Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

09 September 2021


jeanne, JF, PeterKorn, sajkaj, ToddLibby, Wilco

Meeting minutes

<sajkaj> Date 09 Sep 2021

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

<sajkaj> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2021JulSep/0136.html

Janina: Going to talk about media today. We have some implementation of what we started to prototype
… User generated content passed AGWG's CFC. This will be part of the updated draft publication.

Jeanne: Draft will probably be week 3 or 4 of September.

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

Peter: We left last week with an outline, is that still present?

Janina: The outline is subsumed in the document. A lot of it is gone, some of the language is still there.

Peter: ... reading from document.

Peter: For legacy media, one thought was to treat it a bit like building codes.
… When first digitised, or significantly refreshed bring it up to code

Janina: This does not read like a conformance section, but that may not be a bad first outing with AGWG. Maybe a little chatty rather than standard speak shows the concepts. A later version can come back with something more conformance-like.
… Media in publications we have strong allies in EPUB. I think we can point them to thing WCAG can't cover them yet because EPUB hasn't done it yet.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to add requirements to make the media as accessible as possible (media lacking access techniques and to remove the scoring and levels until we have that worked out. Speculation is distracting.

Jeanne: The editors note, in the last paragraph it mentions informing users before access. I think we want to add the phrase "make it as accessible as possible".

<JF> +1 to Jeanne

Jeanne: I would like it if we could remove references to scoring / levels. We shouldn't discuss this until it is worked out.

Peter: ... editing as suggested

Peter: Page saved, any other edits?

JF: In the example, we capitalise "Media". But to the larger issue, it sounds like this is a protocol
… I'd like to leave the door open for protocols for legacy content, or media that has restrictions.
… Rather than come up with specific instance, if we had a global protocol, that could be adopted as the larger solution for conformance.

Peter: We may have a group working on that soon.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to comment on capitalization "...for Media Content. Unless media Content ..."

Janina: We want mechanisms to reward organisations that do more

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to answer as accessible as possible

<PeterKorn> Wilco: we should avoid "as accessible as possible"; AGWG will hit that text as not being specific enough.

<PeterKorn> ... not sure what jeanne was getting at with that. Can have exemptions for specific parts, not an exemption for everything

<PeterKorn> jeanne: thinking in terms of, we have guidelines that will have instructions for what they should do.

<PeterKorn> ... "accessible as possible" was a vague expression. For things like 3D immersive technologies, you can make it a11y for people

<PeterKorn> ... with low vision, for people with hearing disabilities; maybe not for screen reader users.

<PeterKorn> ... won't punish you if there isn't a way to make a11y for screen reader users.

<PeterKorn> ... you must follow the specific guidelines

<PeterKorn> Wilco: e.g. interliner text needs to meet color:contrast

JF: Specifics steps to conform does not yet have specific steps.
… Bringing it up to code is not a step. I get this is a strawman, but the approach may not be right.

<sajkaj> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2021JulSep/0204.html

Peter: Maybe the heading should be "Treatments by media types". It's what is special about legacy vs common.

JF: Yes, that goes a long way.

Peter: The steps aren't so much specific as they are not common.

Janina: We did guidelines specifics for user generated.
… We have different points to make, we're collecting a list of categories we may need guidelines for when relevant.
… This is a structural thing we're pushing off on the WCAG schema.

JF: For retitiling the section, maybe the term "objectives". Perhaps this section could be Conformance objectives by content type
… Replace "specific steps to conform" with "conformance objectives"
… They are not steps, they are objectives.

Peter: The stuff in brackets is short-hand for steps we want to replace them with

Peter: Let me take a stab at media; Step 1. upon digitisation use all the broadly available techniques.
… Step 2. When updating the media, add audio description.

JF: I agree with the process, but to what is described here is a process


Janina: The requirements are what can be applied today.

<PeterKorn> Wilco: maybe "expectations" works here, also "outcomes"

Peter: It does not feel strict, but I don't have a strong opinion on the adverb

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to suggest expectations

Todd: I'm good with objectives

Peter: I propose we take this to AGWG a week from Tuesday.
… We'll make clear we are looking for directional feedback.

Jeanne: I don't think we'll be able to get on the agenda of the 21st
… I can put it on the Silver agenda

Janina: I want to get responses on the chattiness. Can we be chattier on first-round explanation

Peter: I think some of it is unhelpful


Wilco: Agreed, we can do it in notes, probably best not to in expected normative content

JF: The "We" statements could be made as editors notes. We have at least one editors note that does not stand out.
… Some of the commentary, I wonder if in the wiki we can call it out more
… As we get it to share more widely, there would be a value to that.

Janina: We should not have too many editors notes.
… In common steps, do we put it on web publisher, or facilitate users to complain

Peter: Really don't know. Part is to shift the responsibility where it belongs.
… Indicating who the copyright holder is may be a problem, I want to be thoughtful about that.

Janina: If you have a copyright, you will declare it.

JF: Would depend on the license agreement, I don't know enough about that. Copyright holders can be different in different areas.
… So pointing to one copyright holder is an internationalisation issue.

Peter: It is potentially multiple publishers, depending on the domain.

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


Maybe present: Janina, Peter, Todd