IRC log of silver-conf on 2021-12-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:40:33 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
16:40:33 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:40:43 [janina]
Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
16:40:48 [janina]
Date: 09 Dec 2021
16:40:53 [janina]
Chair: Janina
16:41:01 [janina]
rrsagent, make log public
16:41:05 [janina]
16:41:09 [janina]
Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
16:41:09 [janina]
Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
16:41:09 [janina]
agenda+ Conformance and Compliance Glossary Definitions
16:41:12 [janina]
agenda+ Deliverables Planning
16:41:15 [janina]
agenda+ Sampling & Reporting -- Use Cases
16:41:18 [janina]
agenda+ Other Business
16:41:21 [janina]
agenda+ Be Done
16:49:02 [janina]
Regrets: Bruce_Bailey
16:55:47 [shadi]
shadi has joined #silver-conf
17:00:18 [Wilco]
Wilco has joined #silver-conf
17:02:11 [Darryl]
Darryl has joined #silver-conf
17:03:02 [PeterKorn]
PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
17:04:03 [PeterKorn]
scribe: PeterKorn
17:05:04 [PeterKorn]
zakin, next item
17:05:11 [PeterKorn]
Zakim, next item
17:05:11 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
17:05:53 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #silver-conf
17:06:07 [maryjom]
17:06:18 [PeterKorn]
17:07:07 [PeterKorn]
Janina: will have pass down of conformance & compliance - on the agenda
17:07:19 [PeterKorn]
...also AGWG co-chairs desires of us for coming year
17:07:41 [PeterKorn]
...and returning to sampling use cases.
17:08:03 [shadi]
17:08:12 [PeterKorn]
...expect to have 1 more meeting this year, then two weeks off, to resume in Jan.
17:08:35 [jeanne]
17:08:43 [PeterKorn]
Jeanne: announcement: WCAG 3 next public working draft has been published!
17:08:58 [JF]
JF has joined #silver-conf
17:08:58 [PeterKorn]
...user generated content is in it.
17:08:59 [jeanne]
User Generated Content <-
17:09:04 [JF]
17:09:32 [shadi]
17:09:34 [PeterKorn]
Janina: with this publication, might now return to other user generated topics, and reply to public feedback on user generated, pointing them to this text
17:09:45 [shadi]
ack shadi
17:09:57 [PeterKorn]
Shadi: what is the plan for talking about examples wiki page?
17:10:17 [PeterKorn]
Janina: thought we'd look at that when we look at list of deliverables (AGWG chairs desires)
17:11:05 [PeterKorn]
...see it as a doc we use to drive deliverables, vs. a deliverable of itself
17:11:08 [PeterKorn]
zakin, next item
17:11:14 [PeterKorn]
Zakim, next item
17:11:14 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
17:11:45 [PeterKorn]
Janina: spoke w/Judy, Jeanne, Rachael. Makes sense to talk about conformance vs. compliance.
17:12:20 [janina]
- Yes I think it would be valuable to differentiate between conformance and
17:12:20 [janina]
compliance. these are very different terms, yet not necessarily well
17:12:20 [janina]
understood, and it would be helpful to make that clarification.
17:12:20 [janina]
17:13:57 [PeterKorn]
17:14:25 [PeterKorn]
...exploring how compliance guidance might work could be useful.
17:14:46 [janina]
17:14:48 [PeterKorn]
...created a page of just the two definitions (conformance & compliance) for us to work with
17:14:50 [shadi]
q+ Gregg
17:15:06 [shadi]
ack gregg
17:15:17 [janina]
ack gr
17:15:35 [PeterKorn]
Gregg: question for Judy; did say some to regulators in WCAG 2; we had talked about defining compliance & conformance meant. Thought that
17:15:48 [PeterKorn]
...might be a general W3C item (defining those words).
17:16:03 [PeterKorn]
Janina: did ask that. "Is it OK to put definitions in the glossary", and she said "sure".
17:16:19 [PeterKorn]
Gregg: and for terms that would apply outside of WCAG?
17:16:21 [jeanne]
q+ to talk about definitions
17:16:45 [PeterKorn]
Janina: Doesn't feel we should do that. But can do so for its own documents. And WAI can then consider adoption across WAI.
17:17:33 [PeterKorn]
Gregg: that's great. Recalls from WCAG 2 timeframe defining such broad terms (not these) wasn't comfortable then.
17:17:59 [PeterKorn]
Janina: asked specifically about defining such terms for WCAG 3. Reply was that this was OK to do now, especially with explicit labeling (such as "exploratory")
17:18:14 [PeterKorn], look at available definitions and see if we want to tweak them
17:18:30 [PeterKorn]
17:18:45 [janina]
17:18:57 [jeanne]
17:19:22 [PeterKorn]
Gregg: "conformance" is usually a section in the standard, vs. being in the glossary. So putting into the glossary seems odd.
17:19:45 [jeanne]
17:19:46 [PeterKorn]
Janina: agree there is a section - "how you conform", "how you make claims", "what is in a claim". Different from definition of term.
17:19:49 [PeterKorn]
17:19:50 [JF]
17:20:35 [jeanne]
17:20:36 [janina]
17:20:40 [Darryl]
17:20:42 [GreggVan]
17:20:54 [janina]
ack pet
17:21:08 [shadi]
Peter: like the idea of putting it in the glossary
17:21:27 [shadi]
...section in itself does not provide the contrast between the two terms
17:21:47 [jeanne]
q+ to talk about examples of different buckets of compliance and conformance
17:21:50 [shadi]
...could be described in the section but seems cleaner in the glossary
17:22:07 [shadi]
17:22:08 [janina]
17:22:37 [janina]
ack jf
17:23:01 [PeterKorn]
JF: very concerned about term "compliance". Comfortable with "conformance", but "compliance" is legal. Hesitant to see that term used.
17:23:24 [GreggVan]
17:23:27 [janina]
ack jea
17:23:27 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to talk about examples of different buckets of compliance and conformance
17:23:29 [PeterKorn]
...Janina said "conformance" to a technical standard. But if WCAG moves forward with some other things, probably drop the word "technical"
17:23:54 [PeterKorn]
Jeanne: Agree w/John. Don't want to be working in the compliance area. But point of a definition is to start being able to fence off
17:24:04 [PeterKorn]
...what is conformance vs. compliance. What are we including, what are we not touching.
17:24:16 [JF]
+1 Jeanne
17:24:22 [janina]
17:24:34 [PeterKorn]
...too much using these terms interchangeably. So be able to say - with specific examples - what belongs in conformance vs. compliance (and we aren't touching legal)
17:24:57 [janina]
ack gr
17:25:33 [PeterKorn]
Gregg: Generally not supposed to define words you aren't using normatively ("compliance").
17:27:13 [PeterKorn_]
PeterKorn_ has joined #silver-conf
17:27:15 [PeterKorn_]
17:27:19 [PeterKorn_]
I seem to have returned.
17:27:28 [PeterKorn_]
scribe: PeterKorn_
17:27:44 [PeterKorn_]
Gregg: if we put compliance as note under conformance, it will put them next to each other
17:27:46 [PeterKorn_]
17:28:25 [PeterKorn_]
...could then have pointer from "compliance" to the note in conformance.
17:28:37 [jeanne]
17:28:39 [janina]
17:28:45 [janina]
ack pet
17:28:55 [shadi]
Peter: would like to repeat what I said earlier
17:28:57 [jeanne]
17:29:01 [jeanne]
+1 Peter
17:29:13 [shadi]
...let's try it out rather than debate how to do it
17:29:23 [janina]
17:29:34 [shadi]
...get into the actual work rather than meta discussions
17:29:37 [PeterKorn_]
Janina: we have a draft. Let's look at actual definitions.
17:29:42 [GreggVan]
17:29:55 [GreggVan]
17:29:55 [jeanne]
17:30:26 [PeterKorn_]
Gregg: we keep pushing for plain language, so suggest we don't use "cf. compliance"
17:31:22 [Susi_Pallero]
Susi_Pallero has joined #silver-conf
17:31:40 [janina]
17:31:47 [janina]
17:32:37 [PeterKorn_]
q+ for "conformance"
17:34:29 [PeterKorn_]
Gregg: what do you mean by "cf"? "In contrast with" or "in contrast to". "As opposed to"?
17:34:39 [jeanne]
+1 "rather than"
17:35:04 [PeterKorn_]
... maybe a separate sentence, like "You conforman to a standard, you comply with a law or regulation"'
17:35:35 [janina]
17:35:36 [jeanne]
I liked Greggs two sentences - You comply with laws, you conform to standards
17:35:44 [janina]
ack gr
17:35:50 [janina]
ack pe
17:35:50 [Zakim]
PeterKorn_, you wanted to discuss "conformance"
17:36:07 [shadi]
Peter: like the idea of a sentence somewhere
17:36:16 [janina]
17:36:29 [shadi]
...maybe at the end of compliance say "this is distinct from conformance, see definition below"
17:36:34 [shadi]
...and vice-versa
17:36:50 [shadi]
...also to drop "are said to be" phrases
17:37:19 [shadi]
...not as certain about the inclusion of the Marakesh Treaty
17:37:31 [shadi]
...because it doesn't reference WCAG
17:37:33 [PeterKorn_]
17:38:17 [PeterKorn_]
Janina: purpose is to be rigorous in our terminology. Especially in conformance section.
17:38:36 [PeterKorn_]
... and especially what is left to regulatory environments
17:38:48 [Darryl]
17:38:55 [PeterKorn_]
...likes having "You conform to a standard, you comply to a regulation" as a note.
17:39:11 [janina]
ack ja
17:39:21 [jeanne]
17:39:23 [PeterKorn_]
...not going to insist keeping Marrakesh Treaty. Just wanting to note that those have force of law
17:39:45 [janina]
ack da
17:39:54 [PeterKorn_]
Darryl: thinks we are heading in right direction. But losing dichotomy between them.
17:39:55 [shadi]
17:40:17 [janina]
17:40:27 [janina]
ack jea
17:40:28 [PeterKorn_]
... maybe adding the phrase "a standard does not define legal compliance". Just to further drive home that they are separate.
17:40:54 [PeterKorn_]
Jeanne: simplify? Like Gregg's wording. Defi. of compliance too complex & a distraction. Would prefer to see that simpler.
17:41:11 [shadi]
+1 to simplifying
17:41:11 [PeterKorn_]
...suggests we go with Gregg's defiitions
17:41:53 [PeterKorn_]
Gregg: <reads "POSIBLE ALTERNATE FORMAT" section on wiki page>
17:42:37 [janina]
17:42:47 [janina]
17:43:03 [JF]
+1 to include
17:43:03 [shadi]
Peter: "may involve conformance to a standard"?
17:43:16 [shadi]
Gregg: or may include
17:43:31 [shadi]
Peter: because some laws may have indirections
17:43:38 [shadi] reasonable accommodation
17:43:50 [shadi]
...or alternate ways of complying
17:43:59 [jeanne]
q+ to delete sentence on levels
17:44:48 [PeterKorn_]
Janina: have a nit - at the top thought I heard "provision" singular. Confirmed it is plural.
17:44:50 [shadi]
17:45:17 [PeterKorn_]
... missing piece: notion that we are definition for our documents; other places (e.g. elsewhere in W3C) may define differently.
17:45:37 [PeterKorn_]
17:45:40 [PeterKorn_]
17:45:56 [PeterKorn_]
Gregg: thinks that is better at the top of the glossary - that the glossary is scoped to WCAG 3.
17:46:19 [janina]
17:46:19 [PeterKorn_]
17:46:29 [janina]
ack ja
17:46:31 [janina]
ack jea
17:46:31 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to delete sentence on levels
17:46:37 [maryjom]
17:46:54 [PeterKorn_]
Jeanne: a little disappointed because it is more complicated to what Gregg said earlier. "Act of adherence" isn't plain language.
17:47:15 [PeterKorn_]
...also concerned about "different levels of conformance" because the larger group hasn't condensed no that yet.
17:47:33 [janina]
ack sh
17:47:46 [PeterKorn_]
Shadi: +1 to Jeanne. Only need the first sentence.
17:47:51 [GreggVan]
q+ to say - best format for
17:48:14 [PeterKorn_]
... even if defines different levels, conformance to it means conforming to a level. So don't need level here.
17:48:43 [shadi]
Peter: maybe drop "technical" because some specs are not technical
17:48:47 [janina]
17:48:50 [janina]
ack pet
17:48:56 [shadi]
...disagree with Shadi, like the second sentence
17:49:07 [shadi]
...because it contrasts with compliance
17:49:20 [PeterKorn_]
MaryJo: Q about word "provisions". Why not just say "requirements"?
17:49:31 [shadi]
17:49:50 [janina]
ack mar
17:49:53 [janina]
ack gr
17:49:53 [Zakim]
GreggVan, you wanted to say - best format for
17:50:17 [PeterKorn3]
PeterKorn3 has joined #silver-conf
17:50:17 [shadi]
Gregg: removed "technical"
17:50:19 [PeterKorn3]
17:50:28 [GreggVan]
"all definitions in the glossary are definitions of the terms as used in this document
17:50:37 [shadi]
...added note for top of glossary
17:51:30 [shadi]
...added rest of into a second paragraph
17:52:27 [maryjom]
17:52:28 [shadi]
...change provisions to requirements?
17:52:32 [janina]
17:52:33 [shadi]
Janina: yes
17:52:37 [janina]
ack sh
17:52:56 [PeterKorn3]
Shadi: could move the bracket "as contrasted..." up into the sentence
17:53:13 [PeterKorn3]
...doesn't have to be an entiry that conforms. Could be object or group.
17:53:16 [GreggVan]
17:53:17 [janina]
17:53:18 [JF]
17:53:26 [janina]
ack gr
17:53:38 [PeterKorn3]
Gregg: parenthetical is supplemental info. Wouldn't put it into the base statement.
17:54:00 [janina]
ack jf
17:54:13 [PeterKorn3]
JF: riffing on Shadi. "Entities" may not be the right direction. Isn't it the "content that conforms"?
17:54:19 [GreggVan]
17:54:35 [PeterKorn3]
+1 to that notion
17:54:47 [janina]
17:54:51 [janina]
ack gr
17:54:56 [PeterKorn3]
Gregg: agree with JF. Helps to separate conformance & compliance. Content conforms to standard; entity complies with the law.
17:55:11 [jeanne]
q+ to say content
17:55:11 [PeterKorn3]
...also helps get people's heads back around. People don't conform. Content conforms.
17:55:22 [PeterKorn3]
17:57:23 [PeterKorn3]
Janina: ask that we look at next agendum.
17:58:31 [PeterKorn3]
Zakim, next item
17:58:31 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, PeterKorn3
17:58:37 [janina]
17:58:37 [PeterKorn3]
17:58:38 [shadi]
17:58:40 [janina]
ack ja
17:58:46 [PeterKorn3]
Zakim, next item
17:58:46 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Conformance and Compliance Glossary Definitions -- taken up [from janina]
17:58:54 [PeterKorn3]
Zakim, next item
17:58:54 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, PeterKorn3
17:59:00 [janina]
17:59:09 [jeanne]
zakim, take up item 4
17:59:09 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- Deliverables Planning -- taken up [from janina]
18:03:11 [Jemma]
Jemma has joined #silver-conf
18:04:27 [janina]
zakim, bye
18:04:27 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees have been maryjom, PeterKorn, JF, shadi, jeanne, janina, Darryl, GreggVan, PeterKorn_
18:04:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #silver-conf
18:04:32 [janina]
rrsagent make minutes
18:05:01 [janina]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:05:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate janina