IRC log of silver-conf on 2021-06-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:45:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:45:38 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:45:51 [sajkaj]
Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:46:01 [sajkaj]
Date: 3 Jun 2021
15:46:07 [sajkaj]
Chair: sajkaj
15:46:14 [sajkaj]
rrsagent, make log public
15:46:22 [sajkaj]
15:46:30 [sajkaj]
Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:46:30 [sajkaj]
agenda+ Whoville as Proxy for Views & Processes
15:46:33 [sajkaj]
agenda+ Third Party
15:46:36 [sajkaj]
agenda+ Other Business
15:46:38 [sajkaj]
agenda+ Be Done
15:46:45 [sajkaj]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:46:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sajkaj
15:51:14 [sajkaj]
15:51:23 [sajkaj]
15:52:59 [sajkaj]
Regrets: Sarah_Horton
15:57:23 [JF]
JF has joined #silver-conf
15:57:27 [JF]
15:57:39 [JF]
16:00:00 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver-conf
16:00:10 [Azlan]
16:00:27 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #silver-conf
16:00:43 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #silver-conf
16:00:44 [ToddLibby]
ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf
16:00:49 [Wilco]
16:02:05 [jeanne]
16:02:29 [ToddLibby]
16:02:33 [JF]
Regrets+ Bruce Bailey
16:02:58 [JF]
scribe: JF
16:03:09 [JF]
zakim, take up next item
16:03:09 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:03:25 [JF]
JS: two items, on the agenda today
16:03:37 [JF]
from draft may report - outstanding from last week (Whoville use case)
16:03:57 [JF]
also want to return to the draft may report and review 3rd party content (edits)
16:04:31 [JF]
JS: there have been additional edits since last week - some more substantive than others
16:05:54 [JF]
JS: will we be presenting this June 21st? And can we do a preview at Silver before then?
16:06:01 [JF]
Jeanne: yes and yes
16:06:02 [PeterKorn]
PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
16:06:02 [JF]
zakim, next item
16:06:03 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Whoville as Proxy for Views & Processes -- taken
16:06:05 [Zakim]
... up [from sajkaj]
16:06:35 [PeterKorn]
16:06:54 [PeterKorn]
16:07:05 [JF]
JS: looking at principle 3 - there are purposes to content and there may be subsidiary content on the page, that doesn't "count"
16:07:27 [JF]
PK: they don't count *THE SAME*
16:07:41 [JF]
it's not that we are ignoring issues, but they are at different 'weights'
16:08:06 [JF]
JS: we haven't figure that out completely, but we need to look at that - there is a note in the Draft as an open action item
16:08:29 [JF]
examples of Footer content being less important, or an iframe that is for mechanical (not user) reasons
16:08:44 [JF]
[Peter Korn reads #3]
16:10:28 [JF]
Q+ to ask about 'programmatic determination' (aka <aside> or similar)
16:11:21 [sajkaj]
16:12:48 [JF]
JS: trying to define primary from secondary content
16:13:06 [JF]
we can postulate that. But what is an acceptable definition of 'view'
16:13:24 [sajkaj]
16:13:26 [JF]
suspect that this may not work - lead to contiguous concept
16:13:34 [JF]
ack P
16:13:50 [sajkaj]
ack pet
16:14:44 [PeterKorn]
16:15:30 [Wilco]
16:15:32 [JF]
ack JF
16:15:32 [Zakim]
JF, you wanted to ask about 'programmatic determination' (aka <aside> or similar)
16:16:25 [JF]
JF: determining what is primary and secondary should not be subjective. Can we use programmatic containers to help define secondary content?
16:16:54 [JF]
JS: Wonder if a page like this would be used that way (primary time conversion tool)
16:17:05 [jeanne]
q+ to ask if we should change this use case
16:17:05 [JF]
16:17:10 [JF]
ack P
16:17:31 [JF]
PK: like the idea of using a landmark (etc.) but not sure if it addresses the concern
16:18:17 [JF]
PK: whether it is via markup or other attestation - it is page editor who makes the determination.
16:19:54 [sajkaj]
sajkaj has joined #silver-conf
16:19:56 [jeanne]
q+ to say that feedback about subjectivity vs objectivity is related to interpreting success criteria, not choosing what page to review.
16:19:57 [sajkaj]
16:21:01 [Azlan]
16:21:12 [JF]
Ack W
16:21:33 [sajkaj]
ack wil
16:21:44 [JF]
WF: concern about how this discussion is heading. It's problematic for authors and testers to determine what is important for PwD
16:21:46 [PeterKorn]
16:22:05 [JF]
it's like *us* determining what is important for you, as opposed to leaving that to the individual
16:22:29 [JF]
WF: I think this is an important discussion, but have grave concerns
16:22:33 [JF]
ack je
16:22:33 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to ask if we should change this use case and to say that feedback about subjectivity vs objectivity is related to interpreting success criteria, not choosing
16:22:35 [sajkaj]
ack jeanne
16:22:36 [Zakim]
... what page to review.
16:23:29 [JF]
Jeanne: in response to JF's assertion for more objectivity verus subjectivity - was more on ___ rather than what is important on a page.
16:23:45 [JF]
Think we still have the ability to have some subjective editorial impact
16:24:19 [JF]
Jeanne: however I think we may need to change the example - it's not clear enough, we're going into side discussions that may not be helpful
16:24:38 [JF]
maybe look for a better example of "some things are more important than others on a page"
16:24:52 [JF]
JS: Open to suggestions
16:24:57 [JF]
ack A
16:24:59 [sajkaj]
ack asl
16:25:06 [JF]
ack JF
16:25:34 [JF]
Azlan: with regards to programmatically determining using markup... we should be very careful there
16:25:46 [JF]
example of <aside> may not be the right idea'
16:26:15 [JF]
Azlan: so we should tread lightly here
16:26:26 [sajkaj]
ack jf
16:26:31 [sajkaj]
16:27:58 [JF]
JF: hearing Azlan's concerns - maybe instead of landmark elements Personalization's emergent "simplification" attribute
16:28:29 [JF]
PK: was working on a footer block, and it felt lesser than content in the <main> element
16:29:17 [sajkaj]
16:29:17 [JF]
PK: we already have a preferential 'process' - it's how we address bugs all the time (prioritization)
16:29:20 [sajkaj]
ack p
16:29:44 [JF]
so question then becomes do we treat secondary a11y bugs with a differential process?
16:30:09 [JF]
i.e. if we aren't going to fix it right away [hot fix] then that says something powerful here
16:30:30 [Wilco]
16:30:51 [JF]
JS: want to return to the topic - candidate proposal for 3rd party content, as we need to get on that ASAP
16:31:07 [JF]
WF: prefers we stay on this, wanted to respond to PK's comments
16:31:16 [sajkaj]
ack saj
16:31:25 [sajkaj]
ack wil
16:32:01 [JF]
WF: "importance" is completely relative. There may be arguments to be made on defining what is important for a 'larger group' (requires a discussion on what is important)
16:32:22 [JF]
for orgs, that is often what pays the bills - may not be the same 'priority for users' as for the org
16:32:37 [JF]
may not be fair to do
16:32:41 [JF]
zakim, next item
16:32:41 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Third Party -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:33:16 [JF]
JS: have worked on definitions - have for 2 of the 3 categories - tried to incorporate Sarah's feedback last week
16:33:29 [JF]
[Peter reads aloud]
16:35:00 [sajkaj]
16:35:25 [JF]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:35:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JF
16:36:16 [sajkaj]
16:36:16 [jeanne]
q+ to say that we need to name it differently, so we don't go down a blackhole of legal contracts around the world. User generated vs Author arranged?
16:38:02 [JF]
Jeanne: like what we have so far. recommend we change name of categories - currently they are very 'legally' oriented, which may lead to a black hole
16:38:18 [JF]
so the whole legal approach is fraught with problems
16:38:38 [sajkaj]
16:38:42 [sajkaj]
ack jea
16:38:42 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to say that we need to name it differently, so we don't go down a blackhole of legal contracts around the world. User generated vs Author arranged?
16:38:42 [JF]
was thinking of "user generated' versus 'owner arranged'
16:38:43 [jeanne]
ack jean
16:38:57 [JF]
PK: not a fan of giving a perfect score to something that isn't accessible
16:39:37 [sajkaj]
16:39:48 [JF]
want to recognize that the owner has done everything they can, but it feels wrong to say that something that is perfectly accessible versus something close feels wrong
16:40:34 [JF]
PK: example - video with no audio descriptions. How explicit does the identification need to be?
16:40:36 [sajkaj]
16:40:57 [JF]
do those attributes need to be listed on the page, or marked "this page does not have audio description"?
16:41:23 [JF]
or is it enough to identify the 3rd party? specifics on implementaiton details will be important
16:41:30 [JF]
JS: yes and yes
16:41:45 [JF]
PK: one way is to be more explicit in our examples
16:41:56 [JF]
16:42:03 [sajkaj]
16:42:54 [jeanne]
q+ to say writing it up for Captions since we have a Caption guideline
16:43:45 [sajkaj]
16:43:48 [sajkaj]
ack jf
16:44:43 [Azlan]
+1 to the suggestion of metadata
16:44:55 [sajkaj]
ack jea
16:44:55 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to say writing it up for Captions since we have a Caption guideline
16:44:56 [JF]
JF: thinking about using metadata
16:45:39 [JF]
We have a requirement for captions already. Automated captions versus hand-crafted could score different points
16:45:43 [sajkaj]
16:46:01 [ToddLibby]
+1 to metadata and writing it up for Captions as well
16:46:28 [sajkaj]
16:46:29 [jeanne]
+ 1 to the varients of 3rd party
16:46:48 [JF]
PK: good ideas. What needs to be worked in is the "3rd partyness" piece, and the variants of that
16:47:22 [JF]
JS: Peter raised a point - not giving a perfect score when 3rd party is nonconformant
16:47:31 [sajkaj]
16:47:58 [JF]
PK: a core principle for me is that we don't water down the definition of what is accessible, but rather that we bubble up things that are achievabl
16:48:08 [sajkaj]
16:48:15 [JF]
e even if it may not be perfect (and may never be)
16:48:58 [JF]
JS: are fractional scores acceptable?
16:49:11 [JF]
Jeanne: we haven't gotten there yet
16:49:41 [JF]
going to fractions has some issues
16:50:22 [sajkaj]
16:50:33 [JF]
PK: other thoughts on scoring, and the path forward. Reporting the issue and adding remediation info
16:50:41 [JF]
16:51:00 [JF]
it could be covered by a blanket statement
16:52:12 [JF]
PK: think this can be covered by crafting an example. It could be covered in a policy on the site
16:52:19 [sajkaj]
16:52:26 [sajkaj]
ack jf
16:53:59 [JF]
JF: concerns about adding remediation content in a statement
16:54:19 [JF]
PK: the issue is whether the author has done as much as they can - no stone left unturned
16:54:58 [JF]
but it makes sense to me to encourage the author to pass along this information
16:55:07 [JF]
JF: but what is the mechanism to do that?
16:55:41 [JF]
JS: the bottom line is to put the responsibility where it lies
16:56:06 [JF]
for sites that are using 3rd party content that has issues that the site owner cannot fix
16:56:49 [JF]
[Peter reads more]
16:57:10 [JF]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:57:34 [JF]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:57:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JF
16:58:12 [JF]
JS: no ideas on how to score that, but those sound like the factors we discussed last time
16:58:44 [JF]
PK: returning to "how does this help the end user"? Signaling to the end user that the level of accessibility may be different
16:59:08 [JF]
eg: the main function of a "for sale" site (eBay?) may be more accessible than individual postings
16:59:35 [JF]
s/eBay?) /
16:59:58 [JF]
JS: don't have it figured out, but think we are on the right path
17:00:14 [JF]
hoping to take this to Silver on a Friday call, and then AG on June 21
17:00:39 [JF]
JS: not fully baked yet, but seek feedback early to get this 'right'
17:01:02 [JF]
Target date of June 11th
17:02:24 [JF]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:02:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate JF
17:03:17 [ToddLibby]
ToddLibby has left #silver-conf
17:03:23 [JF]
zakim, end meeting
17:03:23 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, JF, Azlan, Wilco, jeanne, ToddLibby, PeterKorn
17:03:25 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Zakim
17:03:28 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
17:03:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #silver-conf
17:05:24 [Azlan]
Azlan has left #silver-conf
17:21:42 [sajkaj]
sajkaj has left #silver-conf
17:21:50 [sajkaj]
sajkaj has joined #silver-conf
17:21:53 [sajkaj]
17:22:00 [sajkaj]
sajkaj has left #silver-conf