Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

07 Oct 2021


JF, maryjom, PeterKorn, sajkaj, Wilco
Azlan_Cuttilan, Bruce_Bailey Bryan_Trogdon, Todd_Libby
jeanne, sajkaj, Wilco

Meeting minutes

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

Janina: Heading into TPAC, and then holiday season.
… I presume we'll take a few weeks off towards the end of the year
… Presume we won't meet during US thanksgiving.
… We'll meet at least for 3 weeks in November.
… Deadline for TPAC breakout sessions is tomorrow. Don't know if we have any conflict, but it is likely we won't meet during TPAC this month.

Janina: I think we should cancel.
… So we'll meet next week, and then again in November.

Janina: We're still awaiting formal scheduling.

Janina: Meeting with COGA. They have started to draft their new work statement.
… There's a presentation on an APA spec that introduces the ability to add overlay markup.

Sampling & Reporting -- Initial Use Cases https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YgiOg3CZz-LAVxRT0CWUTWHzyVa3UrjqdU4NvoyUZ_8/

<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/med_con/results

Janina: Still talking to AGWG about media conformance. We have some comments.
… Looking for suggestions what to do given we're back on the agenda next week.

Peter: Ben's editorial suggestions make sense. Would it make sense to hold on editorial changes, given the survey is still open?

Jeanne: We usually wait until the survey is closed before we make changed. Don't have a problem with editorial. It saves time.

<PeterKorn> 1. As the word "may" is used, the words "or not" isn't required and could be removed. "Each of these categories of media content may have methods for making them accessible—or not."

Jeanne: 5th one isn't editorial

<PeterKorn> 2. Suggested rewording to match the preceding paragraph From "Instead, the conformance approach provided here:" To "However, under the new WCAG 3 specification, the conformance options are to be expanded to include"

Janina: To me it's rhetorical, but don't have a problem with removing.

Peter: This is on the first editors note.

Peter: ... reading point 4.

Janina: It has bothered me. We may find legacy content, or hand written stuff someone decides to digitise. It's at the point of digitisation.
… I'm inclined to take his edit, maybe add an example.

Peter: He's suggesting replacing "very ancient" with "history".

Janina: That would solve it.

Peter: Any objections?

Janina: Hearing none.

Peter: The 5th point is not editorial. I think that's too big to try to do while the survey is open.

JF: Do we want to acknowledge the statement?

Peter: In the document, or speak to it in Tuesday's meeting?

JF: This is above and beyond other editorial things. This is a bit more. We would have to propose a definition.

<PeterKorn> FYI, our page is here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance

Janina: I can add a definition, but it seems too big to do now.

<PeterKorn> +1

<JF> +1 to updating wiki

<jeanne> +1

Peter: Anything else that seems editorial in the feedback so far?

Janina: Now to Stefan and Gundula's comments.

Peter: I wonder if we can do that in an outcome, rather than here. For example a file format that can not contain audio description, you have to have an alternative version.
… About Stefan, we gave the 3d walkthrough example. I'm not sure how much more is needed, and we can discuss on Tuesday.

<PeterKorn> +1

Janina: I propose we vote on publishing, and document that we've been looking at this. When we introduce on Tuesday we start the conversation by noting we've responded.

JF: David has a lot of comments
… He seems to be focused on multi-media, I thought we had been pretty clear that this would be broader.
… He's looking at it from a purely technical perspective, but what he doesn't seem to get is that while it might be technically possible, there are legal constraints.
… There seems to be a major gap in understanding.

Jeanne: I would suggest we go back, we have to clearly explain we're not giving exemptions, but to push them to do more.
… Say that yes if you can't make this accessible, here's what you have to do.

Peter: As with user generated content, we want to create a framework that says; whatever your situation you can at least do X.
… Where/when/how to go beyond that is a different topic. A more challenging issue may be in what to do about media that we don't know how to make it accessible.
… Is the answer that until we've figured it out, no website can have that media on it?

Janina: We have examples for that.

Peter: I think we can point to things that need to be developed.
… Is the only answer a refresh of WCAG, as we figure out how to make this media accessible.
… That's one of the other big questions.
… The other question is, what is the difference in meaning between an editors draft, and an updated public working draft.
… If what David is asking for, what's the right form for that, if not an editor's draft.

JF: It feels like this work dovetails to what a protocol is. If we can't do plan A, what is plan B.
… What we're working on here, when you can't do what WCAG says today, what are the fallback positions?
… I'm seeing an intersection between this work and protocols, and if we should float that more broadly.

Janina: Intersections is important, some of this work may not come out of AGWG. Some of it may come out of EPUB.
… Comic books is on EPUB's list. Some of this work will happen in another group. We need a path to it.

<sajkaj> acksaj

Peter: Wondering about the proposal of Language of page / language of part. There is also a user generated piece to that.
… I wonder when it might make sense to talk about user generated piece in that method.

<jeanne> +1 to coordinate with Test Reliability

Janina: We said there'd be user generated guidelines. I think that's where that is addressed.

Wilco: I think there might be, I think there is a part of where a user provides content, where you need to have it properly labeled. I think that it could be a separate outcome and I think there would have to be an exception in the current outcome

<Wilco> Peter: Example; a review of a restaurant in another country.

Janina: What, if anything do we want to do about that.
… We have talked about wanting some of these examples, this might be one to do that in.

JF: I was working with a client this week, they have a chat feature, they can communicate in the language of choice, but the client has no way to change the inline text.
… I don't see how that could be achieved in this usecase.
… I think that's one of the use cases where there really isn't a solution.

Peter: We can imagine a UI that could do that, and can imagine how cumbersome that would be.
… Whatever place / forum is best, I'd love to help.

<jeanne> Wilco: The one thing I'm not sure that the Test Reliability group is the best group to do it in, this group would be better. The Test Reliability group is working on reliability, not programmatic language.

Wilco: Reliability may not be the best group to work on it. Could this group work on it?

Janina: As guidelines are proposed, maybe we look at each and look at it, maintain a list of guidelines we checked for user generated and for media.

Peter: May also want to check WCAG2ICT for that

<PeterKorn> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YgiOg3CZz-LAVxRT0CWUTWHzyVa3UrjqdU4NvoyUZ_8/edit#heading=h.uu0zhln5g1ea

Other Business


Peter: We haven't gotten much further. Last we were trying to develop use cases, starting at a high level description.
… We have 5 use cases

Peter: ... explaining use cases.

Peter: We started developing use cases in more detail, an example is a new paper with lots of articles, or a small hair salon.
… I'd like us to think about more use cases.

<sajkaj> scrkibe: sajkaj

<sajkaj> wilco: emailed about this ...

wilco: EU use case -- current challenge monitoring different orgs, different testing tools, get roughly equivalent results

wilco: how many pages? by hand? auto? what consistents sufficient?

wilco: we have manual, but how to build in tool expectations?

wilco: the hybrid approach?

<PeterKorn> Sampling consistency - potentially with a variety of different tools, with different organizations doing the sampling [something EC is dealing with]

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about old Silver work on WCAG-EM

Jeanne: I'm looking, but haven't found, the predecessor of this group worked on sampling on adapting WCAG3. I'll share when I found it.

JF: One of the larger questions I have, in the case of sampling & scoping, we don't have any kind of requirement for declaring what the sample set was. I wonder if that's something we should look at.
… When you claim you're adopting a protocol, that opens up the ability to make declarative statements. One could be around sampling and scoping.

<jeanne> Sometimes it is easier to search with a search engine. Sampling for Large Projects

Janina: I think that will be hard to do when a page is generated uniquely. It might not even be the same on a refresh.

<PeterKorn> Also, what is an acceptable deviation between different samplings? How does sampling intersect with dynamically generated pages?

Janina: I propose adding acceptable deviations to our to-be-defined list.

JF: If we want to encourage organisations to go beyond bronze, they need a mechanism to make that claim.
… How do I look at a claim and say I agree or disagree, if I don't know what the assertion is based on.

<JF> I vote WBS first, Conformance Sampling and Reporting second

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


Succeeded: s/Stevan/Stefan

Maybe present: Janina, Jeanne, Peter