Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
JS: Only one item today -- lots of attention in the last week.
… review use cases
… edits above the use cases to review: Problem Statement and edits
… editor note that scoring isn't done yet, but has been expanded to show that sections need to go in other parts of document; likely going into Guidelines and Outcomes. Some into testing.
… WCAG assumes that the author has full control, but there is often cases that they don't.
PK: Regrets next week.
Third Party Proposal https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content
Problem Statement: Web content sourced from 3rd parties may not be fully accessible. In important cases it may also not be possible to fully remediate all of the a11y failings in that content. The only Conformance options available to the web content publisher under WCAG 2.x today are either:
as the August heartbeat.
Remove the content or
Make a statement of partial conformance which effectively ignores that third party content and which by definition actually constitutes a statement of non-conformance for the site as a whole. This proposal attempts to develop more nuanced guidance for the web content publisher, who is asked to:
Do everything they can to indicate to users where the 3rd party content is, and
Encourage the providers of that third party content to make it fully accessible; and do so in the context of making a WCAG 3 conformance claim.
WF: I want to bring up what I raised on email. I don't think it is sufficient to say where the 3rd party content is.
PK: WHat do you think is within the power of the content author and what should we ask the content author to do?
WF: Content authors should make content capable of being made accessible.
PK: We have covered that in User Generated Content section.
… there is a note that we want to include ATAG language.
… is there more than that needed?
<sajkaj> https://
Janina: It is insufficient to have this only in Conformance and needs to be sprinked throughout the Guidelines in WCAG3.
… ITI has a concern that we don't overdo it. We can nudge people into making it accessible.
… Understanding that people will sometimes enter nonscence
… what we can say that we can't hold them responsible for what the alt text is, but we can hold them responsible for making it easier to make it accessible.
… Flashing is part of the movie. Is the warning upfront sufficient?
… there are solutions from user agents or authors
… which I know Judy will push in WCAG3 because MIT has demonstrated that there are user agent solutions to flashing.
PK: In WCAG2 4.1.2 we specific programmatic responsibility, but we don't talk about what a sufficient API is.
… What is the set of things that the content publisher should do?
… For example, you should not use a player that is not accessible.
PK: Flashing is a problem and I am not proposing solutions. Every Marvel movie in the last few years opens with what looks to me like Flashing. We have a couple options: Ban it from the Web (which we hope goes upstream to Disney); Put a warning (like the rating warning) but you don't change the copyright holder's material.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to propose that we add a sentence to the Problem Statement.
<ToddLibby> JS : proposal to improve responsibility
<ToddLibby> JS: Not letting everyone off the hook for responsibility. Make it stand out.
Azlan: Using the example of flashing in movies, there are regulations around the flashing [examples]. I am wary of us work around the regulations. Do we want to be more strict about things and how do we enforce it?
Wilco: I would be more comfortable if there were more editor notes about saying we haven't figured out where it goes.
Janina: That is in the next section we want to progress to.
PK: I would like a pointer to those
Azlan: will post when I find them.
PK: reads: "Editor's Note: Appropriate scoring is yet to be provided. Fully conforming content will clearly score as fully conformant. It remains to be determined how to score 3rd party content that has accessibility issues; and to define what minimum threshold scores might be acceptable; and what critical errors might prevent a conformance assertion. It may prove useful to provide this
guidance elsewhere in the WCAG 3 document, i.e. in the Testing Section or within individual guidelines and outcomes. "
PK: Is this text sufficient?
Wilco: Add "the AGWG is looking at additional requirements and guidelines to address this"
… ATAG reference or "Content can be made available upon request".
PK: Would that be in a separate guideline or in the alt text guidelines?
Wilco: There is a list of possible third party content that we should make?
Janina: It could be a separate Outcome under each Guideline.
… maybe that needs to be a discussion
… we don't have different guidelines, but we have different circumstances.
… the breakdown comes under "who is controlling the user experience and the markdown underneath?"
Jnaina: The beginning of the sentence is too conditional. "We expect to"
PK: It may be useful to provide changes to "We expect to provide this guideline".
s/We expect to provide this guideline". "We expect to provide aditional information on this in the guideline".
<Azlan> Re. Flashing images, see Annex 1 of this document: https://
<ToddLibby> Jeanne: Go back up to introduction to do quick overview.
<ToddLibby> Jeanne: "our solution includes..."
Use cases
https://
PK: [reads} "The travel site provides a collection of pages on how to author accessible content. This includes links to vendors who will add captions or audio description to videos (for a fee), as well as how to write good ALT text, and how to create posts with clear language, which don't make reference to sensory characteristics. All of the travel site's employees and contracted reviewers
are required to ensure that their content complies with these guidelines. Separately, the travel site makes this material available to all of the companies that they license content from, and their contracts with those companies require that everywhere that captions and audio descriptions have already been created for licensed videos, that they are provided alongside those videos. Further,
they likewise point end users to their pages on authoring accessible content, but specifically to a slightly different version that takes users through the authoring environment provided by the website for user generated content, showing precisely where and how to add ALT text, and providing examples of how to author content that doesn't refer solely to sensory characteristics, and what
plain languages, etc. Finally, the authoring tool for user generated content was developed in-house, and doesn't allow for non-semantic markup (e.g., it is impossible to simply change font face information separate from semantic markup like Strong or emphasis). "
From https://
WIlco: Can we add "options for styling" and video? The more ways you give options to users the more way they can cause problems.
Janina: agree
Peter: We have not yet defined yet how to make some of these things accessible. Do we not allow content types that we don't have ways of making it accessible?
jeanne: -1
Wilco: It seems controversial
Janina: WCAG3 has a mandate to improve the ability to maintain the guidance for developing technology.
PK: 3D walkthroughs have taken over the real estate market.
… should we ban 3D walkthroughs? The developers have patents and copyright on the code.
<ToddLibby> Jeanne: Set up the strcuture so that wwe have outcomes that are technology neutral
<ToddLibby> Jeanne: 3D walkthrough, they have to provide alternative
wilco: This is a best case scenario. Will we require all of it?
PK: We haven't worked out the scoring. We want to say that if you meet the best case, you meet Bronze.
… let's start developing it in public, knowing that there is more to do.
… we want the example of a site doing all they can do and what would that look like in scoring, and what someone who wasn't doing everything -- maybe 2/3 of it, scores lower.
… critical errors could still apply.
…
Janina: I think this also emphasizes that we have to work with the guidelines
PK: [reads] "On the page where website visitors can buy merchandise, just above the embedded PaymentFriend payment processing flow, there is a clear call out the payment processing is handled by this third-party. Furthermore, the scouting site contains an accessibility statement, which mentions that payment servicing is handled by PaymentFriend, with a link to the location within the
payment workflow where this third-party content is hosted. Finally, when the scouting website decided to adopt PaymentFriend for financial transaction processing, it did an analysis of accessibility and provided that company with a list of accessibility defects found. On a regular schedule, the scouting website updates the embedded payment processing functionality to the latest version,
scanning the bug list to see whether any accessibility bugs have been fixed. "
wilco: They should find another service.
PK: There may not be another service.
Wilco: They still should have another service.
Janina: What if it is in Africa and there is only one banking service in the language?
<ToddLibby> Jeanne: Has seen abuse by lawyers that attack small orgs.
PK: This use case is very small. It isn't Boy Scouts of America
Wilco: I still have no problem with saying it isn't accessible.
Wilco: I assume this case has severe problems.
PK: If the nature of the bugs wouldn't take the score below bronze, then it is handled. If it is so bad that it takes it below bronze, that's what we have to wrestly with.
<ToddLibby> Jeanne: Even with scoring problems on page, it passes. If it fails Bronze, it fails Bronze.
PK: we need to handle the "all software has bugs" issue. If it is so bad that it takes it below bronze, should we fail it?
PK: I am saying that should it pass on the totality of the site or the totality of the page?
Janina: I think we have to address it at the guideline level.
PK: We will attempt offline to make changes to the proposal
… wilco was proposing final language to steps to conform.