Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

02 Dec 2021


Azlan, GreggVan, maryjom, PeterKorn, shadi, ToddL, Wilco

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

JS: meeting next week and the week after, then end-of-year break

Jeanne: will speak tomorrow about Friday call plans

Advancing Conformance and Compliance Glossary Definitions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Conformance_Glossary_Candidates

Janina: emphasis on conformance and compliance
… seems AGWG chairs had plans to discuss definition of conformance
… might be good to introduce compliance too
… and use consistently in all WCAG documents
… which may help better address our thoughts
… are we ready with these terms?
… or maybe add "exploratory" tag to any?

Gregg: don't comply with a standard, you comply with a law
… except 508, which is a regulation that includes its own standards
… other regulations have separate standard

Janina: sometimes need to distinguish exactly that aspect
… for example to set out considerations for policy makers
… might simplify what we put in our conformance standard

Gregg: understood, makes sense

<Azlan> shadi: At the time didn't specifically have the glossary in mind but the other document may include considerations for laws. This sets it out more clearly.

Peter: if not comfortable as own term for now, could bring it into the conformance section and add the term there

<Azlan> +1 to PeterKorn's statement

Jeanne: noticed in AGWG that Judy said she didn't want to see some terms defined
… maybe this is one of them

Janina: don't recall that

Wilco: me too

Gregg: think was about narrow definition and overlaps with other areas
… but could also consider Understanding documents or such
… as long as we do not overstep into defining other space
… can define it for ourselves for now

Janina: there is an effort to look through all definitions

Wilco: think AGWG was discussing technologies
… reluctant to have definition of a term we don't use
… like Peter's suggestion of working it into the text
… also not very clear why we are having this conversation
… and who benefits

<PeterKorn> Also w.r.t. a glossy entry for "Conformance", another route is to define "Conformance to WCAG" - a more narrow task that need not bleed over to other W3C specs.

Janina: think it may help untangle things

MaryJo: also have concern with some of the terms we are defining
… may exist in other standards already
… need to harmonize across standards
… not very sure about "Substantial Refresh"

<janina_> Google Doc is at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MDW5ja90OVuCSbirmOLfKcnHdgEKOUvqFy5icPwGsdY/edit?usp=sharing

<janina_> HTML version is at https://www.w3.org/2021/09/draft-wai-glossary

Janina: only considering "Conformance" and "Compliance" for now

MaryJo: agree with this, I see people using them interchangeably

Janina: that's exactly the intend, to get clearer on these two terms

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "defs are normative - so agree with Wilco" "Good to have them somewhere because it allow us to place issues - ideas someplace rather than say "out of scope".

Gregg: definitions are normative and also only for terms used normatively
… agree there is confusion in this space
… maybe need a separate document, to explain the two
… another reasons to consider this, is because we sometimes say "this is for policy makers"
… which sounds like "not our job" or so, which is not the intent
… may make it easier to describe these parts

Janina: I like dictionaries, there is an art to it

<Wilco> I'm hesitant, but won't object to adding it as a definition

Janina: concerned that if we throw it into the Glossary, it would become part of the WAI-wide glossary
… first question, is it useful to make this distinction?
… does it help advance our standard

Peter: I don't think we spent enough time within our group to move it forward
… also not as experimental

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "I'm ok with that as long as you talk to Judy first" and " I think we should stop discussion here until after checking with Judy"

Gregg: ^^^
… also agree with Peter that we need to first vet within our group

Janina: agree with holding this for now

Jeanne: thought this may be coming back next week?

Janina: not sure, I may have misread

Wilco: my impression was also not necessarily next week
… it was until this group is ready

Jeanne: could discuss tomorrow in Silver

Janina: we could

<Azlan> shadi: we should agree on these examples and then we can cross the bridge when we get there. We don't know if we will use these terms.

Janina: will check on red flags with Judy and others
… should be bring to Silver TF tomorrow?

[prefer not from several attendees]

Followup re Shadi's and Gregg's proposals


<Azlan> shadi: when discussed, the examples were present but not the subsections role of the technical standard and role of the accessibility policy. This intends to bring together the challenges discussed previously and the considerations required to address these things.

<Azlan> shadi: Some overlap with what GreggVan has been looking at

<Azlan> janina_: the most successful way is to take time in the meeting

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "Technical is to define what is accessible or not. Policy is to define when it needs to be applied and how and if exceptions -- as well as "equiv facilitation".

<Azlan> GreggVan: suggest to vote in next meeting

<Azlan> GreggVan: definitions are in the right direction. "Levels of or minimum accessibility". Policy determines which rule to meet. Facilitation refers to techniques.

<Azlan> PeterKorn: Should policy and accessibility exist up at the top vs per example?

<Azlan> GreggVan: Yes to global scope

<Azlan> PeterKorn: agrees with the way the document sets our technical vs policy. Would be great to bring to AGWG requests thoughts beyond a "vehicle" to gain understanding from AGWG - where does this go?

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "this item with examples is great. we need to have more arguments done with examples - they really help with understanding."

<Azlan> GreggVan: examples and counter examples should help us come to consensus

<Azlan> Darryl: see this useful as a signpost and check we are heading in the right direction.

<Azlan> ToddL: Like the direction this is going

<Azlan> GreggVan: how to add comments?

<Azlan> shadi: Make it clear with initials for comments or use the discussion page if more appropriate

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


Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 159 (Fri Nov 5 17:37:14 2021 UTC).


Maybe present: Gregg, Janina, Jeanne, JS, MaryJo, Peter