Conformance Options Subgroup

03 Dec 2020


sajkaj, Bryan, jeanne, sarahhorton, bruce_bailey
Wilco, John


<sajkaj> date 03 dec 2020

<PeterKorn> https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/creating-a-more-accessible-world

<bruce_bailey> very nice peter, congrats

<PeterKorn> Thanks!

Agenda Review & Administrative Items (Intros; Email; Group Name; Call with Shawn)

<scribe> scribe: sarahhorton

Janina: Goal to send meeting announcements, etc through Silver mailing list
... In last meeting, Judy suggested we take naming issue to Shawn, looking for good time to meet to discuss, might not happen in Dec

Peter: No consensus that there will necessarily be multiple models, but still good to work on name

Janina: Possible there will be more, we don't know, good to have appropriate name in the meantime

Scoping Discussion

Janina: Related request from management, subgroups scope their purpose

<PeterKorn> I see Melina just joined!

Jeanne: In W3C every organized group has scope or work statement
... Groups are broadening how they are looking at things, chairs thought would be helpful to have scope statement
... List or statement of what group intends to do, to share with group, chairs, get guidance, to help focus work

<PeterKorn> “Purpose: To explore solutions to conformance challenges in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content.”

Janina: Purpose statement in Google doc

Jeanne: Doesn't say we are going to write proposals, might want to include that if that's our intent
... Good to say we're going to write proposals
... And bring them to Silver and AGWG

<PeterKorn> “Purpose: To explore solutions to conformance challenges in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content; and bring proposals to the Silver Task Force and Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.”

Janina: Go around the table and introduce yourselves

Principles 1-5 Redux

Janina: Work through Google doc


<PeterKorn> Rachael - note that we added another clause to the purpose text, to have it be what we track publicly.

Janina: Only first pass, will take multiple passes

Principles Discussion; Items #6 and Following

<PeterKorn> a+

Peter: "All software – and likewise all dynamic websites – of large enough size or complexity has bugs; this is unfortunately unavoidable."
... "Websites that meet the solution should have no greater acceptance of accessibility bugs as the site has for bugs generally, nor should accessibility bugs be disproportionately represented among the number or severity of bugs found."

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to broaden from website

Jeanne: Request that we make it broader than websites, could be websites and applications

Bruce: What is "it" in the comment from Jeanne?

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say we have used "web content" in the current draft of WCAG 3

Jeanne: An interesting way to measure

<Rachael> These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, mobile devices, wearable devices, and other web of things devices. They address various types of web content including static content, interactive content, visual and auditory media, and virtual and augmented reality. The guidelines also address related web tools such as user agents (browsers and assistive technologies), content management systems,

<Rachael> authoring tools, and testing tools.

Rachael: In WCAG 3 defining scope as web content, consistency might be useful moving forward

Janina: Equity in bugs that are acceptable is the intent

Peter: Have captured key questions rather than polish principle, note to revisit to define bug equity as a measure

Bryan: Curious about how we talk about 3rd party content, does principle 6 also apply to that?

Peter: What do we think is the correct way to scope 3rd party content? We shouldn't leave it as it was left in WCAG 2.

Bryan: Gets closer to understand what section 6 encompasses, total number of defects in 3rd party, too?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about how 6 in included in WCAG3

Jeanne: Principle 6 in WCAG 3, editors draft to be FPWD, for each guideline giving way to measure, giving possibility of having critical errors
... Full points for good alternative text if you have 95%, but no critical errors, e.g., missing alt text that prevents task completion
... Needs vary, address at guideline, e.g., move flashing WCAG 2.x, would be black/white, no percentage. Others setting a percentage
... Yes, you can have errors as long as not critical error (blocker) and others where no, can't have it at all

Bryan: Does that inform process of looking at 3rd party content, their conformance informs overall conformance?

Jeanne: Haven't addressed. Some want exceptions, others want no exceptions

Bryan: Do we can principle 6 to reflect that?

Jeanne: Innovative idea, should be brought to broader group, share with groups working on guidelines, as a way of measuring whether guideline is met

Peter: Capturing principles before trying to develop them to be sure we don't miss anything, hold specifics of how they interact, then draft proposals

Bryan: Yes, look at it further along

Peter: Imagine catalog of movies, 3rd party movie has flash with warning, example of 3rd party content and critical failures

<Bryan> Thanks all, I need to jump onto another meeting.

Peter 7: Principle 7: Beyond what may arise naturally from a greater emphasis on programmatic testing vs. human evaluation, the solution [to these conformance challenges] shouldn’t give preferential treatment…"

Peter: "…to the needs of one disability over that of another (e.g. a site shouldn’t be great for blind folks but horrible for folks with motor impairments)."

Bruce: Subject of discussion is solution to these conformance challenges, just double checking that that is what we're talking about

Rachael: Add sentence that also address intersectional disabilities

Peter: Gets wordy and have meeting with Shawn to come up with term, can we handle by putting it in header and leaving as the solution in 1–8

Bruce: Good edit, just need to be careful about language

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about "the solution"

Bruce: Come back and take fresh look

Peter: Review Rachael's suggestion, too

Janina: Start there next week

December work calendar

<bruce_bailey> +1 to proposed work calendar

Janina: December work calendar, not meet on Dec 24 or 31, resume in Jan

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: 2020/12/03 18:04:35 $

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)

Default Present: sajkaj, Bryan, jeanne, sarahhorton, bruce_bailey
Present: sajkaj Bryan jeanne sarahhorton bruce_bailey
Regrets: Wilco John
Found Scribe: sarahhorton
Inferring ScribeNick: sarahhorton

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]