Meeting minutes
Date 02 Sep 2021
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations
<sajkaj> JeanNotes an objection to UgC at github above
User Generated Content
Comments on User Generated Github link
<sajkaj> jeanne: Most comments are editorial
<sajkaj> jeanne: Rephrasing to make clearer, minor typos
<sajkaj> jeanne: Also proposed edit for "Accessibility Statement or help documentation"
[jeanne reads] then all of the following must be indicated - either alongside the User Generated Content, or in a separate Accessibility Statement or similar help/documentation, with a consistently located link from the page or view where the User Generated Content is present"
<sajkaj> PeterKorn: So it's "can you live with it for this draft"
PK: I like it, but not at the moment
<sajkaj> PeterKorn: Notes we're accepting a good deal of the proposed edits
Other Business
Jeanne: I agree. Most of his changes are editorial and I think we can accept them without it going back to AGWG for further conversation. I want to postpone the "or simililar help/documentation" beccause it is substantial. Although I also like and agree with it.
Resolution: We agree with the proposed changes to the UGC objection, except that we want to address the substantial change in the next draft.
Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations
Janina: It is shorter and I expect there are some discussion points that I have questions about.
[Peter reads] Media Considerations https://
<sajkaj> [Peter reads current Media Considerations draft]
PK: This feels verbose and "in the weeds" to me.
Janina: I agree that things can be tightened up
… there are a range of concepts that I want to preserve and lay out.
… I like the table of contents, for example
… it is a lot closer than we were at last week.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest removing some of the examples that do not illustrate the point we are trying to make
PK: We need to have examples for a range of content. We could just have digitized content including...
… we have these different types of media
… we see them in 3 different groupings
… legacy media
… give the range of legacy
… contemporanious
<sajkaj> PeterKorn: give range of legacy, contemporaneous, and grouping that cuts across both
PK: content for which the website hosting has limited rights
… that's all we need in the first section
KD: I think we need examples, but they need to be "on-point" and good
PK: I am adding "Types of Content"
… and adding an example of each
Jeanne: I think we should not use the example of Dead Sea Scrolls, because that is an example of where the Scrolls were made accessible.
PK: I think that it is useful for illustrating the large number of inaccessible media
<sajkaj> PeterKorn: couldn't be made accessible at the time of creation; and may be too voluminous to do so today
PK: what is important is that the legacy media was created before there was the ability to make it accessible
<sajkaj> KimD: agrees
Jeanne: I think it needs to be time of digitization rather than the creation
PK: It is inexpensive to put a photo of text handwriting, but expensive to OCR
Jeanne: I think the the time of digitization is critical, because we don't want to say that old items are exempt just because they are old. However, if they are digitized before the captions or description were prevalent, then they should be exempt.
PK: I don't think I agree. I think that the expense of making it accessible is a factor we have to consider.
Janina: I think we also have to consider the lyrics of vocals of songs need to be considered
PK: Revised the table of contents
[PK reads the Other Considerations]
PK: I think there is a difference between legacy and lack of rights.
… should we vary the scoring by the amount of accessibility done
Janina: I think it is important to give the metadata and point to the owner of the media
… that cuts across all the buckets
KP: There are agreements like partnerships where that wouldn't work.
… for exaample two companies may want to present it under its own brand and not say which comes from company A vs company B
PK: Then people can say "I will approach "Brand" and ask them to make it accessible"
Janina: We will consider that to be useful.
KP: I think there will be legal pushback to that ideaa
PK: We want to say "Who is the responsible party?" and shift responsibility to that party.
PK: We have a lot of training videos from a number of third party companies, and some that we license
… media for corporate consumption is an interesting corner case.
KP: what about media displayed on a CMS where they would not want the CMS identified as a separate entity
PK: Then you would assume responsibility for the accessibility
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest we move Other Considerations as another category of Type of Media and to university videos
<sajkaj> jeanne: move other consider up as another type
<sajkaj> jeanne: second needs to be considered more carefully, e.g. university library of videos
<sajkaj> jeanne: in the u.s. have to be accessible, even legacy
<sajkaj> PeterKorn: legacy whether or owned or not
<sajkaj> jeanne: issue is what it's used for
<sajkaj> jeanne: pwd needs to complete a course and get a grade; complete a degree
<sajkaj> jeanne: different from renting a video and knowing a11y up front
<sajkaj> kim: ed is fundamental right; but entertainment isn't
KD: Education is a fundamental right, where entertainment is not.
PK: Is the right path to say that WCAG3 sets things out and the law exceeds them, or WCAG3 sets things out and the law is less than them
… The Ontarians with Disabilities specifically excludes commercial sites from captions and descriptions while government sites are not exempted
Janina: we are likely to see both around the planet.
… I think accessibility is a reasonable set of expectations and conformance
KD: We set out what Janina suggests, and every jurisdiction around the globe deals with that