Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

12 Aug 2021


Azlan, Jeanne, PeterKorn, sajkaj, Wilco_

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

Janina: Summary from AG, drop the outcome, add in an editors note saying we'll add something in the future.
… Second item is initial proposal, not ready for review, regarding media conformance.
… Many considerations, from unboxing videos to licensed movies from studios.

Peter: I missed AGWG. What changed?

User Generated Content Followup https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/User_Generated/guidelines/index.html#user-generated-content

Janina: URI goes to the newly revised section. Essentially what we had before. Two changes:
… First is the editors note.

Jeanne: We had a few changes in the meeting that seemed minor. Sentences added to user generated, to distinguish it from hosting sites.

Janina: It's all of 6.2

Jeanne: They did not agree to the outcome. I had the idea of putting in an editors note.
… I did not want it to go out without some specifics. Janina and I came up with the note.
… I talked to the chairs, they want to send the CFC as one package. Because they haven't seen the editors note, it will be sent out today by e-mail. Give a few days to comment, then send out the CFC.

Peter: Looks like there were a few more additions. In steps to conform, I'm accessibility statement in a consistent location.

Janina: Everybody agreed that a link in every post is excessive. It could be in the footer of the page.

Peter: We're applying this not just to websites, but to all products that include user content.

Jeanne: As long as it's in a consistent place.

Peter: A consistent place in the site is different from linked from the page or view.

Jeanne: It may fail CFC if we don't fix it. I think we fix it.

Peter: A few scenarios that would satisfy this. I can't say we can encourage the steps in the reading of the content. Options are either put it at the top of a feed.

Jeanne: We're putting it in the accessibility statement.

Peter: We're saying it is either along side, or in an accessibility statement.
… One way is put it along side the feed. Would that satisfy item 1?
… I think it's better to have it in line, so you don't have to go find the statement.
… Another one, on a product page above the reviews it says "reviews by other buyers". Is that sufficient?

Janina: I would say that it is.

Peter: The second one, it would be burdensome to put along side the content.
… Then how visible does the accessibility statement need to be?

Janina: Suggest "consistently provided"?

Peter: What is the homepage when the homepage is personalised, such as social media?
… Consistent with other products on that site?

Janina: yes

Peter: We're now essentially saying that if you have user generated content, you must have an accessibility statement
… Or identify steps every place it can be seen.

Azlan: What we care about is clear, consistent, and findable. We don't care if it's a link to the page, or if it's duplicated on every location of user content.

Peter: What about in a policy center, 4 links down from the main page. Would that qualify?

Jeanne: I think it would

Peter: consistent feels weird, it is self consistent.

Jeanne: Could we say "such as in the footer or menu"?

Janina: I expect at some point a debate about how deeply buried it can become.

Peter: If we said easily findable we get into measurability challenges

Jeanne: I suspect we'll have a guideline about accessibility statements.
… We can deal with how deeply buried it is.

Peter: We could stop with "published on the site or product".

<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/user-generated-/results

Jeanne: How about "equally discoverable as other policies, such as privacy and terms of service"?

<Azlan> +1

Janina: I like that

Peter: Not sure that satisfied.

Jeanne: If we put it with legal policies, I think that will be fine.
… Might want to ping Laura, see if she'd agree to this.

Peter: Examples can be useful here.

Peter: I'll put it in IRC for Jeanne to capture it later.

<PeterKorn> Changing the first sentence under 6.2.1 Steps to Conform.

Janina: APA spec would provide a way to programatically get to this kind of thing

<PeterKorn> Changing the final phrase from: "then all of the following must be indicated alongside the User Generated Content or in an Accessibility Statement published on the site or product that is linked from the view or page in a consistent location"

Jeanne: We could use this in protocols

<PeterKorn> to become "then all of the following must be indicated alongside the User Generated Content or in an Accessibility Statement published on the site or product similarly situated to other site policies such as privacy, terms of service, etc.""

Janina: APA has a personalisation taskforce. There is a module going to CR.
… data-help attributes allows authors to annotate content.

Peter: This change addresses everything from my end.

Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

Janina: I've tried to cover everything from the directions we've covered.
… Format is fairly similar to what we've talked about.
… There is the concept of user generated, and of legacy, such as hand written archived content.
… There is also copyrighted content, or when it is licensed it might not be met.

Peter: ... reading Media Considerations ...

Peter: I wonder how much we need to do user generated content here.

Janina: There would be something in outcomes for captions, and provide the option to improve the quality of automated captions.

Peter: Putting unboxing here is such a well known example. Might be muddying the water.
… We just discussed user generated content. An example included uploaded video. We haven't said how to make videos conform. We're not doing that in this round.

Janina: I want to keep the concept of user generated, to crosss-link

Peter: What is most important is the media could be from the author, licensed, or user generated.
… Then we're left with licensed media and archived media
… So if it's user generated, see that section.

Wilco: Sounds good to me.

Azlan: Me too

Janina: We don't have a way to support interlinear accessibility.
… Published with hebrew on one line, and under that word-by-word an English translation.

Jeanne: We don't have an accessible solution to that?

Janina: Don't believe we do. We could construct a solve. Wouldn't be an AGWG problem.

Peter: It's an example of a class of media for which their may not be good solutions.

Janina: Sometimes the best you can do is partial.

Peter: I think the battle is around the question of should WCAG be the forcing function, force licensed content to become accessible.
… The concern that, could I just split myself up into two entities, one licensing from the other to get out of it.

Janina: At root, WCAG describes what accessibility looks like. We don't try to prevent people from gaming the system.

Janina: Next steps, should I take another pass?

Jeanne: I think the schema's very useful. Would also like to see a finger pointed, for the license to point back at the video producer for not making their video accessible.

Peter: The schema is a means of doing that. At the guideline level, what are the steps to conform.
… If the content is licensed, point back to the license.

Janina: I think the schema should capture that.

Peter: That's at the technique level.

Janina: We need to say that that needs to be captured.

Jeanne: We could say that the platform for the licensed media is responsible for displaying the metadata for those products.

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


Maybe present: Janina, Peter, Wilco