Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

6 May 2021


Azlan, bruce_bailey, Fazio, jeanne, JF, sajkaj, Wilco
John_Northup, Peter_Korn, Sarah_Horton, Todd_Libby

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items; Joint mtg with Maturity Model[1]

Janina: We should talk about what next steps are.
… We may have found things that might fit in the maturity model.
… Namely the "all software has bugs" principle. Not something we've found a way to measure, but perhaps for the maturity model.
… Another may be principle 1. We want to set a high but achievable bar.

<Fazio> Maturity Model Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y5EO6zkOMrbyePw5-Crq8ojmhn9OCTRQ6TlgB0cE6YE/edit

Janina: Invited David to participate from Maturity Model group. They're getting what they have worked on ready to present to AGWG.

April Report Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF

Janina: Peter and I did a little more than we talked about, not out of bounds from the concepts.
… But for instance, Peter came up with use cases for All software has bugs. The April report has two use cases, that wasn't there until late in the process.
… We ended up presenting the report this Tuesday.
… These use cases are not in the Google doc, these were written as part of creating the April report.
… AG came up with some additional use cases. These came from Jennie.
… The use cases are on list, if someone wants to add them.
… We have some old and some new use cases we haven't discussed, and some to discuss further.
… Then there are the use cases for which we had no agreement. We have a report of May.
… Do we want to look at any specific? Or go through steps for the next 5 or 6 weeks?
… We should also circle back and clean up the principles. The Google doc has been helpful, but it might be useful to extract pieces of it for our output.
… We could put them in a form that we can reference them in the future.
… We have some questions, some of which we may have answers for now.
… Do we want to do something about content-free frameworks?

<jeanne> +1 on inviting Mike Gower

Janina: When we have a conversation about these, should get Mike Gower involved.

Jeanne: I'm getting the comments from Jennie into the Google doc

<jeanne> April report <- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF

Wilco: Suggest we look at the new use cases from the April report.

Janina: Peter came up with some use cases that had to do with different kinds of betas.
… I think they do the job well, but is there a conformance implication in them?

Wilco: I don't think we should lower the level for a beta, the bar is where the bar is.

Azlan: Agreed. You need to see what you need to raise the level too. I would want to measure against the level I'd need to be at in production.

Janina: It could help define that you're ready to launch. Defining a separate level when you're pre-launch does not make sense.

David: How do you make it okay to not be compliant. With the maturity model, so long as you have a structure you can rely on, be transparent. We have a plan to make it compliant, taking steps to achieve that.
… This fits in with the communication on the beta product. It's not perfect, we intend to make it better, this is what you can expect.
… As a user I know what it is and isn't going to do for me.

Janina: That's what I would expect there. But the principle I think is a good one, and something to capture somewhere.
… How do we score it?

David: We haven't started scoring yet

Janina: WCAG has never said how to handle bugs.
… Here we're trying to say to treat accessibility defects the same way you treat other defects.
… We're looking for equity, knowing that you have other issues.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention "drafts" was proposed as an exception to agency official communication

Bruce: We discussed it in the 508 refresh. We need to at least document that we've looked at them.

Janina: This is issue 277 assigned to us. This is some of the trusted tester feedback. It's not new to us.
… Our April report has stuff not currently handled.

Azlan: How do we feel about the very long lived public betas of some applications. If we're saying that that is kind of an exception, we don't expect that to meet what is expected after launch.
… But then a product that is in public beta for a long time, how do we feel about that?

<JF> +1 "all software has bugs" is another way of saying "perpetual beta"

Janina: If you're making a conformance claim you need to meet the bar and have some way to show that.

<Zakim> Azlan, you wanted to question how do we feel about long lived public betas?

Janina: You've done the work to validate that. The fact that it's a beta or a full release doesn't matter.

John: A conformance claim is linked to the date. I can make a claim at 9 that's completely out of date by 5. Whether or not content is in beta doesn't matter. The claim is linked to the date.
… Websites frequently update. I don't think its linked to the end state.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that conformance claims are linked to date

Janina: We're date based, not process.
… Whether it's called beta, it's a snapshot

Janina: The other report, use case C is the travel site that has professional contributed content by work for hire, and by ordinary users of the site.

<Fazio> something we also address in Maturity Modelling

Janina: There are several implications with that. Some samples we came up with what a conformance claim might look like.
… I pulled them into a separate document.
… The fact that you've identified where third-party content is takes you off 0. Maybe identify github issues and suggest a fix may get you to the highest point.
… The other concept I had is whether copyright is anything separate? I think fundamentally there are two kinds of content. Stuff under a contractual agreement, maybe under law or license or work for hire.

David: There's third-party content, contracted a developer, and then there's content prided by users such as on facebook.
… I think you should provide mechanism to make content accessible. That should be part of conformance.

Janina: I think we're in agreement. We have contracted, and freely provided.

David: Third-party developer content is something we've tried in the maturity model.
… In terms of using a company outside your own to produce content.

Janina: So when you contract like that, you specify the requirements. Why would you not specify the level of WCAG conformance?
… So then any site that tries to duck responsibility by contracting out. Sorry, no dice. That doesn't make sense.

Bruce: I don't think those two cases address the common one in fed government. People want to see the official PDF with the signature.
… I don't regard that as copyright, but it's something we have demand for and provide alternative versions of. We can't alter those, we don't have ownership of them.
… It's a very similar thing.

<Fazio> procurement

Janina: I think you're talking about content you don't own, but you're making sure there is an accessible version of it.

<jeanne> I think it fits under the use case of where you don't have control of the content

Bruce: That's the WCAG 2.x alternative version

Janina: I think we're heading that way. The difficult one is what to do with an international standard where you don't need permission.

David: With different governments, the most stringent one applies.

Janina: How does that apply in different countries?
… Copyright is a form of a contract, sometimes in law. Sometimes you need permission from the owner, but sometimes you can make another version of it.
… You don't want to be overly burdensome on third party that have no relation to the site. It may be economically difficult to expect a site to go back and clean it all up.
… We may want to use prompting

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about Fed Reg example

Jeanne: <reading use case D>

Jeanne: This is a case where a small organisation has no leverage on a large organisation. That is the key thing.

Janina: There is help in numbers. They've done their best, they've looked and this is the best they can find.

Jeanne: <Reading use case E>

Jeanne: <Reading use case F>

Janina: Having the metadata upfront seems useful.

Jeanne: Just changed "alternatively" to "additionally"

Jeanne: <Reading use case G>

<Fazio> Looooong

Jeanne: I think there are other implications for it. There are times plain language summaries can not be done without permissions.

Janina: The basic idea is, you get inaccessible content, can not make it all accessible, but can make it available.

Jeanne: So we have two cases, one where you don't have permission, and one that is on demand

David: It's on the realm of a service, as opposed to accessible ICT. Seems more like a reasonable accommodation thing, as opposed to a WCAG thing.
… It seems very different from WCAG complaince.

Janina: It explains why everything on the site might not be accessible

Bruce: This comes up all the time. The difference with this example is that they say they can do it instantly.
… There are also archive documents, they are available on request, and in the e-mail they check if they need an accessible version or if they can send the raw files.

Janina: It's not quite instant, but it has to be quick.

Wilco: Agree with David that it's odd for WCAG, but I like that we're looking at this.

Janina: It's an organisation with a contract. The question is what we're supposed to do. Can't make all of them accessible.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).


Maybe present: Bruce, David, Janina, John