15:31:24 RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf 15:31:24 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/22-silver-conf-irc 15:31:44 Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup 15:31:49 Date: 22 Apr 2021 15:31:57 Chair: sajkaj 15:32:08 rrsagent, make log public 15:33:16 agenda? 15:33:32 zakim, clear agenda 15:33:32 agenda cleared 15:40:15 Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items 15:40:15 agenda+ April Report Draft https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF 15:40:18 agenda+ Other Business 15:40:21 agenda+ Be Done 15:48:16 present+ 15:50:47 regrets: John_Northup 15:57:23 jeanne has joined #silver-conf 15:58:22 JF has joined #silver-conf 15:58:31 agenda? 15:58:43 Present+ 16:00:31 Azlan has joined #silver-conf 16:00:44 present+ 16:00:50 Bryan has joined #silver-conf 16:01:04 present+ 16:01:59 Scribe: JF 16:02:28 Zaim, take up item 1 16:02:34 ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf 16:02:34 sarahhorton has joined #silver-conf 16:02:36 zakim, take up item 1 16:02:36 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj] 16:02:41 present+ 16:02:57 PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf 16:02:59 present+ 16:03:04 present+ 16:03:45 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance#In_Scope 16:04:06 q+ 16:04:11 JS: we are expected to make recommendations (options) to what solutions might be 16:04:12 Jemma has joined #silver-conf 16:04:21 down to testing and scoring - is all in scope 16:04:59 JS: for today, there is a draft report (some minor spelling issues) but will be corrected later today 16:05:19 however the main item is Item 2. But, and other comments or questions? 16:05:23 zakim, next item 16:05:23 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JF 16:05:27 Q? 16:05:32 ack 16:05:35 q- 16:05:35 ack p 16:05:37 ack pe 16:05:37 ack j 16:05:41 acksa 16:05:41 Zakim, next item 16:05:41 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JF 16:05:49 ack j 16:05:53 ack s 16:05:59 zakim, item 2 16:05:59 I don't understand 'item 2', JF 16:06:05 zakim, take up item 2 16:06:05 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] 16:07:17 PK: suggests our 'bar' is not that it represents a consensus of the sub-team (needs more eyes on it), but rather a collection of ideas for proposals 16:07:33 proposals to address concerns we don't feel addressed in WCAG 3 today 16:07:44 +1 16:07:55 q? 16:08:06 PK: wonders if that meets expectaitons 16:08:45 sajkaj: As currently stands - does have some disclaimers (not as strong as your suggestion). At the moment, no suggested action sexist - just use-cases 16:08:57 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs 16:09:08 s/action sexist/actions exist 16:09:42 sajkaj: thought we might collect some solutions, and present them as worth looking at - which can be elevated 16:10:04 if we stay focused on the 2 key concerns that we have now... may want to timebox discussion however 16:10:32 JS: it would be great to have that for the meeting on the 29th 16:10:40 sajkaj: that was what I was thinking 16:10:44 q? 16:11:02 [looks at report] 16:11:21 q+ 16:11:39 First item - do we have a proposed solution? 16:12:00 q? 16:12:02 we do have an expectation that all a11y bugs are treated like all other bugs 16:12:04 ack pe 16:12:41 PK: not a fan of this proposal - an attestation from the website citing examples of the types of bugs that still exist 16:12:47 q? 16:12:53 Q+ 16:13:11 ack jf 16:13:38 q+ 16:13:57 JF: With Peter on this - really hard to find a testable way / measurable metrics for "all software has bugs". Another idea (which he's not really a fan of) quantifying a11y bugs found. 16:14:35 JF: we are starting from the supposition that nothing is perfect; everything has bugs. 16:14:54 JF: If that is our benchmark, then... OK. This website has bugs too. Unless we are comparing against something else, it is just a statement of fact. 16:14:55 q? 16:15:23 JS: we are looking for equity; challenge is how to do this. 16:15:29 ack br 16:15:41 q+ to say that a higher level (silver or gold) and being a part of maturity model. 16:15:58 Bryan: wondering if 'bugs' and 'metrics'... can measure usability with existing metrics 16:16:17 q+ 16:16:23 we can quantify the usability of an experience. But bugs need to be fixed (full stop). 16:16:50 https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.html 16:16:53 so maybe we are considering levels of usability (users with and without AT) 16:17:01 +1 on references for these ideas 16:17:15 ack je 16:17:15 jeanne, you wanted to say that a higher level (silver or gold) and being a part of maturity model. 16:17:50 q+ 16:18:09 JS: consider putting this into a non-regulatory measure - or add to maturity model 16:18:36 JS: hoping that maturity model would be in Bronze/Silver/Gold, but it may not 16:18:56 although past discussion about maturity model being part of, say, Gold 16:19:09 but not part of the regulatory pass or fail 16:20:20 ack pe 16:20:51 PK: think the discussion of whether this is bronze or not should be handled elsewhere - our job is to throw ideas over the wall 16:20:57 Janina: I don't want to put this off to a gold level 16:21:38 but likes the system usability scale - perhaps we throw *that* over the wall - with caveat that it is the least ____ we are proposing 16:21:38 ack sa 16:21:48 Wilco has joined #silver-conf 16:21:55 sarahhorton: struggling to understand how this use-case does't fit 16:22:12 sajkaj: how do we fit it into conformence? 16:22:30 present+ 16:23:20 PK: imagine a company publishes a "Beta" (full disclosure that it's not "finished") - different bugs: some that impact all users, some that only impact a disabled users. 16:23:57 q+ 16:24:04 So, for discussion, imagine 1 of 10 bugs is an "accessibility only" bug - would we then say this site should not be available as "conformant" where WCAG 3 is adopted 16:24:08 Q+ 16:24:38 sarahhorton: that is helpful, but one of the hardest parts is working with the word 'conformance' 16:24:51 perhaps we need to redefine what we mean? 16:24:56 q? 16:25:21 PK: this is precisely why one of the terms that bubbles up is "substancial conformance' 16:25:41 i.e. this site has "some" defects, but it's not "horrible" 16:26:51 sarahhorton: so we're starting from the viewpoint that there is something else 16:27:30 WF: in EU legislation, they are not focused on everything is conformant, but rather that you have things "in hand" - how you plan on moving forward and raising the bar 16:28:40 JF: with bronze, silver and gold we already have differeing levels of 'conformance' 16:28:48 sarahhorton_ has joined #silver-conf 16:28:55 sajkaj: moving to 3rd party content 16:29:10 [PK reads page aloud] 16:29:56 The April report is attempting to encapsulate ideas from our Google Doc 16:30:21 Q? 16:30:24 ack w 16:30:26 ack j 16:30:53 PK: noting that there may be multiple forms of 3rd-party review 16:32:04 [looking at use-cases] 16:32:09 q? 16:33:02 q? 16:33:52 PK: suggesting a 'report' that shows what site has done or attempted to do 16:34:04 q+ to say about reporting 16:34:21 as part of conformance claim - different statements based on content (etc.) 16:34:29 ack je 16:34:29 jeanne, you wanted to say about reporting 16:34:46 q+ 16:34:53 q+ 16:35:16 jeanne: concern that Peter's approach is very "reporting" heavy - was hoping we didn't go down that path. But may be worth investigating 16:35:45 sajkaj: waiting to hear about frameworks 16:35:53 ack sa 16:36:34 sarahhorton_: re: reporting concerns. Another question is whether we are ready to go into a process standards discussion 16:36:39 is that in scope? 16:36:45 sajkaj: believes yes 16:37:19 sarahhorton_: talking more about process standards for WCAG - we have technical standards, but a lot of our discussions are around process standards 16:37:43 but meta-question - are we comfortable as a group incorporating process standards in WCAG 3? 16:37:57 sajkaj: that sounds like another question that we throw over the wall here 16:38:30 Q+ to note that "process standards" don't scale well 16:38:52 jeanne: that was one of the proposals from our design sprint 16:39:07 q? 16:40:21 sarahhorton_: if we are looking at process standards, we may also need to provide reporting standards to document how that is done (i.e. record keeping, etc.) 16:40:29 q+ 16:40:43 ack wil 16:40:59 if WCAG *IS* looking at process standards, then that will need a standardized reporting process as well 16:41:14 Wilco: is this like VPATs. etc.? 16:41:27 jeanne: sort of thinking of VPATs, yes 16:41:51 sarahhorton_: example of organization documenting the processes they applied to conform to WCAG 16:42:32 q? 16:42:37 sarahhorton_: if we are saying those are in scope, we will need to provide a means to document that as well 16:42:51 Wilco: like that we are thinking about this in different ways 16:42:57 ack jf 16:42:57 JF, you wanted to note that "process standards" don't scale well 16:44:00 q+ 16:45:51 ack pe 16:46:09 Bryan: not dissimilar to physical requirements 16:46:55 q? 16:46:57 PeterKorn: not sure we have enough knowledge in our industry to be able to do that. Shares JF concerns as well. 16:47:22 ack br 16:47:24 notes to Wilco that WCAG 2 made conformance claims optional, but "if" you make one, this is what it needs to be (or look like) 16:47:53 we know that 3rd party is a challenge - you don't conform if 3rd party doesn't conform, but here's what needs to happen 16:48:09 WCAG can provide instruction without diluting what WCAG 3 means 16:48:47 believe it is worth investigating how we provide guidance - direction on how we fix that 16:49:27 q? 16:49:33 sajkaj: some of the 3rd parties may have on their own made claims - can we combine claims? Do we HAVE to do integration testing as well (still?)? 16:50:22 PK: the perennial issue is where do you draw the lines? Today, the assumption is that it is all on "you" - expectation to push needs upstream to vendors 16:50:44 we don't have a framework that apportions responsabilities 16:50:54 q? 16:50:55 [gives examples] 16:52:33 sajkaj: believes there are circumstances where things may be a little 'looser' - cites EDU where the university makes specific content accessible at the individual level 16:53:00 But this may have i18n issues 16:53:59 PeterKorn: talks about Chafey and exemptions there 16:54:34 PeterKorn: what happens when you don't have copyright control - cannot make a ' 16:54:38 q? 16:54:53 derivitive' accessible version 16:55:46 PeterKorn: we have some language in our Google Doc that could be added to our April report - volunteers to try adding that off-line 16:56:25 PeterKorn: looking at 5B, tied to use case ___ ; 5C; and 5F 16:56:38 fit into use case B - partially curated travel site 16:57:27 q? 16:57:53 rrsagent, make logs public 16:58:14 sajkaj: hearing no objections - will move some of this back to email list 16:58:34 asking about when we will be on the agenda for April 29th meeting(s) 16:58:57 jeanne: not finalized yet - need to be sure we get to this 16:59:22 PeterKorn: would it be useful on Wednesday to add links to the wiki page in advance of the call(s) 17:00:00 jeanne: there is already a 'reading' section on the siki page, will add this when ready 17:00:13 zakim, end meeting 17:00:13 As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, JF, ToddLibby, sarahhorton, Wilco, Bryan, Azlan, bruce_bailey, PeterKorn 17:00:15 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:00:15 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/22-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim 17:00:18 I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:00:20 ToddLibby has left #silver-conf 17:00:22 Zakim has left #silver-conf 17:00:25 Azlan has left #silver-conf 17:01:17 rrsagent, please part 17:01:17 I see no action items