15:41:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:41:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/08-silver-conf-irc
15:41:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #silver-conf
15:41:56 <sajkaj> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:42:04 <sajkaj> Date: 08 Jul 2021
15:42:09 <sajkaj> Chair: sajkaj
15:42:16 <sajkaj> present+
15:42:22 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make log public
15:42:27 <sajkaj> agenda?
15:42:30 <sajkaj> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:42:30 <sajkaj> agenda+ Third Party Proposal https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content
15:42:33 <sajkaj> agenda+ Other Business
15:42:36 <sajkaj> agenda+ Be Done
15:42:41 <sajkaj>  agenda?
15:42:50 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make minutes
15:42:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/08-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj
16:01:41 <PeterKorn> PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
16:02:00 <PeterKorn> Present+
16:02:04 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf
16:02:12 <ToddLibby> present+
16:02:20 <sajkaj> present+
16:02:20 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver-conf
16:02:26 <Azlan> present+
16:03:14 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #silver-conf
16:03:19 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver-conf
16:03:19 <JF> JF has joined #silver-conf
16:03:25 <JF> Present+
16:03:28 <jeanne> zakim, take up item 1
16:03:28 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:04:35 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: Quite a bit of review on the proposal
16:04:38 <PeterKorn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content
16:05:30 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #silver-conf
16:05:46 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: Believe were on agenda for next week. Another WBS starting soon.
16:06:07 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: questions forwarded to chairs
16:06:30 <ToddLibby> jeanne: Will be talking about this tomorrow at 10 Eastern
16:06:54 <ToddLibby> 10 US Eastern
16:07:47 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: High level summary of what's changed suggested to walkthrough
16:07:59 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
16:07:59 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Third Party Proposal https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:08:29 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Added a new section of paragraphs. What is 3rd party content?
16:09:08 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Definitons have been updated. Sajkaj created alternate to discuss.
16:09:23 <KimD> KimD has joined #silver-conf
16:09:31 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Lack of specificity was issue to be dealt with
16:09:49 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Use cases are unchanged.
16:10:58 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Reading through proposal.
16:11:14 <bruce_bailey> +1 just to say i really likese new pieces
16:13:26 <bruce_bailey> q+ to suggest  sub heading not use word not
16:13:27 <jeanne> q+ to say there is no guidance for encouraging
16:14:00 <jeanne> ack bruce
16:14:00 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest  sub heading not use word not
16:14:11 <bruce_bailey> Suggest:  Third Party Content is Covered
16:14:25 <ToddLibby> bruce_bailey: Suggest subheading change
16:15:07 <sajkaj> q?
16:15:37 <ToddLibby> jeanne: We should make it really clear, that we are not proposing an exemption
16:17:08 <PeterKorn> q?
16:17:44 <sajkaj> ack
16:17:52 <JF> +1 to Jeanne
16:18:04 <JF> Q+
16:18:08 <ToddLibby> jeanne: Sentence potantially not true. "Today there is no guidance in WCAG 2 for web site owners or authors describing what they can do to encourage third parties to make their content accessible."
16:18:46 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: What if we add the word "explicit" (for 3rd parties)?
16:18:57 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:19:01 <jeanne> ack jeanne
16:19:01 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say there is no guidance for encouraging
16:19:03 <jeanne> ack JF
16:19:52 <ToddLibby> JF: Worried about what we are saying here. This is not telling people how to make it accessible.
16:20:04 <ToddLibby> JF: Need to make disctinction.
16:20:20 <ToddLibby> distinction...
16:20:35 <ToddLibby> jeanne: Strike the word "challenges". Need to take it out.
16:21:01 <sajkaj> q?
16:21:48 <JF> Agree with removing "challenges" - what about: "This proposal encourages adoption of accessible Third Party content wherever possible. However, when accessibility issues arise this proposal specifies strategies for content owners and authors to make third party content more accessible."
16:22:01 <PeterKorn> q+
16:22:10 <sajkaj> q?
16:22:13 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:22:53 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: We expect site owner not to throw their hands up at the first sign of site friction.
16:23:34 <sajkaj> q?
16:23:40 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Suggested language for further improvement
16:26:41 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Is it possible rto conform to level while not doing XYZ
16:27:02 <jeanne> Jeanne proposes: This proposal is intended to improve the accessibility of third party content.  Today under WCAG2,  third party content is considered <q>partial conformance</q> which is then outside of conformance.  There is no guidance and little motivation for web site owners or authors to do more to improve the accessibility of third party content if they can't make it fully accessible
16:27:02 <jeanne> .  This proposal is how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.
16:28:09 <ToddLibby> Apologies (bouncing all about with work issues) trying to keep up best I can.
16:28:30 <PeterKorn> q+
16:28:49 <sajkaj> q?
16:28:58 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:29:18 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Challenge with that text is second sentence. Doesn't believe that is true. Content is content.
16:29:43 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Doesn't think there is an equality.
16:30:20 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:30:27 <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#x5-4-statement-of-partial-conformance-third-party-content
16:31:35 <sajkaj> q?
16:31:38 <sajkaj> ack br
16:31:43 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Equality is causing discomfort.
16:31:48 <sajkaj> q?
16:32:32 <ToddLibby> bruce_bailey: phrasing is not quite right
16:32:54 <ToddLibby> bruce_bailey: some motivation/guidance if you can make it partially accessible
16:33:07 <ToddLibby> bruce_bailey: agree with intent.
16:33:50 <ToddLibby> bruce_bailey: agrees with fact statement. WCAG 2.x document doesn't say anything about directing site owners
16:33:54 <sajkaj> q?
16:34:29 <JF> +1 Peter, I was going to point that out as well
16:34:36 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Some page created will have content created later.
16:34:56 <sajkaj> q?
16:35:06 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Framing of 3rd party conetnt is much narrower
16:35:11 <ToddLibby> content...
16:35:40 <jeanne> This proposal is intended to improve the accessibility of third party content.  Today under WCAG2.x, site owners are permitted to declare inaccessible third party content as <q>partial conformance</q> which is then outside of conformance statement.  WCAG 2.x does not give direction to site owners or authors to do more to improve the accessibility of third party content if they can't make
16:35:40 <jeanne> it fully accessible.  This proposal is how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.
16:36:11 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: stop trying to characterize WCAG 2.x?
16:36:38 <JF> "To date site owners are..." (?)
16:37:05 <bruce_bailey> +1 +1 +1
16:37:15 <sajkaj> q?
16:37:20 <ToddLibby> +1
16:37:32 <Azlan> +1
16:38:19 <jeanne> This proposal is intended to improve the accessibility of third party content.  To date, site owners are permitted to declare inaccessible third party content as <q>partial conformance</q> which is then outside of their conformance statement.  WCAG 2.x does not give direction to site owners or authors to do more to improve the accessibility of third party content if they can't make it
16:38:19 <jeanne> fully accessible.  This proposal is how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.
16:39:02 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Don't think we gain enough by eliminating 2.x
16:39:19 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: We okay doing wordsmithing?
16:39:26 <jeanne> This proposal is intended to improve the accessibility of third party content.  Under WCAG 2.x, site owners are permitted to declare inaccessible third party content as <q>partial conformance</q> which is then outside of their conformance statement.  WCAG 2.x does not give direction to site owners or authors to do more to improve the accessibility of third party content if they can't make
16:39:26 <jeanne> it fully accessible.  This proposal is how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.
16:40:56 <JF> @Jeanne, "...This proposal >>outlines<< how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.
16:41:12 <sajkaj> q?
16:41:20 <ToddLibby> Last change in Conformance of Third Party Content was last sentence and note.
16:43:21 <JF> +1 to positive statements
16:43:21 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: Too many "n't's"
16:43:24 <PeterKorn> q?
16:43:46 <sajkaj> q?
16:45:00 <JF> +1 to second (alternative) version
16:45:20 <sajkaj> q?
16:45:25 <ToddLibby> +1 to second version as well
16:45:59 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: remove old paragraph and new alternative heading and we're done
16:47:44 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Validate and sign off on rest of text that is there?
16:48:31 <JF> @Janina - what about https://siarchives.si.edu/press/photos-videos
16:50:16 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: Drop museum notes and reference to legacy. The rest should stay
16:51:25 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Any examples outside of social media? Think we do.
16:52:32 <ToddLibby> Google Guides does the same thing as well as JF's example.
16:55:06 <ToddLibby> JF: Images need to meet contrast reqs
16:55:38 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: Not yet speaking to guidelines but should.
16:56:08 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: Suggest how many we throw in
16:57:14 <sajkaj> q?
16:57:32 <ToddLibby> jeanne: we would not have recomemndation for iframe in the example
16:57:46 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: We shouldn't offer one.
16:57:56 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: Not to get ahead of Makoto and his group
16:58:55 <ToddLibby> sajkaj: stick with three bullets and add 'more to follow"
16:59:05 <ToddLibby> jeanne: take out other examples of guidelines
16:59:12 <ToddLibby> no objection from me
16:59:33 <KimD> slight aside - here's a link to a collection of handwritten pages. I'm not sure if there's a text alternative. https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss26526.002_0866_0888/?st=gallery
16:59:35 <Azlan> No objection from me either
16:59:43 <ToddLibby> PeterKorn: still wants to add "user generated"
17:00:26 <bruce_bailey> present+
17:01:14 <sajkaj> zakim, bye
17:01:14 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, PeterKorn, ToddLibby, Azlan, JF, bruce_bailey
17:01:14 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf
17:01:14 <Azlan> Azlan has left #silver-conf
17:01:24 <KimD> present+
17:01:49 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/08-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj
17:10:11 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has left #silver-conf
18:21:39 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver-conf
19:36:21 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver-conf