Silver Conformance Subgroup

19 Nov 2020


jeanne, sajkaj, PeterKorn, Bryan, Wilco_, sarahhorton


<sajkaj> Meeting: [TBD] Conformance

<sajkaj> Chair: sajkaj

<scribe> scribe: Wilco

Principles 1-4 Redux

<PeterKorn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs

Judy: Regarding the term substantial conformance, there has been some discussion starting 2 years ago. It had appeared in the Challenges / conformance document.
... My understanding is a lot of good work has been done to zero in on a conformance model for Silver. There is more and more work backing up how the conformance model would be defined.
... Often when we're looking to find a term to be associated with a model, we look at different message implications to bring in help for that.
... That hasn't really be done with this with W3C staff.
... One general concern with the term is that potentially no matter how carefully it is defined is it would create a misunderstanding any time people need to hear it.
... Second it is more of a policy framing for a conformance model, as legislation escape clauses, which is not the place the W3C would start for naming the conformance model.
... Something W3C could help with. Our request is we don't usually name the group by a potentially controversial term.

Peter: Don't think there is a specific tie to the term, but what is important are the issues we're trying to address.
... We are currently working through a set of principles. That is the core of our work. We put into FPWD of Silver a note that says we will work on substantial conformance. That is where the term came in.
... That is what spawned this group and its name.

Judy: I'm aware there are complicated issues you're trying to capture in short-hand names. We need that.
... Would like to hear where others are around this term.
... My impression is the group isn't wedded to the term. The person we often bring in with tricky naming is Shawn Henry, who can help walk through different naming options.

+1 to invite Shawn

<sarahhorton> +1

<PeterKorn> +1 to Shawn; happy to do a different time for that

<Bryan> +1 to invite Shawn

<bruce_bailey> +1

<PeterKorn> Also suggest in the interim "Addressing Conformnance Challenges" if we can't find a time for the name discussion soon.

Judy: That way we can try to help shape it in the way we think will land well for a technical standard.

Agenda Review and Procedures Refresh

Janina: Keep sending e-mail to everyone individual, because we have a few people who are new to Silver. I wanted to confirm everyone is on the list.
... Does anyone need more info on what list?

Bryan: Not sure I'm getting those e-mails.

Janina: I will follow up with that.
... In the mean time will continue to e-mail everyone directly.
... Did we resolve the pointer to the wiki page?

Jeanne: I resolved it on Tuesday.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Sub_Groups

<PeterKorn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance

Peter: Should we change the page in the wiki itself from "substantial_conformance" to something else?
... The title, and then the references in Google docs

<PeterKorn> Addressing Conformnance Challenges"

Peter: My suggestion in the meantime

+1, as good as any :-)

Peter: The reason I'm suggesting this is there is a lot of discussion around level and scoring, and what we're doing is completely separate about that.
... I think there is value in a little more specificity then "conformance issues"

Jeanne: We could copy the content on a new page. Wikimedia lets me change the appearance, but it won't let me change the URL.

<bruce_bailey> i am okay with "conformance challenges"

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say we do need an adjective

Bruce: Would prefer something broader, offer "significant conformance". The other thing we could do is leave it for the moment.

Jeanne: Agree with waiting for conversation with Judy

Peter: Willing to go with the group

<Bryan> +1

<jeanne> +1 to not making changes until we have the conversation with Judy


Peter: What are thoughts on changing the wording on the page?

Jeanne: Fine with that.

<PeterKorn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance

<PeterKorn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs

Peter: So that would mean changing the wiki page and google doc.

<PeterKorn> SO "Purpose: To explore the concept and definition of a "Substantially Conforming" alternative conformance term for WCAG 3 in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content"

Janina: Sufficiently descriptive. Hearing no concern with making the change.

<PeterKorn> To something like: "Purpose: To explore the Conformance Challenges and approaches to address them, in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content"

Bruce: It lets me resolve a concern I raised on the principles

Peter: Also suggesting the first paragraph on our wiki would change.

<PeterKorn> "Purpose: To explore Conformance Challenges in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content"

Peter: Will edit the page.

Janina: Sounds like we have agreement

<PeterKorn> Note: the contents of this document are a discussion draft, and do not represent the consensus opinion of the Silver Task Force. Furthermore, the enumeration of Key Principles set forth in this document to address conformance challenges are not intended to imply that they may not also be key principles of WCAG 3 Conformance.

Jeanne: Suggest just taking out the word "substantial"

Janina: That is a little confusing. We'd talk about WCAG 3 conformance as if it's the same. I think we're looking for more than just the model.
... Using only "conformance" does not make that clear.

Peter: I don't think we've decided that it is or is not going to be part of the current Silver model
... That is captured in the key questions.

Sarah: Are the key principles defining conformance, or our work as a subgroup.

Peter: Where we discovered going through the principles a difference in what's in FPWD conformance model was in #5, that we need to address third party content. Not something currently in WCAG 3 FPWD.
... #6 was something we have also not yet addressed.
... To avoid us going into a rediscussion of Silver, levels, testing methodologies, lets get our arms around what we need to address and how. Once we have language to address that we can see if it can be folded into the existing model or if it is something separate.

Sarah: Question at hand was what to do with the words in the note, so are we enumerating principles for our subgroup, or if it is the thing we're trying not to define until we understand the problem space.

Peter: I think it's the later, the to-be-defined thing.

Sarah: Then we can drop the "for substantial conformance".

Peter: Works for me

Jeanne: That's great

Sarah: One thing Peter mentioned in IRC was a scope that is now, if we go back to that it might help decide what to do with the principles
... Should we be more specific in the key principles to the problem space.

<PeterKorn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance

Janina: This became basically our disclaimer

Sarah: Can we carry it over?

Peter: We're trying to propose a solution to the challenges. The principles are what describe the solution.

Sarah: If that's our stated problem space it would be better if we had that in front of us. If not, maybe we should not have it on the wiki.

Peter: Wonder about replacing substantial conformance with "our approach"

<Bryan> +1

Janina: I think that's good

Wilco: Suggest "the solution"

Sarah: I like that.

Peter: Works for me
... I will put "the solution" in the principles

<jeanne> +1

Peter: Not so sure about what we have under problem statement. Maybe "to explore solutions to conformance challenges"?

Sarah: That's fine. Just trying to understand the scope

Peter: Change "to explore solutions" in the wiki page as well

Other Business

Principles Discussion; Items #4 and Following

Jeanne: Would be difficult to know how many bugs there are, especially for third party testing

Wilco: Agree, this is important for third party

Janina: Would depend on the type of third party
... In some cases you can track bugs, for example on Github you can count.

<PeterKorn> Is it a requirement that independent 3rd parties are able to verify a site meets the requirements of the solution? [cf. Key Principle #6]

<sarahhorton> Have to run to another meeting — bye!

Wilco: Wonder if there is some global target of bugs we can come up with. Not sure websites with more bugs should allow for more accessibility issues.

Peter: tolerance for bugs is different in different places.

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: 2020/11/19 18:03:33 $

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/doing nothing/waiting for conversation with Judy/
Default Present: jeanne, sajkaj, PeterKorn, Bryan, Wilco_, sarahhorton
Present: jeanne sajkaj PeterKorn Bryan Wilco_ sarahhorton
Regrets: John_Northup
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Wilco_
Found Scribe: Wilco
Found Date: 19 Nov 2020
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]