– DRAFT –
Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

sajkaj: Quite a bit of review on the proposal

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

sajkaj: Believe were on agenda for next week. Another WBS starting soon.

sajkaj: questions forwarded to chairs

jeanne: Will be talking about this tomorrow at 10 Eastern

10 US Eastern

PeterKorn: High level summary of what's changed suggested to walkthrough

Third Party Proposal https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

PeterKorn: Added a new section of paragraphs. What is 3rd party content?

PeterKorn: Definitons have been updated. Sajkaj created alternate to discuss.

PeterKorn: Lack of specificity was issue to be dealt with

PeterKorn: Use cases are unchanged.

PeterKorn: Reading through proposal.

<bruce_bailey> +1 just to say i really likese new pieces

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest sub heading not use word not

<bruce_bailey> Suggest: Third Party Content is Covered

bruce_bailey: Suggest subheading change

jeanne: We should make it really clear, that we are not proposing an exemption

<sajkaj> ack

<JF> +1 to Jeanne

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."

sajkaj: What if we add the word "explicit" (for 3rd parties)?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say there is no guidance for encouraging

JF: Worried about what we are saying here. This is not telling people how to make it accessible.

JF: Need to make disctinction.

distinction...

jeanne: Strike the word "challenges". Need to take it out.

<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."

PeterKorn: We expect site owner not to throw their hands up at the first sign of site friction.

PeterKorn: Suggested language for further improvement

PeterKorn: Is it possible rto conform to level while not doing XYZ

<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

<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.

Apologies (bouncing all about with work issues) trying to keep up best I can.

PeterKorn: Challenge with that text is second sentence. Doesn't believe that is true. Content is content.

PeterKorn: Doesn't think there is an equality.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#x5-4-statement-of-partial-conformance-third-party-content

PeterKorn: Equality is causing discomfort.

bruce_bailey: phrasing is not quite right

bruce_bailey: some motivation/guidance if you can make it partially accessible

bruce_bailey: agree with intent.

bruce_bailey: agrees with fact statement. WCAG 2.x document doesn't say anything about directing site owners

<JF> +1 Peter, I was going to point that out as well

PeterKorn: Some page created will have content created later.

PeterKorn: Framing of 3rd party conetnt is much narrower

content...

<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

<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.

sajkaj: stop trying to characterize WCAG 2.x?

<JF> "To date site owners are..." (?)

<bruce_bailey> +1 +1 +1

+1

<Azlan> +1

<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

<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.

PeterKorn: Don't think we gain enough by eliminating 2.x

sajkaj: We okay doing wordsmithing?

<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

<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.

<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.

Last change in Conformance of Third Party Content was last sentence and note.

<JF> +1 to positive statements

sajkaj: Too many "n't's"

<JF> +1 to second (alternative) version

+1 to second version as well

sajkaj: remove old paragraph and new alternative heading and we're done

PeterKorn: Validate and sign off on rest of text that is there?

<JF> @Janina - what about https://siarchives.si.edu/press/photos-videos

sajkaj: Drop museum notes and reference to legacy. The rest should stay

PeterKorn: Any examples outside of social media? Think we do.

Google Guides does the same thing as well as JF's example.

JF: Images need to meet contrast reqs

PeterKorn: Not yet speaking to guidelines but should.

sajkaj: Suggest how many we throw in

jeanne: we would not have recomemndation for iframe in the example

PeterKorn: We shouldn't offer one.

sajkaj: Not to get ahead of Makoto and his group

sajkaj: stick with three bullets and add 'more to follow"

jeanne: take out other examples of guidelines

no objection from me

<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

<Azlan> No objection from me either

PeterKorn: still wants to add "user generated"