– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

U.S. holiday schedule, meeting July 2?

Jeanne: Us holiday schedule. We missed last week. US has holiday following weekend. Many participants are taking time off.

Jeanne: Who will be avail for meeting of July 2nd?

<sajkaj> +1

<Jennifer> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

+1

<ToddLibby> -1

<JenniferC_> +1 Canada Day is July 1st. :)

<Rain> -1

<JF> ya

but not opposed to skipping

<JF> + .5

Jeanne: Is Canada taking off July 2nd?

Jennifer: Not official Canada off.

JF: Most will take off thu and fri, and take a 4 day weekend.

<PeterKorn> +0 (dunno about vacation yet)

JF: Quebec also has another holiday.

JF: If it's rainy I probably will make, if sunny I may skip.

Jeanne: Tallying. If it's only 4 of the regulars, we should cancel. Any objections to cancelling?

No objections from Chuck.

<Jennifer> No objections from Jennifer s

<ToddLibby> No objections from Todd

<jeanne2> No meeting on July 2

Jeanne: Hearing no objections, Friday July 2nd is cancelled.

Friday meeting time survey results

Jeanne: I can't find the survey, it had a bug. I struggled with the systems of W3C (and team). They fixed the bug in survey, but it no longer appears.

Jeanne: Does anybody happen to have the link?

<ToddLibby> Link: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/friday-meeting-schedule-2021-6/

<JF> also: CHANGING THE SCHEDULE OF SILVER MEETINGS (CLOSED SINCE 19 JANUARY 2021)

Jeanne: 3 said no to 9:30, <reviews results>

Jeanne: 8 yes and prefer.

Jeanne: First is 9:30, second is 9.

Jeanne: A 10am on Friday follows. Current meeting time had the 4th most.

Jeanne: Propose we pick a 9:30 or a 10 on Friday. Who prefer's 10?

PK: I prefer 10.

<Rain> 10am preferred

<ToddLibby> Either time works for me, preferably 10am.

<Jennifer> yes, 10 is preferred for me, too

Jeanne: Still reasonable for EU participants.

proposed RESOLUTION: Change Friday meeting time to 10AM ET.

+.5

<jeanne2> +1

<ToddLibby> +1

<JenniferC_> +1

<sajkaj> +1

<Rain> 0

<Jennifer> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<Jan_> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

Resolution: Change Friday meeting time to 10AM ET.

<PeterKorn> +0.5

<Jennifer> +1

Janina: Effective July 9th?

Jeanne: Yes.

<jeanne2> Effective July 9

Schedule for August heartbeat

Jeanne: This is a trial, seeing if we can get new material into the draft. Tentatively scheduled for August.

Jeanne: We are now publishing every Q.

Jeanne: We got second Q draft published in June. We are striving for August for 3rd Q draft.

<jeanne2> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Project_Plan_for_Q3_Working_Draft

Jeanne: I have a project schedule, everyone has seen.

Jeanne: Getting everything into the schedule.

Jeanne: When we have the PR ready to move the final version that's agreed to, into github. That has to be by Sunday in the schedule of the week.

Jeanne: Part of what complicated issues last heartbeat is I didn't allow enough time when the PRs were ready before they had to go to survey.

Jeanne: AGWG survey's have to go out Thu.

Jeanne: I need to update this, explainer note needs more work. That's not ready for CFC or editor's draft. Maturity Model will postpone until December.\

Jeanne: 3rd party is progressing. I'd like to remind everybody to review and answer the survey. We did preso on 22nd, with lots of feedback. Chairs recommended we split and look at parts.

Jeanne: This week's survey is on definition. I still have to schedule some other themes.

Jeanne: If you are working on any of those please let me know and we'll work you into schedule.

Jeanne: If you are doing any work, please get it on the schedule.

Jeanne: I think Jennifer and PK are working on content.

Jennifer: I forwarded to you.

PK: We are working on some other fires, but I think it would be good to add a row that we want to add some sentences or a paragraph.

PK: I received what you forwarded, I need to work on it some more. I have some additional thoughts before it goes forward.

PK: XR Caption methods. We had an idea to illustrate how 3rd party might go into scoring.

PK: I looked at caption methods as a possibility. They are XR caption methods, not general guidelines. Is there bandwidth to expand existing caption guideline, to go beyond XR?

Jeanne: I think existing guideline is generic and can cover. Not necessarily perfect, but should suffice.

PK: I had difficulty figuring out how the scoring worked and how to propose bringing 3rd party concepts into scoring. Who drives that guideline?

Jeanne: Suzanne.

Suzanne: I agree they are scewed to XR.

PK: Having challenges on how to propose scoring to encompass 3rd party content.

Janina: I had same reaction. Hearing that this is driven mostly by Mike Crabb I understand. I think we need more 2.x guidance to flesh out what's there.

Janina: I don't know if it's easy for August.

Jeanne: If you don't see a way for it to fit in...

Janina: Eventually, but not necessarily in time for Aug.

Jeanne: We don't have a new scoring proposal yet, we are inching towards one, but may be unrealistic to plan for Aug. Maybe Dec.

PK: Anything else related to content that could be ready for Aug?

PK: It will help understand the proposal to see an example for 3rd party. Do we have alt text?

Janina: We do.

PK: Maybe alt text.

Janina: Look at alt text, we do want to say differences for 3rd party, and look for video contrast. User generated same conditions apply, that would help flesh this out.

Jeanne: Makoto leads alt text, and would be the contact for proposed changes.

PK: I should look in github version?

<Jennifer> Chuck, I can take over at the next convenient spot.

Janina: Is there an editor's draft version different?

<PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/

Jeanne: I don't think so you can look in github version.

<Jennifer> Jennifer: scribe

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for scribe change

Peter: We don't have a context of alt text that is not in the primary flow yet?

Jeanne: we should have it as part of scoring, as in no critical errors in the critical flow, you can pass with as low as 95% alt text.

Peter: so, if I have a page with 2 images, one in the repeating footer, I can't pass.

Sajkaj & Jeanne: no, that's not correct.

<PeterKorn> Less than 60% of all images have appropriate text alternatives OR there is a critical error in the process

Jeanne: let's hold on this, finish the schedule first.

Structuring a continuation of the 3rd party content discussion

Now, go ahead, Peter.

<PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#text-alternatives

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

<jeanne2> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/3rdpartydef/results

Peter looking for the content… survey or proposal?

Peter: we worked after the Tuesday meeting to refine the def of author-arranged media vs service content.

<jeanne2> survey to answer

Author arranged media may be services or media, may include copyright content, where the authority to publish may be provided in law. This author arranged third party content is defined… see transcript. It's doing a great job. ;)

Survey to be reviewed this Tuesday at 8 am Pacific

Sajkaj: some good ideas in survey results so far

Sajkaj: one comment I plan to make is this isn't the plain language version, and we know we will do that later.

Sajkaj: we may have to come up with more examples to be helpful.

Sajkaj: discussing when you do/don't, then it starts to stray into regulatory realm, and we probably don't quite have it right. We're seeking examples of what is not third party.

Sajkaj: with plenty of time, one might make the 19th century publications accessible, but if the NYT started to upload images of the 19th century publications, I would think it could be overlooked.

Sajkaj: if someone needs it, then could probably get it, but it's a lot of work to do the whole thing. Do we not put up big blocks of content because doing it accessibly is hard?

SuzanneTaylor: are you collecting edge/odd cases?

Sajkaj: I wish we'd asked that question. We asked for exemptions, but… that would be a good idea. We should collect those edge case examples.

<PeterKorn> +1 to collecting edge cases

Jeanne: Suzanne, add it to number 4, please.

Sajkaj: we can sort it out later. I'll add my Dead Sea scrolls there, too.

Jeanne: I completely cut you off wrt alt text, want to let you go back… oh, sorry, queue.

JF: one of the things David mentioned on the call… I remember when Canada adopted WCAG and they had a legacy problem of inaccessible stuff. They used a dynamically injected header indicating it was likely inaccessible and if you need it to let them know by X. Perhaps that kind of approach would be an out.

Sajkaj: so I hear that as an argument of accessible on demand as a sooner than later.

Sajkaj: nice to hear it's been prototyped.

JF: not sure if they're still doing it. I'll check on info for next third party call.

PeterKorn: another thing we should work on in addition to 3rd party content is legacy content. I think that's it's own section.

PeterKorn: If we have a requirement, we can do this as part of our conformance efforts

PeterKorn: a couple of variations of options, such as acquiring legacy content

Sajkaj: noted, we will discuss

<KimD> +1 to dealing with legacy content

<PeterKorn> ck pet

<Zakim> Peter, you wanted to talk about alternative text

Sajkaj: if you think of specific examples, please note and get it to me

Jennifer: said a few things about if the content isn't accessible, then things shouldn't be labeled as accessible. It's a cividl rights issue, not having to self-disclose and risk retaliation.

sajkaj: it used to be less accessible before the web, in microfiche, for example.

Sajkaj: define where the a11y issues are, the rest should be as accessible as possible.

sajkaj: list all of the steps being worked on towards becoming accessible; it's okay to put it up while working on making it accessible

<PeterKorn> ?

It makes no sense for 21st century content to not be accessible.

Sorry that was Sajkaj, not Jennifer

Todd: I have a question, unsure if related. Do I need to give a rundown on Errors?

Peter: if I may, I have a comment related to Jennifer / alt text…

PeterKorn: I think your point goes to the heart of something we're struggling with. Does conformance = accessible, or is there a level of conformance that realizes possible?

Or, does the minimum of conformance mean a level of accessible?

PeterKorn: does the minimum conformance level have to mean accessible to [a set]?

JF: it takes me back to what Jamie Knight says, at the end of my presentation you'll understand the needs of one person.

JF: even a minimum level of conformance is not going to cover all users.

Todd: Sarah and I reviewed the timeline this morning, agreed we're on track; reviewed the error prevention guidelines, and required inputs all method… instructions for completing tasks, etc. [transcript will be more specific -- reading too fast!]

Jeanne: do you have a timeline for when you expect Jemma to complete the pull request?

ToddLibby: Sarah may be better able to answer.

Jeanne: I'll put that in for a question for Jemma. Do you expect another update to the heartbeat for August, or setting up for December?

Todd: I need to check with Sarah.

Jeanne: I'll make a note in the project plan.

Jeanne: check with Sarah if august or December.

<Zakim> PeterKorn, you wanted to discuss ALT text guideline & 3rd party

<PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#text-alternatives

PeterKorn: looking at the text alternatives guideline, I am struggling with understanding how to add into this 3rd party when I look at the rating sections. I see zero through four, and for all of those, it simply says a certain percentage has alt text and no critical errors. I don't see anything that says a certain percentage in the critical areas.

<jeanne2> https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#text-alternatives

PeterKorn: so if I have a page with two images, and the one in the footer lacks alt text, then I'm 50%.

sajkaj: I think it's defined somewhere that repeated components are excepted from the unique page content, and audited separately.

jeanne: critical errors are in the primary flow

Jeanne: if you had no critical errors, and you only had 50% of your images with no errors, then you won't pass -- not sure I typed this right.

PeterKorn: I didn't see that before, that's in scoring? I'll doublecheck.

PeterKorn: just one last case… if I'm gettyimages, and I have one image per page plus a footer. Every image in the main part has alt text, but I do not in the footer… then I'm still in the 50% scenario?

jeanne: no, because the footer wouldn't be recounted… just counted once.

JF: the footer is part of the view, it's in scope.

<Chuck> Jennifer: Someone should take this as a task, particularly if the experts are not in agreement.

<SuzanneTaylor> +1 to Jennifer's comment on clarity

<jeanne2> +1 to Jennifer audit processes

<JF> auditing content (by only reviewing a footer once) is not the same as a user going through individual views, which contains the same error

<Chuck> Jennifer: going back to JF trying to respond, minimum level of conformance may not capture all users... if your aspiration in coming to WCAG levels is to be accessible, then you want to aim for higher.

<Chuck> Jennifer: If you are here for some level of conformance, acknowledge that you are still excluding people.

<PeterKorn> +1 Jennifer. Needs clarity

<Chuck> Jennifer: For those of us in the intersectional life, I will end a day fatigued.

<Chuck> Jennifer: Try to keep this in mind for the people, in addition to the corporations.