conformance
Jeanne: Here are some of the
things that we looked at, these are some of the changes I made
in response to Peter's comments. To make it easier (not a
lot)....
... At this point in the work I need to make new branches and
merge the branches. But there's a dif document.
... Here's the dif doc.
Jeanne: That has the changes I
did. You can take a look down in the conformance section.
... I added a new bullet to change the conformance definition
<reads from doc>
... That's what I used to... I added a reference to the
challenges document and WCAG 2.1. Right now what's here is a
dummy reference but I have a new section that I just did.
... Haven't merged yet. That is...
... Let's let the q talk.
PK: It looks like the changes you
brought in, Angela changed a quite a bit from what you had
before. You had a number of other bullets <reads from
doc>
... It would be useful if easy to generate to have a dif from
the last version we looked at.
Jeanne: Yes. That's one of the things that I think also happened is we made a number of changes in response to the comments. That wasn't reflected in.... you worked on your changes before we did those changes.
<jeanne2> https://services.w3.org/htmldiff
Jeanne: Let me introduce you to a
wonderful URL. W3C's diff generator.
... You can plug in the raw git url's of the branches and you
can get a diff.
... What you want to see is the differences from the version
that the wg did.
PK: The 9th draft.
<PeterKorn> January 29th draft
Jeanne: Sometimes it's easier to go to Silver wiki. I've been trying to drop the rawgit url's in the pwd section.
<jeanne2> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/conformance-js-dec/guidelines/
Jeanne: You want to look at it
before we started making changes. This is the rawgit version
before the agwg group commented on.
... And then...
PK: That's very close to what I
was working on. That's what my diffs are applied to.
... "Conformance is a complex topic" is gone. Not saying it
should stay, but it's gone.
Jeanne: People made a lot of
conclusions with that and I thought "why are we bothering".
Now...
... Here it is with the comments I changed from your
comments.
... I think you want to just look at scoring and conformance,
and you can see there are a substantial # of changes.
PK: Yes.
Jeanne: I recommend that w3c junkies bookmark that useful tool.
PK: The biggest comment.. we
talked about this a little bit a few weeks ago... is should
we... are we 100% decided that the right thing to do is change
the definition of the word "conformance"
... When it applies to an entire website? Or should we use a
different word or phrase, and keep "conformance" in the WCAG
2.x definition of perfection in page.
sajkaj: We could find appropriate qualifiers for the word, that's what other groups do.
PK: After struggling with a term,
I pulled out of a random drawer "website conformance". I'm not
thrilled, but we can say that what we are talking about for an
entire website is not 100% every page every object.
... I think at a minimum in our fpwd we ought to highlight this
tension and be clear that we may use a different word or
qualifier for what we are trying to do for entire
websites.
... Another phrase is "substantially conforms". That's one of
the things that is missing from what you just shared from the
text I sent shortly after 29 Jan.
Jeanne: I think "substantially
conformance" fits the first bullet. Change from all or nothing
pass conformance in WCAG. We could use "substantial
conformance".
... The second one is changing from the emphasis of one page or
series of pages to a broader orientation.
... Two things working beyond web and allow the organization
the ability to claim entire sites or sections.
PK: I think "substantially conforms" applies to the second bullet. The first one, have you gotten w3c blessing to use the phrase?
Jeanne: It's a stresspoint. I
believe we have permission. We have permission to say "products
based on web technologies". I'm pushing that a little
bit.
... By saying...
... "beyond web pages".
PK: It's not just beyond web pages, it's inclusive of digital technologies.
Jeanne: Yes, I'm pushing the boundaries of what some are comfortable with.
PK: Also it doesn't follow from
the bullet as a sub bullet of...
... I think <garbled> outside the confines of a web page
is different from substantial conformance. That's about the
overall experience, not looking at it on one individual
page.
... Once you do that you can take that same kind of thinking
for some other technology.
... WCAG to ICT the only unit we could come up with is the
application.
... The application could be humongous and we are back to
"substantial".
... It feels like having silver be more inclusive of digitital
technologies beyond web pages... it's about how do you take all
of these principals and sc that were written with web in mind
and make sure they work outside of a web page.
... It feels odd to have that here and only here. I would
expect to see it elsewhere.
Jeanne: We talk about it in the
scope, in the introduction. For the scope of WCAG 3.
... I'm ok with taking that out. Then I don't need the bullets.
You ok with <reads>?
PK: Not sure about the verb
"claim".
... Otherwise yes. I think that's all part of where
"substantial" fits in rather than in the first bullet.
"substantial" is about the emphasis change.
sajkaj: "assert conformance".
PK: We are using something that
isn't pure conformance.
... Maybe allows organizations to apply a substantial
conformance model that address the issues highlighted in the
conformance challenges doc.
... Means we need to fully develop it.
sajkaj: Needs to be normative. Will be normative once we figure out how to do it in WCAG 3.0.
PK: That's the biggest thing out
of what I sent you that is missing here. The words "substantial
conformance" is fine.
... ...better meeting... making the sites or products... where
a word other than conformance is wanted, better reflects the
needs of people with disabilities.
Jeanne: I got lost. Can you paste some text in IRC?
PK: I'll work on it in a text editor, and paste.
Jeanne: While Peter reviews, what I worked on this afternoon is resources.
Kim: Before we move on. I don't have a strong opinion, but saying something broader than web, I'm not bothered by that. It ties with the things above, about what people want out of WCAG. More flexibility.
Jeanne: Given how much objections we had to it...
Kim: That's consistent with stuff
with what W3C says. <reads example>
... They are already going broad.
<KimD> https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility
sajkaj: We need to take from the current charter. It's difficult to find a generalizable concept of doing this.
Jeanne: I put a lot of that into
the intro.
... If you look back up in the scope section of the intro, I
took that nearly word for word from charter.
... Several were saying "more broad", others "more narrow".
sajkaj: We live or die by that for the next few years.
Jeanne: I don't want to preclude
us from pushing boundaries. I'm happy to take language that
pushes it...
... I'm happy to TAKE BACK the language...
PK: I've text to suggest.
... <pastes in chunks>
<PeterKorn> When the Silver Task Force researched WCAG 2.0, they found that, generally, people like WCAG guidance but wanted changes to the structure, including the conformance model. The major issues that Silver is addressing are:
<PeterKorn> • Provide an alternative to the WCAG 2.x emphasis of "one page, a series of pages, or multiple related Web pages", that:
<PeterKorn> o Better reflects the needs and experiences of people with disabilities
<PeterKorn> o Addresses the [Challenges with Conformance]
kim: is this under 3.3 scope of conformance?
pk: under 3.0.
<PeterKorn> o Allows organizations to make a claim about entire sites, products, or sub-sections of a site or product.
PK: That's my suggestion for the
first chunk of 3.0. I'd remove the line... <reads>, and
move that to later.
... The intro is saying "we did research, we found problems,
they want something, we want to address the needs and
challenges".
... Then I would talk about what we are doing.
... I'd move "ensure that conformance doesn't favor" up into
the first bit.
... As part of what our alternative does.
Jeanne: OK.
... We good with that? Thoughts?
... {Challenges with Conformance] will be link to doc.
<PeterKorn> One more/last sub-bullet: " o Ensure that conformance doesn't favor any disability over another."
<jeanne2> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/ED-changes-25Feb-js/guidelines/#references
<PeterKorn> Then I would bring in the rest of that first section, as follows:
Jeanne: That is a new references section that includes the challenges.
<PeterKorn> "We do this by introducing the concept “Substantial Conformance”. This concept:"
PK: I would also then bring the
current last bullet in the section up to the 4th bullet of what
we are doing in our alternative.
... Make sense?
Jeanne: Yes.
PK: <reads from doc>.
Jeanne: I like bringing back "substantial conformance". I don't remember why we pulled it, but nice to put it back. If it explains it better, then we need to ... we have to have better terms to explain what we are doing.]
pk: I like that we don't mix up the stand-alone word of "conformance".
Jeanne: Conformance is a W3C term, not a WCAG term. WCAG wrote their own definition of conformance, we can have our own.
PK: I agree, we have decades of people who know what "conformance to wcag" meant. Instead of overloading that term, we say "substantial conformance" is "this thing".
Jeanne: I'll update with what we've been talking about. I'll put together later, send a note around and ask for comments.
PK: I can send you my notes as well.
sajkaj: "if you get down to
looking at a page, it will be what your use to". Will still be
a detailed analysis. You are putting in time and effort.
... If you look at larger sites, we'll need to show and explain
models which show "substantially conforming". Like inventing
aproximation theory.
Jeanne: The important part that
I'd like to figure out how to say... there are large companies
that want to do good accessibility. We need to make it possible
for them to say they conform.
... A lot of people are thinking of it as a way to cheat and
game. But that can happen now already.
PK: Looking at the rest of the doc, we'll want to consider where to keep the word "conformance" and where to swap to "substantial conformance" in the rest of section 3.
Jeanne: We can't do it on the heading.
PK: The sub-heading.
... would be how "substantial conformance" fits.
sajkaj: conformance models.
PK: for section 3.3 feels like scope for substantial conformance claim is what we are really trying to talk about.
Jeanne: I want to see what's in
the sections Peter is referring to.
... I like scope of substantial conformance.
... <reads from doc>
... We had a lot of complaints that we were going to allow
people to claim a single paragraph works and make a claim for
an entire site.
Kim: Do we have a place that says
that a person or entity claiming any degree of conformance has
to state what was tested? If you only test the first paragraph,
fine, but put that in scope. That's the honesty piece.
... Could still be gamed, but could be verified.
sajkaj: We discussed, don't recall where or when, you define and date your scope and create a snapshot.
Jeanne: That was one of Makoto's proposals. We didn't move that into this doc, but we can.
sajkaj: footnote: We are getting
side tracked in preventing people from doing bad or stupid
stuff. Our job is to define what good accessibility is.
... everywhere we can come up with a model for inbetween is a
big enough job.
<KimD> +1 to that!
pk: The paragraph question, if the smallest unit in WCAG 2.x is a page, and substantial conformance is bunches of pages, where does it creep in that someone could make a claim for a single paragraph?
Jeanne: It's interesting how what we wrote has been interpreted. We gave them a large amount of text to read, and they did it on a short timeline. Not unreasonable misinterpretation.
sajkaj: You did a good job on agwg call. Alastiar validated that they had more time in 2.2 that they haven't had opportunity to understand this.
Jeanne: Will take time for them
to understand, and I would like this to be out by CSUN.
... We won't get that audience for probably another year.
PK: Can we make that deadline given what we heard in agwg?
Jeanne: It's in jeopardy. We
might still be able to do it. I need to start having
conversations directly with people...
... Listen to them and bring some people around. We need to get
some key thought leaders to agree. MG was a great example of
advocacy.
... But we got sidetracked into "normative".
... that model won't work for coga or low vision.
Kim: I wanted to say that, that coga doesn't fit wcag 2 framework, but seems that they want us to follow wcag 2 framework.
PK: We've got 5 minutes left. We
have an open survey still.
... We are still making changes that we just agreed on. What
does that mean for the survey for next week's agwg and the
survey?
Jeanne: The branch I'm making
tonight, that's all going in a new branch for next week. I'll
write alastair and get on the agenda next week. We'll try to
get all the issues from a new survey.
... And try to have direct conversations with thought
leaders.
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/claimed/gamed/ Present: jeanne2 Chuck KimD sajkaj PeterKorn Makoto AngelaAccessForAll Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck 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: 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]