Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

20 May 2021


Azlan, jeanne, Jemma, sajkaj, sarahhorton
Bruce_Bailey, Peter_Korn, Todd_Libby, Wilco_Fiers

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF

Third Party Content Redux

sajkaj: Might be an opportunity coming if the group agrees to handle third party more easily

Hoping to wrap up the report by June 8th at AGWG

Testing: "Third Party has two main divisions for conformance purposes"

sajkaj: We thought third party broke down to three groups, but as the report developed, copyright is the same as content. Would need to check on that.

Jemma: Request to clarify three categories to two

sajkaj: "contracted content" and "freely provided by individuals" as the two new categories

sarahhorton: Example of Facebook - is facebook contracted content?

sajkaj: It may be considered as contract with no fee

We can change the term whether it is implicit, money has changed hands etc but we should get some advice on that

sajkaj: Facebook may fall under both categories dependent upon usage - freely provided content vs class related content

Third Party: Contracted Content Conformance Proposal

sajkaj: with regards to a contract service, the proposal is the first thing is to identify it

Identify for each what the accessibility issues are (1point)

Identify the contractee (1 point)

Suggest a remedy (1 point)

Edit - identifying the contract service gains 1 point

ie. finding the boundary to third party content

Lets users know the owner does not always have the power to fix an issue

Enables showing commonality of issues across different sites using the same third party service

sarahhorton: if part of an audit how might this play out? Evaluating a site and whether a problem has been reported to the vendor and whether there is a remedy - how does the auditor know this?

sajkaj: the site making the conformance claim would need to disclose this to the evaluator

jeanne: dont think this is unheard of

<Jemma> azlan: 1. declairing third party content, GDPR, Cookies can be considered.

<Jemma> 2. I may not have a choice to select third party.

Jemma: Question - who is providing a recommendation - owner or third party vendor?

sajkaj: The owner should do their best to get the thrid party to be accessible

Jemma: I score the points as the university staff auditor

sajkaj: You report the issue and request recommendations for a possible fix that may be reported back

Jemma: Exception process - no accessible alternative is available. How might this work?

sajkaj: Don't know - we may run into that.

Jemma: lists some third party service in use in the University that would require the exception process

sajkaj: we need a clear way to categorise an exception and timestamp it

<Jemma> I agree with Sarah's point

sarahhorton: we need to take as a starting point systems that are inaccessible. Anything we do that involves rating on systems there will inevitably be accessibility issues and we need meaningful ratings for the severity of that

sajkaj: there are sites that there may not be time or budget for making the content accessible before the content is no longer required

zakin, bye

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