IRC log of silver-conf on 2021-11-18
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:10:21 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
- 15:10:21 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-silver-conf-irc
- 15:10:34 [janina]
- Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
- 15:10:41 [janina]
- Date: 18 Nov 2021
- 15:10:46 [janina]
- Chair: janina
- 15:10:50 [janina]
- agenda?
- 15:11:16 [janina]
- Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
- 15:11:16 [janina]
- agenda+ Analyzing conformance Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Conformance_Short_Summary_Strawdog
- 15:11:19 [janina]
- agenda+ Glossary Initial Draft Definitions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Conformance_Glossary_Candidates
- 15:11:22 [janina]
- agenda+ Sampling & Reporting -- Initial Use Cases https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YgiOg3CZz-LAVxRT0CWUTWHzyVa3UrjqdU4NvoyUZ_8/
- 15:11:25 [janina]
- agenda+ Other Business
- 15:11:27 [janina]
- agenda+ Be Done
- 15:13:16 [janina]
- present+
- 16:40:54 [Rachael]
- Rachael has joined #silver-conf
- 16:55:37 [shadi]
- shadi has joined #silver-conf
- 16:57:06 [ToddLibby]
- ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf
- 16:57:27 [janina]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 16:57:33 [janina]
- agenda?
- 16:57:44 [janina]
- zakim, who's here?
- 16:57:44 [Zakim]
- Present: janina
- 16:57:46 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see ToddLibby, shadi, Rachael, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, MichaelC, trackbot
- 16:58:25 [shadi]
- present+
- 16:58:38 [ToddLibby]
- present+
- 16:58:40 [shadi]
- scribe: shadi
- 16:58:45 [GreggVan]
- GreggVan has joined #silver-conf
- 16:59:50 [janina]
- regrets: Aslan, Jeanne
- 17:00:59 [janina]
- zakim, who's here?
- 17:00:59 [Zakim]
- Present: janina, shadi, ToddLibby
- 17:01:01 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see GreggVan, ToddLibby, shadi, Rachael, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, MichaelC, trackbot
- 17:02:59 [PeterKorn]
- PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
- 17:03:02 [PeterKorn]
- present+
- 17:03:20 [JF]
- JF has joined #silver-conf
- 17:03:28 [shadi]
- zakim, take up next
- 17:03:28 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
- 17:03:30 [JF]
- Present+
- 17:04:21 [shadi]
- [Janina walks attendees through the agenda]
- 17:04:58 [GreggVan]
- q+
- 17:06:18 [shadi]
- JS: Shadi also has a partial write-up on the wiki which we can review in the coming weeks
- 17:06:40 [shadi]
- ...no meeting next week, several will be comatozed by Turkey
- 17:06:54 [shadi]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
- 17:08:32 [shadi]
- SAZ: first pass, all examples are there for discussion
- 17:08:43 [shadi]
- ...not sure how to get first reviewed
- 17:08:57 [shadi]
- JS: will come back to this on 2nd Dec meeting
- 17:09:15 [shadi]
- GV: coming back to the sampling
- 17:09:25 [shadi]
- ...also need to talk about mass sampling
- 17:09:43 [shadi]
- ...testing massive number of pages
- 17:09:57 [shadi]
- ...maybe a different discussion item for the future
- 17:10:20 [shadi]
- JS: agree, we will probably need to tackle this
- 17:10:33 [shadi]
- ...but might not be able to get to it this year
- 17:10:35 [shadi]
- ack gr
- 17:10:40 [shadi]
- zakim, take up next
- 17:10:40 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- Analyzing conformance Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Conformance_Short_Summary_Strawdog -- taken up [from janina]
- 17:11:13 [shadi]
- GV: was not intended as a proposal
- 17:11:30 [shadi]
- ...just an attempt to find a common thread
- 17:11:43 [shadi]
- ...what is it that we're trying to do?
- 17:11:56 [shadi]
- ...understand the different needs and desires
- 17:12:13 [JF]
- Q+
- 17:12:29 [shadi]
- ...the second part is to summarize the understanding
- 17:12:46 [shadi]
- ...initially doing it for myself
- 17:13:08 [shadi]
- ...first parts is the higher-level goals
- 17:13:44 [shadi]
- ...in WCAG 2.x tried to have Level AAA
- 17:13:45 [Wilco]
- Wilco has joined #silver-conf
- 17:13:52 [shadi]
- ...but that mostly just got cut away
- 17:13:53 [Wilco]
- present+
- 17:14:00 [shadi]
- ...and people didn't do it
- 17:14:23 [janina]
- q?
- 17:14:26 [shadi]
- ...another goal is to get accepted by other regulatory and standards groups
- 17:15:02 [maryjom]
- maryjom has joined #silver-conf
- 17:15:40 [shadi]
- ...third goals is what content can influence and what it can't
- 17:16:06 [maryjom]
- present+
- 17:16:15 [shadi]
- ..for example, can't be responsible for the accessibility of emails written by users of a webmail site
- 17:16:45 [shadi]
- ...fourth goal is that page that is part of a process needs to be considered together
- 17:17:06 [shadi]
- ...like a checkout page in a shopping site to complete the transaction
- 17:17:31 [shadi]
- ...fifth is to recognize there is no absolute accessibility
- 17:17:53 [shadi]
- ...then lastly, to make it as simple as possible
- 17:18:09 [shadi]
- ...already complaints about the currently complexity of WCAG
- 17:19:06 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 17:19:11 [shadi]
- ...sometimes even debates within the Working Group about what something means
- 17:19:20 [janina]
- ack jf
- 17:19:33 [shadi]
- JF: agreement with much of this
- 17:20:15 [shadi]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Conformance_Short_Summary_Strawdog
- 17:20:52 [shadi]
- JF: propose goal for bronze level to encourage people to implement things like COGA guidance
- 17:21:17 [shadi]
- GV: sounds like a how, rather than a goal
- 17:21:27 [shadi]
- ...maybe part of the first goal?
- 17:21:40 [shadi]
- JF: looking for something more specific
- 17:21:50 [shadi]
- JS: concerned we can get into the weeds
- 17:22:00 [shadi]
- ...for example, which level and such
- 17:22:14 [shadi]
- ...discussion in process, let's not define it that specifically
- 17:22:35 [shadi]
- GV: why is the first goal not sufficient
- 17:22:58 [janina]
- ack pet
- 17:22:59 [shadi]
- JF: want people to actually do these things
- 17:23:40 [shadi]
- PK: goal 4 seems overly page-centric
- 17:23:43 [Wilco]
- +1
- 17:23:58 [shadi]
- ...later on you speak of parts of a process, which is less page-centric
- 17:24:26 [shadi]
- PK: another goal was to better reflect the lived experience of people with disabilities
- 17:24:56 [shadi]
- ...to reduce definition of requirements that do not really impact accessibility
- 17:25:33 [shadi]
- JS: technical violation that doesn't really have a real impact, like empty iframe?
- 17:25:51 [janina]
- q?
- 17:25:53 [shadi]
- PK: yes but trying to stay higher-level than that level of detail
- 17:25:56 [janina]
- zakim, who's here?
- 17:25:58 [Zakim]
- Present: janina, shadi, ToddLibby, PeterKorn, JF, Wilco, maryjom
- 17:25:58 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see maryjom, Wilco, JF, PeterKorn, GreggVan, ToddLibby, shadi, Rachael, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, MichaelC, trackbot
- 17:26:08 [janina]
- q?
- 17:26:20 [shadi]
- PK: might be other goals from Silver research work
- 17:26:30 [shadi]
- ...would be good to look back at these
- 17:26:45 [Wilco]
- https://www.w3.org/community/silver/draft-final-report-of-silver/
- 17:27:42 [shadi]
- GV: now numbered goals, and added new goal #5 to address your latest comment
- 17:28:19 [shadi]
- PK: not very settled on the language
- 17:29:04 [Wilco]
- q+
- 17:29:18 [PeterKorn]
- Suggested alternate text for #5: "That something that fails technically, but which does not have any real world impact on the lives of people with disabilities, can still conform"
- 17:29:18 [shadi]
- GV: would be good to re-review these
- 17:30:08 [janina]
- q?
- 17:30:17 [janina]
- ack wil
- 17:30:35 [shadi]
- WF: how do we define "objective"?
- 17:30:57 [shadi]
- GV: something is objective when it has a high inter-rater reliability
- 17:30:58 [JF]
- if we are wordsmithing, then I'd like to see #1 modified to: "Will get web designers to do more than what has been able to be put into WCAG 2.x"
- 17:31:14 [shadi]
- ...people who know what they are doing agree to a large degree
- 17:31:19 [JF]
- i.e. do more than just "look" - DO
- 17:32:40 [shadi]
- WF: agree with high inter-rater reliability as a goal
- 17:32:56 [shadi]
- q?
- 17:32:57 [JF]
- Q+ to note that US federal government sites TODAY have to apply Plain language
- 17:34:11 [janina]
- ack jf
- 17:34:11 [Zakim]
- JF, you wanted to note that US federal government sites TODAY have to apply Plain language
- 17:34:47 [shadi]
- JF: understand the difficulty and the many attempts of trying this
- 17:35:11 [shadi]
- ...governments have to do this today
- 17:35:19 [shadi]
- GV: which law is that?
- 17:35:30 [shadi]
- JF: plainlanguage.gov
- 17:35:32 [Wilco]
- Q+
- 17:35:35 [shadi]
- GV: will check it out
- 17:35:47 [shadi]
- JS: not sure we need this deep dive now
- 17:36:01 [janina]
- q?
- 17:36:13 [janina]
- ack wil
- 17:36:59 [JF]
- A HUGE +1 to Wilco
- 17:37:06 [JF]
- this is *exactly* my concern
- 17:37:08 [janina]
- q?
- 17:37:22 [shadi]
- WF: one thing that may raise concerns, is that things that are testable will make into regulations and other things will be on a level not required by law
- 17:37:36 [shadi]
- ...not sure if this moves us forward from the current situation
- 17:38:11 [janina]
- q?
- 17:38:25 [shadi]
- GV: concerned about reducing testability may rule out adoption by policy makers
- 17:38:46 [shadi]
- ...do people think we can get passed this?
- 17:39:04 [JF]
- @Gregg, I *DO* believe we can get there
- 17:39:14 [PeterKorn]
- q?
- 17:39:17 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 17:39:29 [Wilco]
- q+
- 17:39:40 [janina]
- ack pet
- 17:39:49 [shadi]
- JS: working some kind of an understanding to get more requirements
- 17:40:05 [shadi]
- PK: lack of clear testability is a huge problem
- 17:40:16 [shadi]
- ...like the idea of medals or such
- 17:40:41 [shadi]
- ...think that the level for requirements will depend on the nature of the product
- 17:41:03 [shadi]
- ...what is within reason or outside reasonable control
- 17:41:28 [shadi]
- ...for example, healthcare might be different from entertainment
- 17:41:48 [shadi]
- ...does not change the definition of what technically conforms
- 17:42:03 [shadi]
- ...but maybe which levels of conformance are acceptable for each
- 17:42:17 [janina]
- ack wil
- 17:42:18 [shadi]
- ...not convinced that 3 is the magical number
- 17:42:48 [shadi]
- WF: don't think we can put normative requirements that can't be tested reliably
- 17:43:01 [JF]
- Q+ to disagree cite: ISO 9001
- 17:43:06 [shadi]
- ...the question is why can't we figure out how to make these more testable
- 17:43:21 [shadi]
- q+ to respond to JF
- 17:44:57 [shadi]
- GV: added definition for objective and testable
- 17:45:07 [janina]
- ack jf
- 17:45:07 [Zakim]
- JF, you wanted to disagree cite: ISO 9001
- 17:45:30 [shadi]
- JF: disagree with Wilco, you can't test or measure ISO 9001
- 17:45:32 [shadi]
- q-
- 17:45:50 [shadi]
- GV: you can absolutely test and measure ISO 9001
- 17:46:02 [shadi]
- ...and you can get certification and such
- 17:46:41 [shadi]
- WF: not based on sloppy unit tests
- 17:47:03 [Wilco]
- s/WF/JF
- 17:47:06 [shadi]
- q+
- 17:47:43 [shadi]
- JF: different way of looking at conforming
- 17:48:09 [shadi]
- GV: is ISO 9001 required by law?
- 17:48:29 [shadi]
- JF: no but adopted by companies
- 17:48:44 [PeterKorn]
- scribe: PeterKorn
- 17:49:10 [PeterKorn]
- SA: discussion of process-based standards, that would be a separate standard.
- 17:49:45 [janina]
- q?
- 17:49:49 [janina]
- ack sh
- 17:49:49 [PeterKorn]
- ...maturity model could be that separate standard. Feel comparison between a bulding code & ISO 9001 is Apples & oranges
- 17:50:00 [shadi]
- scribe: shadi
- 17:50:41 [janina]
- q?
- 17:50:43 [shadi]
- GV: very big difference between voluntary and regulatory standards
- 17:51:18 [shadi]
- ...as soon as requirements are going to be regulated, a whole set of different requirements come in
- 17:51:32 [JF]
- https://blog.libryo.com/iso-9001-2015-legal-requirements
- 17:51:40 [shadi]
- s/requirements come in/rules come in
- 17:51:56 [janina]
- q?
- 17:51:56 [Wilco]
- q+
- 17:52:08 [janina]
- ack wil
- 17:52:50 [shadi]
- WF: would love several more people debating this
- 17:53:00 [shadi]
- ...seems only few of us discussing it
- 17:53:37 [ToddLibby]
- q+
- 17:53:53 [shadi]
- DL: my first time here, hello everybody
- 17:54:03 [shadi]
- ...from Toronto area
- 17:54:23 [shadi]
- ...education and digital publishing
- 17:54:43 [shadi]
- ...previously involved with IDPF and now W3C on digital publishing
- 17:55:17 [shadi]
- MJM: first time I've seen this proposal
- 17:55:36 [shadi]
- ...not sure it addresses web content and web apps
- 17:55:51 [shadi]
- ...always have bugs, and WCAG has been all or nothing
- 17:55:55 [PeterKorn]
- +1 I think there are important things not yet in this doc., and they are things we have been working on previously in this group.
- 17:56:12 [shadi]
- ...not conducive to progressing accessibility
- 17:56:35 [shadi]
- ...also some things are not easily testable
- 17:56:46 [shadi]
- ...becomes daunting on large-scale websites
- 17:56:56 [shadi]
- q?
- 17:57:08 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 17:57:33 [shadi]
- ...would be helpful for developers to show progress over time
- 17:57:41 [shadi]
- ...would help get more buy-in
- 17:57:47 [shadi]
- ack todd
- 17:58:06 [shadi]
- TL: conversation is great, don't have much to add to it today
- 17:58:14 [JF]
- @Gregg: The Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires federal agencies to write “clear government communication that the public can understand and use.” https://www.dni.gov/index.php/plain-language-act
- 17:58:23 [shadi]
- ack peter
- 17:58:25 [shadi]
- zakim, take up next
- 17:58:25 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 -- Glossary Initial Draft Definitions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Conformance_Glossary_Candidates -- taken up [from janina]
- 17:58:34 [PeterKorn]
- A potential missing goal is around helping / inventing continual improvement.
- 17:58:48 [shadi]
- JS: let's try to advance the terms "conformance" and "compliance"
- 17:59:09 [shadi]
- ...helps us to distinguish these two concepts
- 17:59:26 [shadi]
- ...what we expect from a technical spec vs regulation
- 17:59:39 [janina]
- https://www.w3.org/2021/09/draft-wai-glossary
- 17:59:41 [shadi]
- ...hopefully not controversial concept
- 17:59:50 [shadi]
- ...but need to work on the definitions
- 18:00:40 [shadi]
- ...tried to integrate existing definitions
- 18:00:49 [shadi]
- ...will discuss in 2 weeks
- 18:00:51 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 18:01:29 [shadi]
- GV: we ought to get some definitive decisions on the goals
- 18:01:55 [ToddLibby]
- I've got to get to another meeting. Thanks, everyone.
- 18:02:10 [shadi]
- ...if we can't get agreement then will go in circles
- 18:02:43 [shadi]
- ...need clarity if regulation requires testability or not
- 18:03:06 [shadi]
- PK: invite folks to look at the other doc shared at the beginning of the call
- 18:03:18 [shadi]
- PK: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
- 18:03:52 [GreggVan]
- present+
- 18:03:52 [JF]
- We have evidence today of a regulation with Unmeasurable requirements: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-111publ274
- 18:08:00 [shadi]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 18:08:00 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-silver-conf-minutes.html shadi
- 18:08:08 [shadi]
- zakim, end meeting
- 18:08:08 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been janina, shadi, ToddLibby, PeterKorn, JF, Wilco, maryjom, GreggVan
- 18:08:10 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 18:08:10 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/11/18-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim
- 18:08:13 [Zakim]
- I am happy to have been of service, shadi; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
- 18:08:17 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #silver-conf
- 18:08:29 [shadi]
- rrsagent, bye
- 18:08:29 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items