Substantial Conformance Silver Subgroup

12 Nov 2020


PeterKorn, bruce_bailey, John_Northup, sajkaj, Detlev, Jeanne, sarahhorton, Bryan


<sajkaj> date 12 nov 2020

<sajkaj> scribe: sarah

Agenda Review and Procedures Refresh

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"

Principles 1-4 Redux


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

Other Business

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

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/11/12 18:03:02 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]