– DRAFT –
Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

Agenda Review & Administrative Items; Use cases for Friday Silver telecon

Janina: Taking use cases to Silver call tomorrow 19 Feb
… 1st principle and 3rd principle

Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit

Peter: How much more material before they are ready for tomorrow?

Jeanne: Looks good, what does group think?

Peter: How much principle needs to be with use case?

Jeanne: Connect to principle makes sense, what does group think?

Peter: Might be useful to paraphrase principle illustrated
… frame use cases with principle

Janina: For Friday could explain that principles are in process

Peter: Who and how presented on Friday?

Jeanne: Up to Janina who, how, read principle, read 1st use case, as for questions and comments, then next

Peter: Could make use case page with the two use cases

Janina: Jeanne suggested not making more pages with same content

Peter: Worries about getting cause in language that's not final

Janina: People seeing options might be useful

Jeanne: Good to have people see work in process

Wilco: Goal of presenting?

Janina: Bring use cases forward sooner rather than later

Jeanne: Part of critical error discussion, get more of group input on approach, whether it's valuable
… let people know what we're working on

Janina: Have most of the principles with use cases
… will put them in buckets, covered and not yet covered

Wilco: Pitch other groups to do use cases?

Jeanne: No, this group more oriented to what needs to be covered that aren't, what are solutions, approach of principles, use cases, solutions
… impacts every group so good to let them know

Jemma: Also concerned about rabbit hole, people have different degrees of understanding, Jeanne can manage discussion so people don't get hung up

Peter: Timeline discussion, idea by end of Feb have agreement and report in March, concerned about showing entire doc
… share use cases and situations or general discussion, but concerned about looking at doc

<Jemma> I see Peter's concern clearly.

Janina: How we bring topic forward, if we pull out looks like final wording

<Jemma> we may go for it and see how things are working.

<Jemma> it seems Jeanne has a good idea of scoping the discussion.

Jeanne: Looking at the two use cases only, try to hold it there

Peter: Ask people to not edit document, welcome to make comments

Jeanne: Can turn off permissions on folder

Janina: Can see comments in Google Doc but deletions and insertions are unclear
… suggests Jeanne introduces, Janina presents context, and Peter reads use case

Use Cases Discussion (Continued)

Wilco: Idea for use case, worth having component themed use case?

<JF> +1 to Wilco - use-case = "Design Systems"

Wilco: team responsible for delivering components may want to make conformance claims about them

Peter: Might need new principle

Janina: Not only testing process but testing tools, e.g., components

JF: Publishing tools with no content, WordPress basic installation, two classes of accessibility, structure and user flows
… design system, buttons, colors, primitives may be accessible but putting them together may be different

Janina: Charter says WCAG, ATAG, UAAG combined

JF: Accessible design systems, nuts and bolts, org that makes platform available may want to say something about conformance about piece parts

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we postponed dealing with that issue for the FPWD

<JF> Salesforce Design System (Lightning): https://www.lightningdesignsystem.com

Jemma: Component concepts, accessible dialog widget, what is the definition/scope of component

JF: Theme, accessible conformance statement for theme, accessible until added content, author make statement about theme

Peter: Wilco could draft something for review next week, something concrete to review
… separate from existing principles, then see if it needs a new principle

<sajkaj> ~q?

Jeanne: Not able to restrict write access, will follow up with Janina

Wilco: Will do!

<PeterKorn> New proposed use case, for principle 5:

<PeterKorn> Proposed Use Case example for user generated content [for discussion 18Feb21]: A site containing on-line journals of highly technical material allows user comments. While authors

<PeterKorn> of journal articles are required to include clear language summaries (in keeping with WCAG 3 FPWD Clear Words exception), which are verified by paid editors, website visitors are not required to similarly make clear language summaries of the comments they submit on articles.

Janina: Work in audience, could run clear words checker on content, to some degree can encourage to write more clearly
… topic of article influences language (e.g., virus article in academic journal vs newspaper)

Peter: might be different but related, site designed for a narrow audience

Janina: Working to improve accessibility with math, chemistry, allow professional conversation and markup to support use of standard terminology in those fields
… places where it's reasonable and not reasonable to aim for plain language

Peter: If we can't use clear words to describe topic, have exception that have summary

<jeanne> +1 to Lainey Feingold's site

Peter: hard to craft clear word summary that conveys concepts in some contexts
… tool can't assess if it's an accurate summary
… what do we do about that?

Jemma: Use case about whether the content is clear to audience? Or are we talking about whether the information is exact?

<JF> +1 to janina - that's a perennial issue at APA

Janina: Example, provide plain language summary of what API does, situations where people write complex stuff, always useful to have plain language summary

Jemma: What about exception process?

<PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#clear-words

Peter: Looking for exceptions

Jeanne: Knows more work needed in exceptions for clear words

Peter: Maybe not useful yet, pointing out what's known that more work needed on clear words/exceptions

Janina: Could pause work on it

Jeanne: Exceptions were in early drafts but no exceptions section on template

Peter: Pivot to focus on general public site for narrow audience, what to do about lack of clear words when audience is specific

Jemma: Glossary of terms, linked elsewhere, comply to current WCAG?

Janina: Professional site wouldn't want that level of glossary

Jeanne: Not covered by WCAG AA; Clear words links to glossary 2 points, link to 1-click definition 3 points
… test tool allows loading of vocabulary, can load appropriate vocabulary for audience
… good use case, worth looking at

Janina: Summary useful to professionals

Peter: Important concept, helpful to lots of people, user-generated content hard to police and ensure accessible, harder in summary than alt-text

<JF> +1 to Peter, and/but how do we measure whether the definitions are 'sufficient' for X user?

Peter: websites with user-generated content can never pass bronze, reject most content because users aren't prepared to do that

JF: Agree about user-generated content, solutions like Facebook generating alternative text, pretty good
… can be made accessible with intervention

<Wilco_> +1, good point

JF: OCR is working for FB
… machines can fill some gaps

Jemma: If there is accessiblity statement, clear langugae, regarding comments about audience can we get credit for that?

Jeanne: Share with clear words

<Jemma> s/if statement/if there is accessiblity statement, clear langugae, regarding comments/