IRC log of silver-conf on 2021-04-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:31:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:31:24 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/22-silver-conf-irc
15:31:44 [sajkaj]
Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:31:49 [sajkaj]
Date: 22 Apr 2021
15:31:57 [sajkaj]
Chair: sajkaj
15:32:08 [sajkaj]
rrsagent, make log public
15:33:16 [sajkaj]
agenda?
15:33:32 [sajkaj]
zakim, clear agenda
15:33:32 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:40:15 [sajkaj]
Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:40:15 [sajkaj]
agenda+ April Report Draft https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF
15:40:18 [sajkaj]
agenda+ Other Business
15:40:21 [sajkaj]
agenda+ Be Done
15:48:16 [sajkaj]
present+
15:50:47 [sajkaj]
regrets: John_Northup
15:57:23 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #silver-conf
15:58:22 [JF]
JF has joined #silver-conf
15:58:31 [JF]
agenda?
15:58:43 [JF]
Present+
16:00:31 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver-conf
16:00:44 [Azlan]
present+
16:00:50 [Bryan]
Bryan has joined #silver-conf
16:01:04 [Bryan]
present+
16:01:59 [JF]
Scribe: JF
16:02:28 [JF]
Zaim, take up item 1
16:02:34 [ToddLibby]
ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf
16:02:34 [sarahhorton]
sarahhorton has joined #silver-conf
16:02:36 [JF]
zakim, take up item 1
16:02:36 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:02:41 [ToddLibby]
present+
16:02:57 [PeterKorn]
PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
16:02:59 [PeterKorn]
present+
16:03:04 [sarahhorton]
present+
16:03:45 [sajkaj]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance#In_Scope
16:04:06 [PeterKorn]
q+
16:04:11 [JF]
JS: we are expected to make recommendations (options) to what solutions might be
16:04:12 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #silver-conf
16:04:21 [JF]
down to testing and scoring - is all in scope
16:04:59 [JF]
JS: for today, there is a draft report (some minor spelling issues) but will be corrected later today
16:05:19 [JF]
however the main item is Item 2. But, and other comments or questions?
16:05:23 [JF]
zakim, next item
16:05:23 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JF
16:05:27 [JF]
Q?
16:05:32 [PeterKorn]
ack
16:05:35 [PeterKorn]
q-
16:05:35 [JF]
ack p
16:05:37 [sajkaj]
ack pe
16:05:37 [JF]
ack j
16:05:41 [sajkaj]
acksa
16:05:41 [JF]
Zakim, next item
16:05:41 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JF
16:05:49 [JF]
ack j
16:05:53 [JF]
ack s
16:05:59 [JF]
zakim, item 2
16:05:59 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'item 2', JF
16:06:05 [JF]
zakim, take up item 2
16:06:05 [Zakim]
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 [JF]
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 [JF]
proposals to address concerns we don't feel addressed in WCAG 3 today
16:07:44 [jeanne]
+1
16:07:55 [sajkaj]
q?
16:08:06 [JF]
PK: wonders if that meets expectaitons
16:08:45 [JF]
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 [PeterKorn]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
16:09:08 [JF]
s/action sexist/actions exist
16:09:42 [JF]
sajkaj: thought we might collect some solutions, and present them as worth looking at - which can be elevated
16:10:04 [JF]
if we stay focused on the 2 key concerns that we have now... may want to timebox discussion however
16:10:32 [JF]
JS: it would be great to have that for the meeting on the 29th
16:10:40 [JF]
sajkaj: that was what I was thinking
16:10:44 [sajkaj]
q?
16:11:02 [JF]
[looks at report]
16:11:21 [PeterKorn]
q+
16:11:39 [JF]
First item - do we have a proposed solution?
16:12:00 [sajkaj]
q?
16:12:02 [JF]
we do have an expectation that all a11y bugs are treated like all other bugs
16:12:04 [sajkaj]
ack pe
16:12:41 [JF]
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 [sajkaj]
q?
16:12:53 [JF]
Q+
16:13:11 [sajkaj]
ack jf
16:13:38 [Bryan]
q+
16:13:57 [PeterKorn]
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 [PeterKorn]
JF: we are starting from the supposition that nothing is perfect; everything has bugs.
16:14:54 [PeterKorn]
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 [sajkaj]
q?
16:15:23 [PeterKorn]
JS: we are looking for equity; challenge is how to do this.
16:15:29 [sajkaj]
ack br
16:15:41 [jeanne]
q+ to say that a higher level (silver or gold) and being a part of maturity model.
16:15:58 [JF]
Bryan: wondering if 'bugs' and 'metrics'... can measure usability with existing metrics
16:16:17 [PeterKorn]
q+
16:16:23 [JF]
we can quantify the usability of an experience. But bugs need to be fixed (full stop).
16:16:50 [Rachael]
https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.html
16:16:53 [JF]
so maybe we are considering levels of usability (users with and without AT)
16:17:01 [PeterKorn]
+1 on references for these ideas
16:17:15 [sajkaj]
ack je
16:17:15 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to say that a higher level (silver or gold) and being a part of maturity model.
16:17:50 [sarahhorton]
q+
16:18:09 [JF]
JS: consider putting this into a non-regulatory measure - or add to maturity model
16:18:36 [JF]
JS: hoping that maturity model would be in Bronze/Silver/Gold, but it may not
16:18:56 [JF]
although past discussion about maturity model being part of, say, Gold
16:19:09 [JF]
but not part of the regulatory pass or fail
16:20:20 [sajkaj]
ack pe
16:20:51 [JF]
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 [jeanne]
Janina: I don't want to put this off to a gold level
16:21:38 [JF]
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 [sajkaj]
ack sa
16:21:48 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #silver-conf
16:21:55 [JF]
sarahhorton: struggling to understand how this use-case does't fit
16:22:12 [JF]
sajkaj: how do we fit it into conformence?
16:22:30 [Wilco]
present+
16:23:20 [JF]
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 [Wilco]
q+
16:24:04 [JF]
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 [JF]
Q+
16:24:38 [JF]
sarahhorton: that is helpful, but one of the hardest parts is working with the word 'conformance'
16:24:51 [JF]
perhaps we need to redefine what we mean?
16:24:56 [sajkaj]
q?
16:25:21 [JF]
PK: this is precisely why one of the terms that bubbles up is "substancial conformance'
16:25:41 [JF]
i.e. this site has "some" defects, but it's not "horrible"
16:26:51 [JF]
sarahhorton: so we're starting from the viewpoint that there is something else
16:27:30 [JF]
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]
JF: with bronze, silver and gold we already have differeing levels of 'conformance'
16:28:48 [sarahhorton_]
sarahhorton_ has joined #silver-conf
16:28:55 [JF]
sajkaj: moving to 3rd party content
16:29:10 [JF]
[PK reads page aloud]
16:29:56 [JF]
The April report is attempting to encapsulate ideas from our Google Doc
16:30:21 [JF]
Q?
16:30:24 [JF]
ack w
16:30:26 [JF]
ack j
16:30:53 [JF]
PK: noting that there may be multiple forms of 3rd-party review
16:32:04 [JF]
[looking at use-cases]
16:32:09 [sajkaj]
q?
16:33:02 [sajkaj]
q?
16:33:52 [JF]
PK: suggesting a 'report' that shows what site has done or attempted to do
16:34:04 [jeanne]
q+ to say about reporting
16:34:21 [JF]
as part of conformance claim - different statements based on content (etc.)
16:34:29 [sajkaj]
ack je
16:34:29 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to say about reporting
16:34:46 [sarahhorton_]
q+
16:34:53 [Wilco]
q+
16:35:16 [JF]
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 [JF]
sajkaj: waiting to hear about frameworks
16:35:53 [sajkaj]
ack sa
16:36:34 [JF]
sarahhorton_: re: reporting concerns. Another question is whether we are ready to go into a process standards discussion
16:36:39 [JF]
is that in scope?
16:36:45 [JF]
sajkaj: believes yes
16:37:19 [JF]
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 [JF]
but meta-question - are we comfortable as a group incorporating process standards in WCAG 3?
16:37:57 [JF]
sajkaj: that sounds like another question that we throw over the wall here
16:38:30 [JF]
Q+ to note that "process standards" don't scale well
16:38:52 [JF]
jeanne: that was one of the proposals from our design sprint
16:39:07 [sajkaj]
q?
16:40:21 [JF]
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 [PeterKorn]
q+
16:40:43 [sajkaj]
ack wil
16:40:59 [JF]
if WCAG *IS* looking at process standards, then that will need a standardized reporting process as well
16:41:14 [JF]
Wilco: is this like VPATs. etc.?
16:41:27 [JF]
jeanne: sort of thinking of VPATs, yes
16:41:51 [JF]
sarahhorton_: example of organization documenting the processes they applied to conform to WCAG
16:42:32 [PeterKorn]
q?
16:42:37 [JF]
sarahhorton_: if we are saying those are in scope, we will need to provide a means to document that as well
16:42:51 [JF]
Wilco: like that we are thinking about this in different ways
16:42:57 [sajkaj]
ack jf
16:42:57 [Zakim]
JF, you wanted to note that "process standards" don't scale well
16:44:00 [Bryan]
q+
16:45:51 [sajkaj]
ack pe
16:46:09 [JF]
Bryan: not dissimilar to physical requirements
16:46:55 [sajkaj]
q?
16:46:57 [JF]
PeterKorn: not sure we have enough knowledge in our industry to be able to do that. Shares JF concerns as well.
16:47:22 [sajkaj]
ack br
16:47:24 [JF]
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 [JF]
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 [JF]
WCAG can provide instruction without diluting what WCAG 3 means
16:48:47 [JF]
believe it is worth investigating how we provide guidance - direction on how we fix that
16:49:27 [sajkaj]
q?
16:49:33 [JF]
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 [JF]
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 [JF]
we don't have a framework that apportions responsabilities
16:50:54 [sajkaj]
q?
16:50:55 [JF]
[gives examples]
16:52:33 [JF]
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 [JF]
But this may have i18n issues
16:53:59 [JF]
PeterKorn: talks about Chafey and exemptions there
16:54:34 [JF]
PeterKorn: what happens when you don't have copyright control - cannot make a '
16:54:38 [sajkaj]
q?
16:54:53 [JF]
derivitive' accessible version
16:55:46 [JF]
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 [JF]
PeterKorn: looking at 5B, tied to use case ___ ; 5C; and 5F
16:56:38 [JF]
fit into use case B - partially curated travel site
16:57:27 [sajkaj]
q?
16:57:53 [JF]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:58:14 [JF]
sajkaj: hearing no objections - will move some of this back to email list
16:58:34 [JF]
asking about when we will be on the agenda for April 29th meeting(s)
16:58:57 [JF]
jeanne: not finalized yet - need to be sure we get to this
16:59:22 [JF]
PeterKorn: would it be useful on Wednesday to add links to the wiki page in advance of the call(s)
17:00:00 [JF]
jeanne: there is already a 'reading' section on the siki page, will add this when ready
17:00:13 [JF]
zakim, end meeting
17:00:13 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, JF, ToddLibby, sarahhorton, Wilco, Bryan, Azlan, bruce_bailey, PeterKorn
17:00:15 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/22-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim
17:00:18 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
17:00:20 [ToddLibby]
ToddLibby has left #silver-conf
17:00:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #silver-conf
17:00:25 [Azlan]
Azlan has left #silver-conf
17:01:17 [JF]
rrsagent, please part
17:01:17 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items