15:48:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:48:09 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/08-silver-conf-irc
15:48:24 <sajkaj> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:48:30 <sajkaj> Date: 8 Apr 2021
15:48:35 <sajkaj> Chair: sajkaj
15:48:42 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make log public
15:48:49 <sajkaj> agenda?
15:48:56 <sajkaj> regrets: Peter_Korn, Azlan_Cuttilan, Todd_Libby, Wilco_Fiers, John_Northup
15:49:24 <sajkaj> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:49:24 <sajkaj> agenda+ Assigned github issues https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options
15:49:27 <sajkaj> agenda+ Use Cases Discussion (Continued)
15:49:29 <sajkaj> agenda+ Other Business
15:49:32 <sajkaj> agenda+ Be Done
15:51:42 <sajkaj> agenda?
15:51:50 <sajkaj> present+
15:55:03 <sajkaj> regrets+ Rachael
15:58:24 <KimD> KimD has joined #silver-conf
16:02:48 <Bryan> Bryan has joined #silver-conf
16:03:03 <Bryan> present+
16:03:07 <JF> JF has joined #silver-conf
16:03:13 <JF> Present+
16:04:27 <KimD> present+
16:04:53 <JF> scribe: JF
16:04:56 <JF> sgenda?
16:04:59 <JF> agenda?
16:05:08 <JF> zakim, take up iotem 1
16:05:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'take up iotem 1', JF
16:05:18 <JF> zakim, take up item 1
16:05:18 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:05:48 <JF> JS: pretty standard - remind that we need to create an April report
16:06:15 <JF> propose we will deliver that on the 30th, but also note that the 29th is a full-day workshop
16:06:45 <JF> Jeanne: p[erhaps have the report ready for the 29th then?
16:06:59 <JF> JS: OK, we can add that to the list
16:07:29 <JF> there is a list with items that we should look at, and there are also some github comments
16:07:34 <JF> zakim, next item
16:07:34 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Assigned github issues https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:07:47 <sajkaj> https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options
16:08:05 <JF> JS: there are two issues we need to review
16:08:56 <JF> Kim: looks like comment from an email
16:09:27 <JF> [reads comment aloud]
16:10:14 <JF> JS: Kim read issue 450
16:10:42 <JF> believe this mirrors one of our existing points in our google doc - principle 5 (thrid usecase)
16:10:51 <JF> Bog posts, tec.
16:10:58 <JF> s/Bog/Blog
16:11:27 <sajkaj> q?
16:11:28 <JF> JS: summarizes that if we are too strict it will be ignored or will drive people away
16:12:18 <JF> Jeanne: notice that it splits 3rd party content into 2 categories: contractual or copyright implications, and then 3rd party 'user-generated' content
16:12:35 <JF> were forcing that kind of content into accessiblity may be difficult
16:12:42 <JF> so found the split useful
16:12:46 <JF> to think about'
16:13:43 <JF> JS: agrees - two very different scenarios, and thinks we've already started down that path
16:13:53 <JF> example - travel site
16:14:22 <JF> so that things that are contracted have a higher bar. But then there are items like payment processing where you can demand minimums in the contract
16:14:46 <JF> other services like google, facebook, AWS, etc. - all have sign-in services (federated authentication)
16:14:50 <JF> Q+
16:15:03 <JF> those could likely have higher bars
16:15:29 <JF> but being overly strict may introduce problems
16:16:10 <JF> Jeanne: thinks there are 3 categories: personal users - low burden, contracted material - higher bar, and then copyrighted material (eg Library of Congress)
16:16:22 <Bryan> q+
16:16:54 <JF> JS: interesting use-case, but believes there are exemptions in place to address the needs of a11y
16:17:11 <JF> BB: +1 - have seen that before and it is quite specific
16:17:48 <JF> Q+ to ask where this will be leading us to?
16:18:40 <JF> JS: relays an experience of encountering copyright barriers
16:19:06 <sajkaj> q?ack jf
16:20:26 <JF> JF: asks about how to integrate copyrighted content into a conformance model
16:20:37 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:20:37 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask where this will be leading us to?
16:20:39 <sajkaj> ack br
16:20:40 <JF> JS: think we can't just throw our hands up
16:21:26 <JF> BT: usecase: If I go to a restaurant and posts a photo of a menu item and post it on social media, is it the same as, say, the restaurant owner?
16:22:06 <JF> Jeanne: maybe they need different rules, but thinks the owner is responsible for text alternatives for their menu. But if it's a patron, then the responsability falls to the poster
16:22:18 <sajkaj> q?
16:22:19 <JF> so we may need seperate rules to cover scenarios like that
16:22:29 <JF> not sure where the line is however
16:22:39 <sajkaj> q+
16:22:47 <JF> BT: and that's what I am trying to understand - is it based on role, or on something else?
16:23:22 <JF> where does the decision take place
16:23:55 <JF> JF: how do you annotate that?
16:24:09 <JF> JS: concerned that we are getting outside of what W3C can normatively say
16:24:24 <JF> believes this is Best Practice guidance, but worried that we are crossing a line
16:24:44 <JF> this discussion is already fairly US-centric, need to think about i18n
16:25:32 <JF> Jeanne: at this point, just trying to think about use-cases.
16:25:34 <KimD> q+
16:25:40 <JF> ack s
16:25:54 <sajkaj> q?
16:26:32 <sajkaj> ack dk
16:26:38 <sajkaj> ack KimD
16:26:44 <JF> Kim: wanted to ask if this is a use-case. Have struggled with this and am unsure
16:27:03 <JF> we have a product that courts use, where people can upload evidence for 'sharing'
16:27:03 <sajkaj> q+
16:27:37 <sajkaj> ack sajkaj
16:27:38 <JF> here there are very complex 'images' or (content) - and how do we provide text alternatives there?
16:27:47 <JF> JS: This is a very interesting question
16:28:27 <JF> JS: describes experience of being on a jury and dealing with visual evidence
16:28:45 <JF> Q+
16:29:23 <JF> Iim: what I've recommended that the system must *allow* the addition of alt text, but not 'required' (enforced)
16:29:33 <JF> s/Tim/Kim
16:29:43 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:30:26 <sajkaj> q?
16:30:50 <JF> JF: Plus 1 to Kim
16:30:57 <JF> JS: we have a second issue
16:31:33 <JF> Next issue is #362. Like that #450 has surfaced 3 different scenarios
16:31:42 <JF> [Kim reads out comment]
16:32:44 <JF> Jeanne: I think this item is mis-filed - not relevant to this group
16:33:22 <JF> Jeanne will re-assign this to somebody else
16:33:39 <JF> ACTION: Jeanne to re-asing Issue #450 to another group
16:33:39 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
16:34:31 <JF> zakim, next item
16:34:31 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Use Cases Discussion (Continued) -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:35:00 <JF> JS: there are others we've not touched on yet
16:35:29 <sajkaj> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/
16:35:55 <JF> [looking at other issues on the google doc]
16:36:44 <JF> Looking at Principle 5 Use cases (B & C)
16:38:24 <JF> JS: notes similarities to Issue #450 - but bullet list is more expansive
16:38:44 <JF> Q+ to comment on "highly technical"
16:39:43 <JF> ack me
16:39:43 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to comment on "highly technical"
16:39:58 <JF> defining "highly technical" will be problematic
16:40:19 <JF> Jeanne: last bullet sounded like if yo don't make your software, you're not responsible
16:40:19 <Bryan> q+
16:40:27 <JF> JS: Agree, can't use that as an excuse
16:40:33 <JF> ack b
16:40:34 <sajkaj> ack br
16:40:51 <JF> BT: what were the 3 initial buckets?
16:41:22 <JF> Jeanne: personally generated 3rd party, copyrighted material, contracted third-party (login services, news feeds, etc.)
16:43:01 <JF> JS: attempting "highly technical" - consider EDU content (advanced math) - but we already are starting to see how to address this (ref: content Usable)
16:43:52 <JF> question around submitting work by student
16:44:11 <JF> Q+
16:44:52 <JF> BT: likes seeing the split between University and student - whatever technology supplied by EDU owns the responsibility
16:44:59 <JF> JS: takes us back to Kim's comment
16:45:13 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:46:03 <KimD> q+
16:48:55 <sajkaj> ack KimD
16:49:18 <JF> KD: this may not be the right spot - what about patent applications? Does that fit into the same or similar use-case
16:49:23 <JF> +1 Kim
16:51:01 <JF> Kim: does this mean we might need an excemption category?
16:51:46 <JF> JS: we could likely draw a line of what can and cannot be achieved - where we know how to implement and can advise that
16:51:56 <JF> Kim: continues to trip up over plain language
16:52:24 <JF> Jeanne: what plain language talks about is giving orgs the ability to write plain language summaries
16:52:47 <JF> JS: Kim is suggesting that they can't - the judge can come back and say you've mis-represented what i meant
16:53:10 <JF> it's a legal thing - but can be applied to medical or other fields as well
16:53:26 <JF> Jeanne: would be curious to hear from Bruce about how the US Fed deals with this
16:53:38 <JF> they have statutes, etc, already
16:53:52 <JF> Jeanne: this is something that the plain language folks need to work out
16:54:08 <JF> JS: thin this may still fall to us - this is going to require a negociation
16:54:27 <JF> Jeanne: think we need to figure out what/where this will apply
16:55:01 <JF> JS: We have the responsibility of defining what 'success' looks like, not who is responsible for implementing
17:00:04 <KimD> scribe: Kim
17:00:38 <KimD> JS: where summary provides a danger or legal interpretation, perhaps an exemption
17:02:48 <KimD> Kim: perhaps different levels of plain language summaries? One that doesn't involve interpretation as much
17:03:18 <KimD> i.e., more summarizing content than interpretation
17:04:19 <KimD> KimD has left #silver-conf
17:05:37 <sajkaj> zakim, bye
17:05:37 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, Bryan, JF, KimD
17:05:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf
17:05:42 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make minutes
17:05:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/08-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj
17:11:55 <Jemma> Jemma has joined #silver-conf