Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
JS: only one item: respond and refine our proposed additions to the WCAG 3 WD
… based on discussions from Tuesday's AG call
… mostly wordsmithing
… some additional points in the survey
<jeanne2> survey
JS: goal to fix the text and hopefully make it into the next heartbeat. But deadline for that is today
JS: plan to be ready for next Tuesday's AG call with editorial changes for review with the larger group
Jeanne: chairs are upbeat - recognize substantial progress, recognizes ongong minor issues
JS: note that we are sometimes loose with our terminology (authors, publishers, etc.)
… thinks this may be a problem
[JS: cites example of United Airlines on Facebook - who is "publisher"? UA or FB?
Jeanne: would like to stick to the suggestions from the survey first - otherwise definitions may be a distraction
… proposes we add editor notes where we believe definitions are required
PK: agree with Jeanne - bigg issue that likely requires public comment
… but another related question is about Editor's Notes
Jeanne: can we defer that for now?
JS: this is under discussion - propose to point out Editor's Notes issue in email
User Generated Content PRs Redux
JS: taking up editorial changes that will be reflected in our wiki/draft text
Discussion: use of "repair" - looking at definition in ATAG
PK: to be methodical, should we be doing this via the survey responses to ensure we don't miss anything?
… looking at survey feedback - [PK reads aloud]
PK: notes that many of Gundala's comments are related to English language grammar
Jeanne: reviews current edits based on feedback
JF: wonders why we are calling out AT
[agreement to remove]
<PeterKorn> "The site or product provides a mechanism for users to contribute text alternatives for user generated non-text content that is available via user agents. "
<PeterKorn> The site or product provides a mechanism for users to contribute or modify text alternatives for their user generated non-text content that is available. If the content is user generated content, then a text alternative mechanism for non-text content is available
PK: asks that we avoid Social media at this time
<PeterKorn> • Provides functionality to users for adding text alternatives for their non-text content
<PeterKorn> • Provides functionality to users for modifying text alternatives for their non-text content
discussion about scoping this to "images Only" with a recognition that there are other forms of non-text content (i.e. multi-media)
Draft RESOLUTION: add a note that this is an example for images, that other content-types will require alternative solutions
<PeterKorn> "Note: How the specific details of this outcome will be managed and what is required vs what is recommended still needs discussion. This is an example of how an outcome could be used with user generated images. "
KD: we already have a note, can we just be a bit more specific in that note?
+1
<jeanne2> This is an example outcome to demonstrate how we can include specific instructions for handling user generated content in the general category of images and graphics. More outcomes with other advice will be in future drafts.
<KimD> +1 to moving note up
<PeterKorn> "• Provides functionality to check and flag if generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g. the file name, file format) are being supplied as text alternatives"
<PeterKorn> "• Provides proposed text alternatives to user generated content (e.g. using computer vision, machine learning, or other automated techniques)"
Jeanne: can we hold off on new content - will make it more diffiuclt to advance this
How about "In the case of image re-use, the user agent will propose to re-use the original text alternative from previous usage"
<PeterKorn> • In the case when the same image is re-used, offers the user their provided text alternative for that image
<KimD> +1
<jeanne2> In the case when the same image is re-used, offers the user the previously provided text alternative for that image
Wilco: had a concern that invoking ATAG is not part of our current charter. Jeanne will provide a note
PK: that covers the first survey question. The second question was not discussed in the AG call
[PK reads aloud]
<jeanne2> Note for ATAG and charter: In the current WCAG3 charter scope, we recommended to exclude normative outcomes for authoring tools and user agents. That makes this example outside the current scope of WCAG3. We are including this example to get public feedback whether we should include normative requirements for authoring tools and user agents.
[discussion around 'volunteers' versus 'recognized' status in forums, etc.]
PK: suspect this requires more feedback/input
JS: add this to the request for feedback note
<PeterKorn> User Generated Content is provided for publication by visitors where the content platform specifically welcomes and encourages it. User-generated content is content that is submitted through a user interface designed specifically for members of the public and customers. Use of the same user interface as an authoring tool for publication of content by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) <st[CUT]
[reviewing Wilco's comments - vague language]
WF: how do we measure that? How do we test?
PK: suggest that for a while, this will never be needed to hit a 'bar' - we've discussed this prior
[discussion around future-tech]
WF: feels too generic (using AI) - may want to move that to individual outcomes
decision to drop text that Wilco had concerns about