– DRAFT –
Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

zakin, next item

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

Janina: will have pass down of conformance & compliance - on the agenda
… also AGWG co-chairs desires of us for coming year
… and returning to sampling use cases.
… expect to have 1 more meeting this year, then two weeks off, to resume in Jan.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/

Jeanne: announcement: WCAG 3 next public working draft has been published!
… user generated content is in it.

<jeanne> User Generated Content <- https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#user-generated-content

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

Shadi: what is the plan for talking about examples wiki page?

Janina: thought we'd look at that when we look at list of deliverables (AGWG chairs desires)
… see it as a doc we use to drive deliverables, vs. a deliverable of itself

zakin, next item

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

Janina: spoke w/Judy, Jeanne, Rachael. Makes sense to talk about conformance vs. compliance.

<janina> - Yes I think it would be valuable to differentiate between conformance and

<janina> compliance. these are very different terms, yet not necessarily well

<janina> understood, and it would be helpful to make that clarification.

Janina: exploring how compliance guidance might work could be useful.

<janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates

Janina: created a page of just the two definitions (conformance & compliance) for us to work with

Gregg: question for Judy; did say some to regulators in WCAG 2; we had talked about defining compliance & conformance meant. Thought that
… might be a general W3C item (defining those words).

Janina: did ask that. "Is it OK to put definitions in the glossary", and she said "sure".

Gregg: and for terms that would apply outside of WCAG?

Janina: Doesn't feel we should do that. But can do so for its own documents. And WAI can then consider adoption across WAI.

Gregg: that's great. Recalls from WCAG 2 timeframe defining such broad terms (not these) wasn't comfortable then.

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")
… so, look at available definitions and see if we want to tweak them

Gregg: "conformance" is usually a section in the standard, vs. being in the glossary. So putting into the glossary seems odd.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#conformance

Janina: agree there is a section - "how you conform", "how you make claims", "what is in a claim". Different from definition of term.

<shadi> Peter: like the idea of putting it in the glossary

<shadi> ...section in itself does not provide the contrast between the two terms

<shadi> ...could be described in the section but seems cleaner in the glossary

<janina> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.

JF: very concerned about term "compliance". Comfortable with "conformance", but "compliance" is legal. Hesitant to see that term used.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about examples of different buckets of compliance and conformance

JF: Janina said "conformance" to a technical standard. But if WCAG moves forward with some other things, probably drop the word "technical"

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
… what is conformance vs. compliance. What are we including, what are we not touching.

<JF> +1 Jeanne

Jeanne: 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)

Gregg: Generally not supposed to define words you aren't using normatively ("compliance").

I seem to have returned.

Gregg: if we put compliance as note under conformance, it will put them next to each other
… could then have pointer from "compliance" to the note in conformance.

<shadi> Peter: would like to repeat what I said earlier

<jeanne> +1 Peter

<shadi> ...let's try it out rather than debate how to do it

<shadi> ...get into the actual work rather than meta discussions

Janina: we have a draft. Let's look at actual definitions.

<GreggVan> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates#Examples

Gregg: we keep pushing for plain language, so suggest we don't use "cf. compliance"

Gregg: what do you mean by "cf"? "In contrast with" or "in contrast to". "As opposed to"?

<jeanne> +1 "rather than"

Gregg: maybe a separate sentence, like "You conforman to a standard, you comply with a law or regulation"'

<jeanne> I liked Greggs two sentences - You comply with laws, you conform to standards

<Zakim> PeterKorn_, you wanted to discuss "conformance"

<shadi> Peter: like the idea of a sentence somewhere

<shadi> ...maybe at the end of compliance say "this is distinct from conformance, see definition below"

<shadi> ...and vice-versa

<shadi> ...also to drop "are said to be" phrases

<shadi> ...not as certain about the inclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty

<shadi> ...because it doesn't reference WCAG

Janina: purpose is to be rigorous in our terminology. Especially in conformance section.
… and especially what is left to regulatory environments
… likes having "You conform to a standard, you comply to a regulation" as a note.
… not going to insist keeping Marrakesh Treaty. Just wanting to note that those have force of law

Darryl: thinks we are heading in right direction. But losing dichotomy between them.
… maybe adding the phrase "a standard does not define legal compliance". Just to further drive home that they are separate.

Jeanne: simplify? Like Gregg's wording. Defi. of compliance too complex & a distraction. Would prefer to see that simpler.

<shadi> +1 to simplifying

Jeanne: suggests we go with Gregg's defiitions

Gregg: <reads "POSIBLE ALTERNATE FORMAT" section on wiki page>

<JF> +1 to include

<shadi> Peter: "may involve conformance to a standard"?

<shadi> Gregg: or may include

<shadi> Peter: because some laws may have indirections

<shadi> ...like reasonable accommodation

<shadi> ...or alternate ways of complying

Janina: have a nit - at the top thought I heard "provision" singular. Confirmed it is plural.
… missing piece: notion that we are definition for our documents; other places (e.g. elsewhere in W3C) may define differently.

Gregg: thinks that is better at the top of the glossary - that the glossary is scoped to WCAG 3.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to delete sentence on levels

Jeanne: a little disappointed because it is more complicated to what Gregg said earlier. "Act of adherence" isn't plain language.
… also concerned about "different levels of conformance" because the larger group hasn't condensed no that yet.

Shadi: +1 to Jeanne. Only need the first sentence.
… even if defines different levels, conformance to it means conforming to a level. So don't need level here.

<shadi> Peter: maybe drop "technical" because some specs are not technical

<shadi> ...disagree with Shadi, like the second sentence

<shadi> ...because it contrasts with compliance

MaryJo: Q about word "provisions". Why not just say "requirements"?

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say - best format for

<shadi> Gregg: removed "technical"

<GreggVan> "all definitions in the glossary are definitions of the terms as used in this document

<shadi> ...added note for top of glossary

<shadi> ...added rest of into a second paragraph

<maryjom> +1

<shadi> ...change provisions to requirements?

<shadi> Janina: yes

<PeterKorn3> Shadi: could move the bracket "as contrasted..." up into the sentence

<PeterKorn3> ...doesn't have to be an entiry that conforms. Could be object or group.

<PeterKorn3> Gregg: parenthetical is supplemental info. Wouldn't put it into the base statement.

<PeterKorn3> JF: riffing on Shadi. "Entities" may not be the right direction. Isn't it the "content that conforms"?

<PeterKorn3> +1 to that notion

<PeterKorn3> Gregg: agree with JF. Helps to separate conformance & compliance. Content conforms to standard; entity complies with the law.

<PeterKorn3> ...also helps get people's heads back around. People don't conform. Content conforms.

<PeterKorn3> Janina: ask that we look at next agendum.

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

<janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Deliverables

Deliverables Planning https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Deliverables

<janina> rrsagent make minutes