Silver Task Force & Community Group

09 July 2021


Francis_Storr, jeanne, Jemma, jenniferS, JF, Lauriat, Makoto, mgarrish, PeterKorn, sajkaj, sarahhorton, ToddLibby, Wilco
jeanne, Shawn
Lauriat, sajkaj

Meeting minutes

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_silver-fri

<Jemma> Hi

<jeanne> agewnda?

jeanne: Report on redesign from aCT to make rules less ambiguous

<Wilco> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JVmquc7mLJaxZhypPbBhR99fEFBmc0YDn1Wz2Jcl_oY/edit?usp=sharing

Wilco: Trying to combine Silver Methods with ACT Rules

Wilco: Shares screen ...

Wilco: Worked on updating decorative images methods

Wilco: had rules that were close, which was reason for starting with this one

Wilco: more complicated items will come later

Wilco: tried to work out what a method needs in order to get a score

Wilco: reads what is needed ...

Wilco: illustrates what we're trying to create

Wilco: this particular method turned out to be pretty straight forward

Wilco: notes a summary now within description

Wilco: two additions from ACT rule into method -- explain what must be present before testing

Wilco: also explanation of scope of test -- what's being tested

Wilco: e.g. testing the images aren't actually informative

Wilco: next come examples

Wilco: used ACT examples

Wilco: ACT examples include failing and passing examples

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/image-not-in-acc-tree-is-decorative-e88epe/#test-cases

Wilco: including why pass or fail

Wilco: includes what to do with pass/fail paths

Wilco: notes applicability added to method; also some definitions

Wilco: definitions point into a glossary

+1 about glossary

Wilco: proposing to add section on accessibility support -- things that might not work in all screen readers, browsers, etc; edge cases not considered

Wilco: lastly, new glossary section

wilco: q?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to comment on usability and what aspects that mostly apply to the test tool developers should be in accordions

jeanne: notes that many details could be hidden in expandable structures

<Lauriat> "Note: It is relatively common for an informative image such as an icon to be marked up as decorative, if the text alternative is adjacent to the image. This is a conforming alternative version for the image. This fails the rule but meets conformance requirement 1 of WCAG 2.1."

PeterKorn: curious note about some informative images with alt text adjacent -- that fail --

Wilco: definitely one rule different from methods; something we'll have to sync

Wilco: probably new def of purely decorative; but currently out of scope of what we're trying to achieve

Wilco: trying to make methods more consistently testable

PeterKorn: suggests we might collect what's programatically testable, and what isn't for later examination; this seems one not testable today

<Lauriat> sajkaj: On the glossary, would this fit into a central glossary so all WAI groups would reference?

<ChrisLoiselle> W3C does have https://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/

<Jemma> +1 for consistent reference mechanism

[general approval for global glossary but may still have need for specific glossaries in some situations]

<ChrisLoiselle> Full glossary https://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/All/

<Jemma> and priority in using authorative reference resources

jf: asks about cross referencing

jeanne: also not wanting to replicate same info in multiple locations that could vary because we restate, as opposed to include

<ToddLibby> +1 to JF

jeanne: notes that should be part of info display when we build the Silver db

Wilco: notes that will look at other methods; will this go in August?

jeanne: On AG schedule for the 13th; approval would mean would possibly go to subgroups and moving designs into WD

jeanne: will be a few "to be developed" editor's notes

<Jemma> it would be great if this is using more plain language.

new Method format proposal from joint ACT-Silver group


updated proposal on Third Party content

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

sajkaj: Same link as before, but updated. New section on "What is Third Party Content?"

sajkaj: With sub-heading to clarify that this does not propose to specify exemptions for third party content

sajkaj: So much more third party content on the web today that it makes sense to define third party and what would fall under first party, but overall trying to improve the accessibility of third party content.

sajkaj: Includes a pointer to a page in the Library of Congress that isn't accessible as an example of the many things that can't be made accessible, but as a way of differentiating between what you can and can't do something about.

sajkaj: Lots of notes of explanation to help clarify things, rather than notes that we would want to put into the document itself.

sajkaj: Many examples of third party content documented (author-arranged, user-generated, etc.).

sajkaj: Given the range of quality of the third party content, we cannot require policing all of the content, but we can provide guidance of how to better support and make this content more accessible.

jeanne: Also guidance that belongs in a specific guideline vs. general guidance

sajkaj: We include some additional proposed guidance for alternative text, for instance.

sajkaj: Makoto already includes guidance on authoring tools.

(jeanne, not sajkaj, whoops)

JF: Example of hand-written document?

<ChrisLoiselle> Digitized image archives of content predating the web. Examples of such legacy archives include portions of major national libraries such as the U.S. Library of Congress, the U.K. British Museum, and The Bibliothèque nationale de France Catalogue Général. A specific example is this Image of a handwritten 19th Century document at the U.S. Library of Congress.

<jeanne> https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss26526.002_0866_0888/?st=gallery

sajkaj: Yes, included that example.

<jeanne> A specific example is this Image of a handwritten 19th Century document at the U.S. Library of Congress.

PeterKorn: Process question, I have a collection of small edits, how can we best handle those? Post-survey or now?

jeanne: Post-survey, we already have people answering.

<PeterKorn> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/3rdparty2/

Jemma: Working on content from medical records system, with inaccessible things coming from there. Would that fall under this?

jeanne: Yes, under author-arranged.

PeterKorn: If the hospital takes an x-ray and digitizes it, they have the responsibility, so first party. If one organization gets it from the hospital, then third party content for the organization.

<sarahhorton> brb

jeanne: Another use case example we can document.

sajkaj: For those defining the records format, as well.

jenniferS: An example that came up recently, PDFs considered too laborious to make accessible and the organization considered it a "nice to have".

<Jemma> Jeanne is correct that university is responsible for this case

<Jemma> yes, example of redcap medical record system

jeanne: For organizations who are the consumer of data, we need to establish the producer as responsible.

<Jemma> yes, EPIC is another example

ChrisLoiselle: From a third party vendor, if a doctor produces content within a third party vendor's system, then the system itself would have the responsibility vs. the doctor themselves.

<ChrisLoiselle> agreed, thanks Shawn.

sarahhorton: On the point that it's not an exemption, how does this work exactly in WCAG3?

sajkaj: Trying to make conformance on this point that you've done everything that you can do vs. requiring everything to conform regardless of who produced the content.

sarahhorton: Critical errors?

jeanne: Yes, and we envisioned having third party outcomes as a way of documenting how to handle these cases (old movies without captions which can't have captions for whatever reason, etc.).

<Jemma> can we add EPIC/REDCAP use cases to the third party content?

<Jemma> +1 Sarah

<PeterKorn> (in queue for services example)

sarahhorton: Content vs. services, we don't have services examples, which would help. A third party authentication module used in place of an existing module, which then causes problems.

sajkaj: I don't think that example would conform. Mixes of the two also enter into things.

sarahhorton: An organization that chooses to use third party modules to avoid having to conform, in this case.

jeanne: A really good example that we should document.

sarahhorton: Third party payment gateway as another example, where it doesn't matter to me as a user who has the responsibility.

PeterKorn: When, where, and how is it most effective for WCAG to drive change. If I want to accept a credit card, few credit card processing services exist to use. I may have little ability to drive change and also little ability to create my own alternative.

PeterKorn: The content examples come easily, but the services aspect becomes more difficult.

sarahhorton: Have you tried not addressing services as a part of this?

PeterKorn: Good question.

<JF> Why? Avoidance just kicks the problem down the road

PeterKorn: We could also try addressing it differently. (gives some examples of critical errors in services)

sajkaj: An example I've hit, where some of the service is inaccessible due to images with no alt text, but I still have a way to make it through to the end.

PeterKorn: Maybe alt text guidance could include documenting things acceptable first-vs-third party.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about profiles

<jenniferS> Would it be useful to distinguish by use case, too?

<jenniferS> For example, as the error criteria spells out health, finance, etc.?

jeanne: We could approach it that way and we could also approach it as a profile (from JF's proposal), so we can keep putting responsibility back on the service providers.

<Jemma> + 1 Jeanne

jeanne: In the U.S., today, typically people would bring lawsuits to the organization using the service, rather than the service provider. The organization could have an accessibility statement documenting what they've tried to do to provide an accessible path, pointing to the failures in the service provider.

<Jemma> +1

<PeterKorn> In an A11y Statement, you could imagine: "We canvassed all 3rd party payment processors, and none met a11y requirements"

JF: The concept of profiles hasn't really been fleshed out for everyone in the WG, but the assertions part could also provide a way of handling this.

+1 to JF

PeterKorn: One other thing, third party services can change. Accessible services can become inaccessible (iframe-rendered makes this common).

<JF> +1 to that important wrinkle

jenniferS: And context, like health and finance.

<jeanne> that could be another example of a profile -- health care and finance

PeterKorn: It comes back to how we handle scoring, where maybe regulators could say health care needs to hit this particular level.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say I would rather see profiles with higher standards than different medals

<jeanne> ack

jeanne: I'd rather see this handled with profiles, rather than adding different currencies.

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

jeanne: Subgroup members, please look at plans for the August draft and email me with what you think you'll have for the August draft, with dates so I can get you scheduled for the joint AG WG meetings.

<sarahhorton> - If courts require WCAG compliance, and WCAG compliance can include inaccessible 3rd party content and services, are we undermining its value as a measure of accessibility, and way to prevent exclusion and discrimination?

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


Succeeded: s/exampe/example

Maybe present: ChrisLoiselle