15:40:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:40:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-irc
15:40:55 <sajkaj> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:41:01 <sajkaj> Date: 23 Sep 2021
15:41:05 <sajkaj> Chair: sajkaj
15:41:10 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make log public
15:44:11 <sajkaj> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:44:11 <sajkaj> agenda+ Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations
15:44:14 <sajkaj> agenda+ Next Topic Discussion
15:44:16 <sajkaj> agenda+ Other Business
15:44:19 <sajkaj> agenda+ Be Done
15:49:52 <sajkaj> present+
15:50:00 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make minutes
15:50:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj
15:51:59 <sajkaj> regrets: Kim_Dirks
15:58:56 <PeterKorn> PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
15:59:21 <JF> JF has joined #silver-conf
15:59:29 <JF> Present+
16:00:32 <PeterKorn> present+
16:00:38 <sajkaj> present+
16:00:54 <MichaelC> present+
16:01:08 <sajkaj> present+ Jeanne
16:01:43 <JF> scribe: JF
16:01:48 <JF> agenda?
16:02:01 <JF> zakim, take up item 1
16:02:01 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:02:38 <JF> JS: if a second person offers to scribe, be sure to indicate scribe change
16:03:11 <JF> JS: planning for Tuesday's call. Peter has made some minor editorial edits that should be discussed
16:03:23 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver-conf
16:03:37 <JF> beyond what we dow with media, we should start to think about "what comes next"?
16:03:44 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #silver-conf
16:03:49 <Azlan> present+
16:03:51 <JF> JS: no other announcements
16:03:56 <JF> zakim, next item
16:03:56 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:04:02 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver-conf
16:04:11 <JF> JS: made a minor tweak at top of doc
16:04:52 <JF> Proposing a minor edit to remove "at times" to make it clearer and simpler
16:05:07 <JF> PK: reads text aloud
16:05:40 <JF> PK: seems clear to me
16:05:59 <JF> PK: made some edit changes based on feedback from JF
16:06:16 <JF> will read first edit, then re-read the larger piece
16:06:36 <JF> [PK reads aloud]
16:06:42 <sajkaj> q+
16:07:01 <JF> PK: JF also suggests replacing "guidelines" with "requirements"
16:07:34 <JF> PK: no real opinion here, but recalls Jeanne suggesting guidelines here
16:07:44 <Wilco_> q+
16:08:19 <sajkaj> q?
16:08:21 <Azlan> q+
16:08:22 <JF> Jeanne: OK with the first guidance into requirements, but not sure if we want to change all of them
16:08:25 <JF> Q+
16:09:52 <JF> JF: explains nuance of his thinking
16:10:26 <Wilco_> q-
16:10:33 <Wilco_> I'll just +1 what Jeanne's saying
16:10:57 <JF> Jeanne: concerned about confusion between "requirements" and "guidelines"
16:11:11 <JF> JS: +1, wanted to comment on similar topic
16:11:26 <JF> JS: also don't think this is our remit here
16:11:42 <JF> JS: redefining terms is a higher-order work item
16:12:32 <JF> JS: also struggling with "finalized"
16:12:42 <JF> not sure if we even need that
16:12:52 <JF> if we do add, will need to make other edits
16:13:20 <jeanne> +1 to created
16:13:26 <JF> JF: would changing "finalized" to "not yet created" (or similar)
16:13:48 <JF> JS: yes, but then that would require other edits
16:14:01 <JF> PK: based on feedback, will reread the proposed edit
16:14:37 <JF> [wordsmithing]
16:15:39 <JF> JF: WFM
16:15:47 <sajkaj> q?
16:15:53 <JF> ack me
16:16:09 <JF> PK: one of the next things to discuss is metadata
16:16:10 <Azlan> q-
16:16:14 <JF> JS: yes
16:16:33 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:16:37 <sajkaj> ack wil
16:16:40 <sajkaj> ack asl
16:17:00 <PeterKorn> q+
16:17:22 <JF> JS: we are increasingly convincing ourselves for the need for metadata above and beyond this. References ePUB work
16:18:03 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf
16:18:04 <JF> JS: there is a scheduled meeting for TPAC between APA and ePub where this is to be discussed. Thinks that Silver should be there too
16:18:24 <ToddLibby> present+
16:18:44 <JF> JS: will lock in a date and time with ePub, Silver and APA joint chat.
16:19:17 <JF> JS: want to understand current W3C position on multiple topics related to metadata
16:19:55 <JF> JS: when we start on that, may want to start with a wiki page to collect thoughts and ideas
16:19:55 <sajkaj> q?
16:20:11 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:20:13 <JF> PK: would love to get to our specific document and metadata
16:20:48 <JF> ... my concern about saying more at this time... the details will be in the specific guidelines/methods
16:20:53 <JF> Q+
16:21:10 <jeanne> q+ to speak for referencing other outside work
16:21:17 <JF> PK: feel like trying to define what the metadata must look like will vary based on content type
16:21:17 <sajkaj> q?
16:21:29 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:22:00 <sajkaj> q?
16:22:13 <Wilco_> q+
16:22:15 <sajkaj> ack jeanne
16:22:15 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to speak for referencing other outside work
16:22:24 <sajkaj> q?
16:22:31 <sajkaj> ack wil
16:22:36 <JF> JF: either be more specific, or add an Editor's Note that notes 'metadata' is TBD
16:22:38 <sajkaj> q+
16:22:50 <PeterKorn> +1 to the idea of an Editor's Note
16:23:22 <sajkaj> ack wil
16:23:24 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:23:25 <JF> JS: we should have some kind of write-up to explain the risk
16:23:26 <sajkaj> q?
16:23:58 <sajkaj> q?
16:24:08 <JF> PK: Like the idea of an Editor's Note. Also warm to the idea to stating "we believe the methods could be specific", but feel we should leave open room for alternatives
16:24:19 <JF> JS: far more comfortable with Editor's NOte
16:24:38 <JF> Q+ to propose Editor Note
16:24:41 <sajkaj> q?
16:24:45 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:24:45 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to propose Editor Note
16:25:17 <PeterKorn> q+
16:25:21 <JF> JF: offers to draft Editor's Note
16:25:46 <JF> JS: we had an editors note before, but concerned about adding confusion when we bring to AGWG
16:26:02 <sajkaj> q?
16:26:03 <PeterKorn> I have a proposal: "We seek comments on the types and ways of using metadata for conveying to users and also programmatically what the accessible features can be part of the media, and which are contained within this specific media."
16:26:32 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:27:37 <sajkaj> q?
16:27:39 <JF> JS: needs some minor wordsmithing, but agrees in principle
16:27:57 <PeterKorn> We seek comments on the types and ways of using metadata for conveying to users and also programmatically what the possible accessible features can be in the given media, and which are contained within this specific media.
16:28:42 <sajkaj> q?
16:28:47 <JF> JS: seems we have broad agreement. More wordsmithing may be required
16:29:02 <JF> PK: think this is the last item
16:30:20 <jeanne> q+ to move to  github
16:30:21 <sajkaj> q?
16:30:21 <JF> PK: are we ready to survey (to add to next working draft)?
16:30:47 <JF> but feels like we are "survey-ready"
16:30:53 <sajkaj> ack jea
16:30:53 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to move to  github
16:31:16 <JF> Jeanne: move to github, put in branch, and then we are ready when AGWG is ready for us
16:31:46 <JF> JS: what I am hearing is don't rush survey item-by-item
16:32:08 <JF> MC: have discovered that a walk-through before survey minimizes churn
16:32:19 <PeterKorn> q?
16:32:38 <JF> [discussion around when to survey]
16:33:24 <JF> JS: suggest to remove "techniques" with "methods"
16:33:37 <JF> MC: notes difference between upper and lower case notation
16:34:07 <JF> Jeanne: yes, make the changes as part of moving to git-hub
16:34:25 <sajkaj> q?
16:34:31 <JF> JF: make changes before survey
16:34:41 <JF> [broad agreement]
16:35:51 <JF> PK: so you are proposing a summary of changes as part of the survey langugae
16:35:55 <JF> JS: yes
16:36:01 <sajkaj> q?
16:36:10 <JF> zakim, next item
16:36:10 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Next Topic Discussion -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:36:14 <PeterKorn> q+
16:36:36 <JF> JS: what should we look at next? We have a number of potential next items
16:37:15 <JF> ...including some glossary definitions. May not go anywhere, but worth a stab?
16:37:29 <sajkaj> q?
16:37:34 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:37:40 <JF> JS: thinks this may be 'easy' but of value - relates to other WAI work happening
16:37:43 <jeanne> q+ to say requests from chairs
16:37:48 <PeterKorn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
16:38:21 <sajkaj> q+
16:38:22 <JF> PK: sense now is we are pretty much done about 3rd party, outside of methods and guidelines
16:38:38 <JF> but what about inter-mixed content?
16:39:18 <JF> JS: perhaps a page that collects edge and corner-cases?
16:39:34 <JF> PK: suggest we chew on a 'next big thing'
16:39:43 <PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/#Challenge-1
16:39:44 <JF> Q?
16:40:03 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:40:15 <JF> [PK reads out potential other next topics]
16:40:44 <sajkaj> ack jea
16:40:44 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say requests from chairs
16:40:49 <JF> PK: suggest we look at one of the open items on that page
16:40:51 <jeanne> The chairs have asked for: Clarifying Paths and Process, Representative sampling, Reporting Conformance
16:40:59 <jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fvj3M0RS-U_A66UGaYfCgHVTOvOJ9j1NOOpK4Ufar5Q/edit#
16:41:26 <sajkaj> q?
16:41:42 <JF> Jeanne: may have a convergence, but notes that chairs have requested clarifying tasks and processes, representative sampling, and third is reporting conformance
16:41:47 <sajkaj> q?
16:42:24 <JF> WF: wanted to ask about the reporting thing
16:42:47 <sajkaj> q+
16:42:47 <JF> Jeanne: comes from an issue that JF has raised multiple times.
16:42:52 <JF> Q+
16:43:01 <PeterKorn> +1 to digging into the meaty topic of conformance reporting
16:43:19 <JF> Jeanne: it's a meaty topic, but also complex and potentially political
16:43:23 <PeterKorn> And I would love to start doing that work by way of use cases.
16:43:28 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:43:30 <Wilco_> q+
16:43:55 <JF> JS: like this. has some ideas there - W3C hosted form
16:44:13 <JF> Jeanne: no, W3C is not interested in hosting a tool for that
16:44:25 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:44:45 <sajkaj> q+
16:44:58 <PeterKorn> q+
16:46:09 <jeanne> q+ to say that reporting conformance is too early to do next -- we don't know what the conformance looks  like. We could do it, but later
16:46:16 <sajkaj> ack wil
16:46:43 <JF> WF: conformance claim section is already part of WCAG 2
16:46:58 <JF> W3C *has* a form like that
16:47:12 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:47:25 <JF> Jeanne: the current tool doesn't 'store' the data
16:47:31 <JF> PK: not surprised at that
16:47:51 <sajkaj> ack jea
16:47:51 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that reporting conformance is too early to do next -- we don't know what the conformance looks  like. We could do it, but later
16:47:53 <JF> JS: so wilco are you suggesting an expansion of what is in WCASG 2.x?
16:47:58 <JF> WF: yes
16:48:00 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:48:08 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:48:34 <JF> PK: like the idea of digging into this. But concerned about how quickly suggestions are being proposed.
16:48:46 <Wilco_> +1
16:48:51 <sajkaj> q?
16:49:03 <JF> suggest we take a more methodical approach, similar to how we did the challenges for 3rd party content
16:49:07 <JF> +1 to Peter
16:49:19 <ToddLibby> +1
16:49:28 <Azlan> +1
16:49:28 <sajkaj> ack jea
16:49:32 <Wilco_> q+
16:49:47 <JF> Jeanne: thinks that we put this on our list, but it may be too early to do it
16:49:50 <PeterKorn> q+
16:50:03 <JF> ...until we have a better idea of what the group wants re: conformance
16:50:28 <JF> but working on scalability and use-cases would be useful activity
16:50:32 <sajkaj> ack wil
16:51:02 <JF> WF: agree, thinks that reporting should not be an early topic
16:51:25 <JF> PK: going to disagree a bit - think we can do both at the same time
16:51:30 <sajkaj> q?
16:51:33 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:51:35 <JF> JF: disagrees with assertion
16:52:14 <sajkaj> q?
16:52:18 <JF> PK: looking at challenges will give us some useful insights - once we have a proposed solution we can contrast it against that work
16:52:43 <JF> PK: think we can make progress from a use-case approach
16:52:57 <JF> JS: what I am hearing is let's start looking at usecases
16:53:00 <PeterKorn> I would say "Use cases for scaling"
16:53:25 <sajkaj> q?
16:53:30 <JF> PK: use-cases for scaling, which includes sampling and reporting
16:53:43 <JF> PK: last time we started a Google doc and worked there
16:54:02 <sajkaj> q?
16:54:09 <JF> PK: do we think that was a good path to adopt here, or is there a better way?
16:54:20 <JF> ...thinks what we did last time worked fine
16:54:44 <JF> JS: struggles with Google docs, but the overall work flow worked
16:54:54 <JF> Jeanne: why not just do it in a wiki?
16:55:43 <JF> PK: whatever tool we use, thinks the process we used (not an editing free-for-all) was the more important aspect
16:56:20 <JF> ...the other thing with the google-docs approach is the ability to leave comments on the side
16:56:30 <sajkaj> q?
16:56:31 <JF> which was quite useful
16:57:15 <JF> PK: captures concerns asynchronously
16:57:39 <JF> JS: notes that we didn't really use that mechanism in the past - issues with SR and other AT
16:58:45 <JF> WF: has a preference for Goog docs
16:59:10 <PeterKorn> +1 to Google Docs
16:59:11 <JF> makes it easier to view comments, and get better background on comments, etc.
16:59:31 <ToddLibby> +1 to Google Docs as well
16:59:37 <JF> JS: OK, we can work with Google Docs
16:59:49 <Azlan>  Happy with Google Docs too
17:00:05 <JF> ACTION: PeterKorn to work with Janina to set up a new Google docs for this
17:00:05 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
17:00:45 <JF> zakim, end meeting
17:00:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, JF, PeterKorn, MichaelC, Jeanne, Azlan, ToddLibby
17:00:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim
17:00:50 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:00:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf
17:01:05 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has left #silver-conf
17:01:38 <JF> RRSAgent, please part
17:01:38 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-actions.rdf :
17:01:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PeterKorn to work with Janina to set up a new Google docs for this [1]
17:01:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-irc#T17-00-05