15:44:57 RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf 15:44:57 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/15-silver-conf-irc 15:45:04 rrsagent, make logs public 15:45:24 Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup 15:45:32 Date: 15 Apr 2021 15:45:36 Chair: sajkaj 15:45:43 agenda? 15:46:34 Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items 15:46:34 agenda+ April Report Draft https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF 15:46:37 agenda+ Use Cases Discussion (Continued) 15:46:40 agenda+ Other Business 15:46:42 agenda+ Be Done 15:48:22 regrets: Bruce_Bailey 15:50:26 present+ 15:50:42 rrsagent, make minutes 15:50:42 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/15-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 16:01:07 Azlan has joined #silver-conf 16:02:52 ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf 16:03:09 JF has joined #silver-conf 16:03:15 Present+ 16:03:23 present+ 16:03:47 sarahhorton has joined #silver-conf 16:03:47 For some reason I cannot access the link to where the zoom call details are. I keep getting a message of insufficient privileges 16:03:56 Wilco has joined #silver-conf 16:04:01 present+ 16:04:07 jeanne has joined #silver-conf 16:04:33 present+ 16:04:34 Bryan has joined #silver-conf 16:04:46 present+ 16:05:32 present+ 16:07:18 scribe: Wilco 16:07:22 agenda? 16:07:29 zakim, next item 16:07:29 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj] 16:07:57 Janina: April report, there is a draft in the wiki. 16:08:22 PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf 16:08:42 ... Tried to capture what we did last week. Have additional use cases to talk about. As a target we have the day-long meeting on the 29th 16:08:54 ... Presume we won't meet on the 29th 16:09:16 Peter: Is there anything we should re-orient ourselves around to be effective on the 29th meeting? 16:09:50 Jeanne: We're going to start with testing, then look at scoring, and from there look at what are the requirements of BSG. 16:10:02 ... And how would we evaluate which option would be best. 16:10:22 ... See this group in the last category. What are the use cases to test the conformance options against. 16:10:53 Peter: There has been discussion on Gregg's feedback about a level that is automated testing only. Is that a topic for the 29th? 16:11:24 Jeanne: It is, but might be a black hole, lot of negative feedback from people in the disability community who does not want to see a race to the bottom. 16:11:37 ... There are options to talk about. 16:12:09 Janina: Option would be to make it part of the testing protocol, but not build a conformance level around it. 16:12:37 Q+ 16:12:43 Jeanne: Something we want to do more with with ACT. 16:13:00 q? 16:13:05 Janina: With conversations we've had, we want that level of testing. We'll see how that comes out. 16:13:27 ack jf 16:13:48 John: We're starting to see tools that are "automated" but have a walk-through construction. 16:14:06 Janina: Part of the reason not to make it a conformance model, would be a moving target. 16:14:19 ... Think we need to have this, trying to figure out how to have this. 16:14:42 Jeanne: Having a conformance level raises some problems, doing it at testing level will work. 16:15:16 Janina: Proposed a level called "threshold", insufficient for accessibility, but necessary before bronze. 16:16:09 ... One of the Silver goals is to be flexible where we can, but not force flexibility where it is harder to achieve. 16:16:26 ... Changing conformance normative is tough, updating supporting docs is relatively easy. 16:17:17 it's auto-detecting in my browser today 16:17:49 Janina: If anyone uses the browser for IRC, W3C will require HTTPS on Monday. HTTP will be redirected. 16:18:58 ack jf 16:19:03 zakim, next item 16:19:03 agendum 2 -- April Report Draft https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF -- taken up [from sajkaj] 16:19:49 Janina: First report draft is in the wiki. There is a skeleton in there, and I've tried to capture our conversation on third-party content. 16:19:51 sarahhorton_ has joined #silver-conf 16:20:38 rrsagent, make minutes 16:20:38 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/15-silver-conf-minutes.html jeanne 16:20:38 ... We reported in March on use cases that could be covered by Silver. 16:21:02 ... We discussed last week on third-party content, we also still have "all software has bugs". 16:21:48 Peter: I'll add a use case on accessibility support to the doc. We can discuss next week. 16:22:06 Janina: Next week is the last week before we have to report. Have to close on it next week. 16:22:31 Peter: We promised for April to propose directions on how to address the items. 16:23:46 q? 16:23:47 Q+ 16:23:49 q+ 16:24:11 ... For third-party, the big change is to go from what is in WCAG 2, to elevate to making a statement of conformance, calling out exceptions. It is a difference in phrasing. The question is around how to communicate this to users, and how to invite scrutiny where it belongs. 16:25:34 ... 5b is some embedded web payment system. If there are not too many alternative, we want to say that the payment system the responsibility of that organisation. 16:26:18 ... Suggestions are independent of the mitigation strategies, and it may be part of what someone need to do to meet the excepted conformance level. 16:27:03 ... Provide tools and guidance what we're doing to have third-party user generated content be as accessible as possible. 16:27:49 John: Agree with the general direction, but am concerned with the criticality. 16:28:32 Janina: We have a use case where it lays out some stuff is contracted, and other stuff is third-party provided. Have to discuss how to make that distinction, but we know we have that need. 16:29:21 John: The impact of not completing a purchase if by its nature is more severe is not being able to understand everything in a video. 16:29:32 Jeanne: I think we addressed that with critical errors. 16:30:21 @janina, making the distinction between an EDU site and a non-EDU site will be extremely complex to document 16:30:38 with regard to conformance reporting 16:31:00 Peter: There is a small number of payment processors out there, if one of them is inaccessible, it is not something I can fix. 16:31:34 ... "best meets" may still have failures. 16:32:16 John: I think it needs to be factored in. 16:32:25 q+ 16:32:28 Janina: We agreed on that in March. Trying to find new issues. 16:32:31 ack me 16:32:34 q? 16:33:04 Peter: Having ideas for all of them will be more helpful than having one worked out in depth 16:33:09 ack jf 16:33:31 Jeanne: On an individual example level we have the structure for critical errors to identify individual examples. 16:33:59 ... What Peter raises is more of a macro issue; how does a small business have a responsibility for the accessibility of the third-party service they contract with. 16:35:08 Potential solution/direction to address: “Conforms, with the exception of the embeddable web payment system which can be found within our site at these locations/flows, and these are the actions we’ve taken to address that: x, y, z” 16:35:09 Janina: It's a use case we should capture. There are variations in third-party contract, and we should tease that out. 16:35:45 Q+ to ask how that would integrate into Bronze, Silver, Gold? 16:35:49 q? 16:35:56 ack jeanne 16:36:02 ack jea 16:36:05 Peter: This is an idea for Silver on how it could allow an achievement that is explicit about what they've done to address. 16:36:14 ack jf 16:36:14 JF, you wanted to ask how that would integrate into Bronze, Silver, Gold? 16:37:01 John: Something like what we'd have in a VPAT. We've heard discussions on badges. I wonder how such a proposal would be integrated with a bedge. 16:37:09 Azlan has joined #silver-conf 16:38:03 Peter: The fundamental shift is from WCAG 2, any third-party content with a problem means you can not conform. Partial conformance is non-conformance. This is trying to flip the direction. A site conforms with some exceptions. 16:38:14 ... So that a site can conform for something they have control over. 16:38:33 Q+ 16:38:40 Q+ 16:38:51 ... I think this gives a signal to regulators on where to point the focus. 16:39:33 q? 16:39:39 ack saj 16:39:43 ack bry 16:39:45 ack br 16:40:10 Bryan: Are we talking about defining who is responsible for the accessibility of the experience? 16:41:12 Peter: Not just define who's responsible, but surface. Another example is copyright, some sight may have a film owned by someone else. Audio descriptions may need permission from the copyright holder. 16:41:16 Janina: We have use cases for those. 16:41:28 ack jf 16:42:00 John: What I'm hearing is a conformance statement, instead of defining conformance. 16:42:49 ... This is more about making a statement. Are we defining conformance, or conformance statements? 16:42:58 Janina: Neither, trying to capture ideas of things to consider. 16:43:23 q+ 16:43:31 ack br 16:44:06 q? 16:44:19 ack s 16:44:24 Bryan: The challenge is to understand what is in scope and what is not. I think we've made progress. I think defining what is in scope is key. 16:44:40 +1 Sarah 16:44:42 Sarah: Seems like we've moved away from talking about conformance and moved towards something else. 16:44:47 +1 16:45:01 q? 16:45:03 q+ 16:45:48 q+ to say that we could have a normative section on Third Party content where we address these issues 16:46:01 Janina: I heard the notion that someone is contracting with a third party, and their ability may be limited to effect the remedy. Should not give them full points, but not zero points like in WCAG 2. 16:46:06 q_ 16:46:09 q- 16:46:16 Sarah: Surprised we're talking about solutions 16:46:21 q? 16:46:22 s/q_// 16:46:27 Q+ to go back to critical failures and the impact of those on Bronze, Silver, Gold 16:46:30 ack p 16:47:34 Peter: Our timeline says we'd deliver proposals. Suggest possible solutions to our use cases. 16:47:59 q+ 16:48:01 q? 16:48:44 Jeanne: Could see us having a section in normative conformance part discussing third-party content. 16:48:55 ack wil 16:49:39 q? 16:50:22 Wilco: Sounds like what we're talking about is leaving third-party content out of conformance in some cases. Reporting seems beyond that. 16:50:41 Jeanne: Agree. What we should say is it can conform with some exceptions. Think that is a fair topic. 16:51:05 ack jf 16:51:05 JF, you wanted to go back to critical failures and the impact of those on Bronze, Silver, Gold 16:52:21 q? 16:52:27 q+ 16:52:40 John: WCAG 3 was going to be outcome based. If I can't pay, it is a critical fail. Documenting who is responsible is what we can do, but from a user's perspective they hit a brick wall. If something is a critical fail, it doesn't matter what else you've done. 16:53:17 Janina: WCAG can not deliver the end-to-end experience, it can only describe and define that well enough so that others can do something with that. 16:53:35 q+ 16:54:12 ... Trying to build a tool of what success looks like. User that bumps into a critical failure, WCAG can not deliver a fully accessible experience. It is beyond the ability. 16:54:24 q+ 16:54:51 John: What's the difference with a third-party bit that has flashing content? 16:55:17 q? 16:55:19 Janina: The courts can argue who's responsible. It won't be the W3C that decides who's responsible. 16:55:21 ack sa 16:55:26 ack wi 16:55:44 q+ 16:56:03 Wilco: Might be worth exploring third-party content not allowing critical issues 16:56:03 The W3C has NEVER argued who's responsible - we've defined what "accessible" is 16:56:30 q? 16:56:34 This potential solution/direction itself has challenges, as the embedded web payment system may be critical to the use of the site - in which case we could have a “conforming site” whose primary purse isn’t accessible. Similarly, if the web payment system has a critical error (e.g. strobing which may trigger a photosensitive seizure), we again could have a “conforming site” that contains a horrible problem. 16:56:47 Peter: Added this to the document. 16:56:54 JF, that's correct. And someone surfacing flashes on a Tuesday wqould not be the result of a W3C spec. 16:56:55 +1 to Wilco's idea of 3rd party content not generating critical errors. Of course, when the product is the first party, they are responsible. 16:57:25 Thank you Peter, I think that captures my concern (mostly) 16:57:44 and +! to Wilco - 3rd Party cannot contain any critical errors 16:57:49 Peter: Tried to say there is a direction, but there are some challenges to it too. 16:57:53 q? 16:57:55 s/+!/+1 16:58:13 Peter: Suggest that maybe 5c could look similar. 16:58:26 Janina: Yes, and so could copyrighted content. 16:58:48 ... Third-party can provide audio description without permission of the copyright author. 16:59:28 I want to clarify what I thought I heard Wilco propose that we would not fail an individual company because there was a critical error in a thrid party site. 16:59:54 s/thrid party site. /third party product or content. 17:00:09 Janina: Ask people to look at the use cases from last week. 17:01:34 Peter: I think 3C is fleshed out enough, with the understanding these are ideas, not consensus proposals. 17:02:06 ToddLibby has left #silver-conf 17:02:07 rrsagent, make minutes 17:02:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/15-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 17:02:21 Azlan has left #silver-conf 17:25:22 MichaelC has joined #silver-conf 19:00:59 jeanne has joined #silver-conf 21:45:41 jeanne has joined #silver-conf