Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

3 Jun 2021


Azlan, jeanne, JF, PeterKorn, sajkaj, ToddLibby, Wilco
Bruce Bailey, Sarah_Horton

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

JS: two items, on the agenda today

from draft may report - outstanding from last week (Whoville use case)

also want to return to the draft may report and review 3rd party content (edits)

JS: there have been additional edits since last week - some more substantive than others

JS: will we be presenting this June 21st? And can we do a preview at Silver before then?

Jeanne: yes and yes

JS: looking at principle 3 - there are purposes to content and there may be subsidiary content on the page, that doesn't "count"

PK: they don't count *THE SAME*

it's not that we are ignoring issues, but they are at different 'weights'

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

examples of Footer content being less important, or an iframe that is for mechanical (not user) reasons

[Peter Korn reads #3]

JS: trying to define primary from secondary content

we can postulate that. But what is an acceptable definition of 'view'

suspect that this may not work - lead to contiguous concept

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about 'programmatic determination' (aka <aside> or similar)

JF: determining what is primary and secondary should not be subjective. Can we use programmatic containers to help define secondary content?

JS: Wonder if a page like this would be used that way (primary time conversion tool)

PK: like the idea of using a landmark (etc.) but not sure if it addresses the concern

PK: whether it is via markup or other attestation - it is page editor who makes the determination.

WF: concern about how this discussion is heading. It's problematic for authors and testers to determine what is important for PwD

it's like *us* determining what is important for you, as opposed to leaving that to the individual

WF: I think this is an important discussion, but have grave concerns

<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 what page to review.

Jeanne: in response to JF's assertion for more objectivity verus subjectivity - was more on ___ rather than what is important on a page.

Think we still have the ability to have some subjective editorial impact

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

maybe look for a better example of "some things are more important than others on a page"

JS: Open to suggestions

Azlan: with regards to programmatically determining using markup... we should be very careful there

example of <aside> may not be the right idea'

Azlan: so we should tread lightly here

JF: hearing Azlan's concerns - maybe instead of landmark elements Personalization's emergent "simplification" attribute

PK: was working on a footer block, and it felt lesser than content in the <main> element

PK: we already have a preferential 'process' - it's how we address bugs all the time (prioritization)

so question then becomes do we treat secondary a11y bugs with a differential process?

i.e. if we aren't going to fix it right away [hot fix] then that says something powerful here

JS: want to return to the topic - candidate proposal for 3rd party content, as we need to get on that ASAP

WF: prefers we stay on this, wanted to respond to PK's comments

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)

for orgs, that is often what pays the bills - may not be the same 'priority for users' as for the org

may not be fair to do

Third Party https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF#Third_Party_Content_.28Continued.29

JS: have worked on definitions - have for 2 of the 3 categories - tried to incorporate Sarah's feedback last week

[Peter reads aloud]

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

so the whole legal approach is fraught with problems

<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?

was thinking of "user generated' versus 'owner arranged'

PK: not a fan of giving a perfect score to something that isn't accessible

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

PK: example - video with no audio descriptions. How explicit does the identification need to be?

do those attributes need to be listed on the page, or marked "this page does not have audio description"?

or is it enough to identify the 3rd party? specifics on implementaiton details will be important

JS: yes and yes

PK: one way is to be more explicit in our examples

<Azlan> +1 to the suggestion of metadata

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say writing it up for Captions since we have a Caption guideline

JF: thinking about using metadata

We have a requirement for captions already. Automated captions versus hand-crafted could score different points

<ToddLibby> +1 to metadata and writing it up for Captions as well

<jeanne> + 1 to the varients of 3rd party

PK: good ideas. What needs to be worked in is the "3rd partyness" piece, and the variants of that

JS: Peter raised a point - not giving a perfect score when 3rd party is nonconformant

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

e even if it may not be perfect (and may never be)

JS: are fractional scores acceptable?

Jeanne: we haven't gotten there yet

going to fractions has some issues

PK: other thoughts on scoring, and the path forward. Reporting the issue and adding remediation info

it could be covered by a blanket statement

PK: think this can be covered by crafting an example. It could be covered in a policy on the site

JF: concerns about adding remediation content in a statement

PK: the issue is whether the author has done as much as they can - no stone left unturned

but it makes sense to me to encourage the author to pass along this information

JF: but what is the mechanism to do that?

JS: the bottom line is to put the responsibility where it lies

for sites that are using 3rd party content that has issues that the site owner cannot fix

[Peter reads more]

JS: no ideas on how to score that, but those sound like the factors we discussed last time

PK: returning to "how does this help the end user"? Signaling to the end user that the level of accessibility may be different

eg: the main function of a "for sale" site (may be more accessible than individual postings

JS: don't have it figured out, but think we are on the right path

hoping to take this to Silver on a Friday call, and then AG on June 21

JS: not fully baked yet, but seek feedback early to get this 'right'

Target date of June 11th

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/eBay?) /

Maybe present: eg, JS, PK, WF