Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

22 Jul 2021


Azlan, Bryan, Jeanne, JF, KimD, PeterKorn, sajkaj, ToddLibby

Meeting minutes

<ToddLibby> I’m irc only for a bit.

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

SJ: simple agenda, pick up from last time

goal from last week was to proposed something for "licensed media"

but so far we remain focused on "user-generated" - will present to the larger group (AG WG) on Aug. 3rd
… JS and a few others met with Makoto, who has a take-away task

<sajkaj> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2021Jul/0048.html

User Generated https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/User_Generated_Content

PK: had a thought: "Limited Rights" as opposed to "licensed media"

JS: agree, currently soliciting ideas and suggestions

Jeanne: sounds a tad legal, but a good start

JS: agreed, even though that is the precise issue we are trying to resolve

PK: we can iterate on that - maybe "Limited Authority"?

JF: brings up EARL as a possible piece of the puzzle for Limited (TBD)
… to keep with that discussion

JS: overview of changes: rewritten editors not at top
… multiple versions. Hoping this is clearer now
… don't consider it finished, but hope it brings clarity
… majority of tweaks are above definition(s). W@as seeking 'plain language' explanations
… a few additional edits in the mid-section

@Kim https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/User_Generated_Content

JS: no changes to use-cases

PK: noted there was an HTML typo - made a fix

Jeanne: are we planning to have a github pull request for this? for next week?

<PeterKorn> +1 to that idea Jeanne

JS: do not believe next week is target date - target is for Aug 3

Jeanne: will need to be done before then

JS: we can create pull requests, but is still incomplete. Waiting on specific language from Makoto's group
… we also need to ensure that this is all clear: is the document layout clear, definitions. etc?
… We probably have most of that, but may need more questions.

PK: [reads aloud the content - section for reviewers]
… covered the "Editor's Note" section

Jeanne: asking about a crosslink with FB - who is responsible?

PK: we've been kicking this around

JS: in section above Editor's note

<PeterKorn> "User Generated Content is provided for publication by visitors where the content platform specifically welcomes and encourages it. Any content provided by employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers of the publisher is not User Generated content.

<PeterKorn> "Similarly, content created by publishers on social media platforms, or on behalf of publishers on platforms such as social media (or other crowd sourced platforms), is also not User Generated content"

JS: the point of that section is to 'rope off' what is or isn't in scope

PK: that last section is where I have concerns

Jeanne: should that only be in editor's note, or elsewhere

PK: would prefer to ONLY see in editor's note
… also don't see clarity in that topic... it's outside of the note, but do not see it clearly in definitions.
… we also should not be defining what social media platforms can or cannot do

JS: we are planning on doing that guideline by guideline

PK: would prefer to leave it open for public feedback

PK: as mentioned last week.. this is a potential hole. If company ONLY has a social media presence we do not want commercial content to be excluded

JS: there was talk of that appearng in seperate guidance

PK: not sure we had agreement. Issue is defining who is authorized (and when) to be "official spokesperson" versus private citizen

JF: don't see how anyone could enforce those distincitons

PK: also, where to define the company sponsored sub-set (if company retweets somebody else's content...)
… don't think we should go down that road. The other concern is what we want - the bulk of comments - is on the overall proposal

but this Editor's Note is drawing all the attention

JS: seems there are w 2 questions: corporate responsibility (who and when), and then the "hosting platform's responsability"

PK: we spend a fair bit of time with that already - but that then leads to the current issue

PK: the concern is understood, but believes we are drilling in too deep - we have guidance at this time

BT: if someone uploads a video with flashing (critical error) - who should be responsable?

JS: that should be able to be tested for

PK: we do have something there - in discussions with Makoto. Part of the responsibilities is that you also need to be advising the user on parameters
… and using tools (AI, etc.) to help ameliorate those issues

JS: in Steps to Conform section

[discussion - may have lost some content]

PK: to the larger question, we do speak to that generally [JF: did?]

BT: do we look at the severity level as well? We can't solve everything, but based on severity should we focus on that?

PK: we note that until we have a new scoring proposal we will have to wait

PK & JS: looking at versions of previous editions - will need to do some cleanup

PK: is there disagreement with suggesting that this is too big of a 'can of worms'?

and that we will need to come back with guidance there?

JS: inclined that we want to say 'something' (but not too much). Goal is to solicit comments. There is a balance that needs to be met

we also had a note that hosting platforms need to do some of the lifting there

[discussion on how far we can 'push' platforms]

JF: is it (will it be) a MUST, SHOULD, or MAY?

JF: affordance versus quality issue

KD: don't want to go down a rabbit hole, but anticipates question tp define

what is 'social media'

we have platforms/tools that allows for hosting of content (legal evidence for example) that isn't 'social' but it is 'user generated'

Jeanne: believe we had made that distinction

KD: hope for that. But google definitions muddy the water. So do we need to more carefully define "social media" in this situation

PK: believes defining social media is a rat-hole. Believes that key sentence is the one that focuses on "who" the contributor is
… the distinction being the ability to add content is not "public' - requires some kind of authorization

PK: but hearing that we need to do more work on the wiki page. Hoping for draft from Makoto, and also to address more clearly the questions raised at AG WG

<PeterKorn> "Key question: how to treat content submitted by representatives of a company via the user-generated contribution mechanisms of a site."

JF: wonders if providing an example (e.g. social media marketing role in an Org)

[discussion about roles - and how this is a fundamental question]

Jeanne: one of the concerns raised in AG WG...

JS: is this a legal question of a WCAG question

KD: if a post says "Thomson Reuters" that's pretty clear, but if it doesn't then...

JS: want to get higher quality alt texts, but the second question really is about "community groups"

<PeterKorn> "We seek feedback on how to treat content submitted by organizations via the entry-points for user-generated contributions to a site (e.g., official contributions to the social media presence of an organization), as well as content contributed by someone who is member of an organization where the contribution relates in some way to that organization (e.g. an employee of an entertainment company replying to post by a fan on an unofficia[CUT]

<PeterKorn> "work for that entertainment company)"

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


Succeeded: s/Editor's not/Editor's note

Maybe present: BT, JS, KD, PK, SJ