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
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://
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
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?)
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