Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

26 Aug 2021


Jeanne, JF, KimD, MichaelC, pkorn, sajkaj
Azlan_Cuttilan, Bruce_Bailey, Bryan_Trogdon, Todd_Libby

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

saj: Moving forward with working draft mid-Sept; no alt-text example

saj: Conformance needs to be a focus - we have work to do

Jeanne: CFCs coming

saj: Watch email for CFCs this week or early next week

saj: User-generated is probably good.

saj: Agenda review

Jeanne: for "what's next" - glossary or protocols

Jeanne: for Protocols - flesh out presentation from JF (people could get points for implementing "other" W3C spec

Jeanne: such as "content usable" etc. Get "credit" for doing more

Jeanne: incorporate things that are important to a11y but needs more work to flesh it out.

JF: another Protocol is plainlanguage.gov which gives us a resource

JF: gives outcomes & objectives. Entity could adopt.

JF: helps frame objective decisions

pkorn: if we look outside web context, would a11y features like reading aid be considered?

pkorn: would you get points for those?


sajkaj: Asks MC if this would like FPC?

sajkaj: how deep do we go?

MC: we are interested on the needs, not how they're met

sajkaj: Other groups (APA) might have some work

MC: maybe some items for TPAC

sajkaj: Maybe a session on FAST?

Jeanne: maybe, but not really a requirement to understand protcols

Jeanne: we can review existing protocols first, like Content Usable

Wilco: Is there something about FAST?

<MichaelC> Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies

<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/

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

JF: In presentation, thinking about Moodle testing protocol, etc.

JF: Entities could publish a "custom" protocol based on publicly accessible protocol

JF: Gives legal realm something to measure web

<JF> the "courts of law" example was strawman and illustrative

Peter: Protocols: focus on courts of law may be outside our remit

Peter: future conversation ok, let's get back to agenda

<JF> @Peter: My presentation was produced as a MSFT PowerPoint dck, which I have uploaded to here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAQSPv1bGuUAlhO41rPkkfrlijF2uzmF/view?usp=sharing

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

sajkaj: New content towards bottom.

Peter: not sure what is new - are we looking at diff flavors of media?

saj: one type of media is intra-linear media (?)

Peter: Media types: newly created; library of content (historical too - pre a11y considerations); intermediary for 3d party media

Peter: look each at each - may need sep reviews

Peter: CVAA - legal driver, if broadcast after caption date requirement, needs captions.

Peter: Not true for audio description real

Peter: So 3d party vendors don't have audio descriptions and 3d party may have modified slightly

Peter: and audio descriptions don't fully conform

Peter: bigger issue: what to do about a11y content failures

Peter: "author arranged media" content conformance - doesn't capture which bucket of media it is.

Peter: massive variation in costs for remediation

saj: something under Steps to Conform

Peter: Do broad media cats make sense?

1. Newly created (in the era of tech for closed captions exist)

Peter: 2. Historical content (pre-dates CC or audio descriptions)

Peter: 3. Distributed by 3d party

Wilco: seems like same ideas we've been working with

Wilco: seems to line up

Peter: historical is a flavor of 3d party

Peter: historical/archive hasn't been reviewed by us

Jeanne: Breakdown makes sense

Wilco: agree

Peter: We need to flesh out. What's the responsibility when you're a 3d party and have archival content?
… requirement to remediate?

Jeanne: We talked about months ago. Could be addressed by time.
… Giving people the ability to make something specific accessible within a certain amount of time.
… make it available after request

Peter: what's a reasonable rate?

Jeanne: It depends; needs a lot of work

Peter: Maybe media for which we don't have good access today is its own category.
… street view of Google Maps, 3D walkthrough of a house, etc.

saj: can't make accessible for everyone

Wilco: It's not a category, we just wouldn't have requirements (yet?)

Peter: agree

saj: agree, and may cut across different user groups

Peter: Do we want to call out in WCAG3?

saj: Do we need this in the doc - diff headings, etc.

saj: we can add or reformat

Peter: Archival and "upon request" - seems right
… new should be more accessible
… remaining one to discuss is 3d-party

JF: Protocols: might help this too
… example: entity publishing things; we will make things available w/in x number of days, etc.

Wilco: WCAG2 doesn't always incorporate/update with new tech or spec
… If tech didn't exist at time of content, but does now, do we need to address?

Peter: look backwards and forward

saj: Methods can continually update

Jeanne: Let's be thoughtful/careful about adopting protocols.
… might be easy to game
… need to close lots of loop hole
… focus first on things that we know are established standards

sajkaj: process implications about entity protocols
… is it normative? When? How?

Peter: In plan to look at protcols, can we come back to rest
… We worked on 3d-pary and did some work.
… Can we develop something more focused that might pass consensus?

saj: Draft has idea that not everyone has authority to make changes to remediate
… have to let users know what's available
… would that fly?

Peter: asks MC

Peter: looking at where responsibility belongs
… author who holds (c) and doesn't remediate is the problem
… since laws are relatively new, 3d party who offers old content - what's the responsibility?

MC: Example: Video if legal, there is a responsibility to add captions, etc.
… If (c) owners refuse, then content providers may not be able to use
… library of videos might be an issue

Peter: WCAG removed from section 255.

saj: More accessible version may exist, but vendor may not make it accessible

saj: pass-through isn't there

Peter: Intersection between archive and new
… things that were made for broadcast TV could be pre-audio discription laws
… none audio-described at the time, 255 not required to be described
… should WCAG require description?

MC: should set out a11y requirements
… we don't want to make things unavailable
… because they're not accessible

Peter: We're not saying if something is NOT accessible, we're saying what you have to do
… we're setting out requirements

MC: Makes sense
… however, even lowest conformance level is likely to require cc

saj: if you can't - identify the entity that's blocking

Peter: every minute 50 hours are uploaded to YouTube; requires a min staff of a million

MC: this is addressed in requirement
… if impossible or nearly, that's harder

Peter: setting out minimal requirements

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


Maybe present: MC, Peter, saj, Wilco