– DRAFT –
Silver Task Force & Community Group

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List <- Scribe list

Review Conformance issue draft responses

<jenniferS> * Makoto, I completely understand!

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/425

<janina> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/425

JF: Conversation about conformance and compliance. We articulate what conformnce looks like.

JF: Struggle with the word "allow".

janina: No problem tweaking the words. Consistently said Bronze will "permit" "allow" a score that is not 100%

janina: if there's better wording, fine with that.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say Include

jeanne: say "include" instead of "allow for".

JF: Fine with that

janina: fine with that.

addresss issues 460, 470, 494

Review Conformance issue draft responses

<jeanne> draft RESOLUTION: Accept draft response for Issue 425 with a minor tweak of wording

<jeanne> +1

<jenniferS> +1

+1

<janina> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<Makoto> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept draft response for Issue 425 with a minor tweak of wording

<JF> +1 to removing "allow for" and inserting "include"

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/448 <- Sampling Critical Errors

Issue 448

Lauriat: Summarize Issue 448

Lauriat: Good discussion about this last week. Complex area to work through.

Lauriat: acknowledging of points, we'll get there as we go.

jenniferS: not a fan of it if there are accessibility issues that are serious.

Lauriat: same opinion was voiced. we didn't feel we could say it is a bad idea

Lauriat: many of us are on same page on this

<JF> One conforms to a standard. One complies with a law. (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates)

JF: choice of terms are important

Lauriat: comment itself used compliance, Lauriat used conformance

janina: surprised at email thread, hopefully will be distinction that will make ssense to everybody

<jenniferS> Makes sense to me!

<jeanne> draft RESOLUTION: Accept drafted response for Issue 448

<jeanne> +1

<Makoto> +1

<janina> +1

<JF> +1

+1

<jenniferS> +1

<Lauriat> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept drafted response for Issue 448

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/457 <- flexible conformance

Issue 457

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/457 <- flexible conformance

Lauriat: reading through GitHub comment

<jeanne> draft RESOLUTION: Accept drafted response for Issue 457

<janina> +1

Lauriat: Summary is, yes we agree.

<jeanne> +1

<Makoto> +1

<jenniferS> +1

<Lauriat> +1

+1

<JF> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept drafted response for Issue 457

addresss issues 460, 470, 494

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/460 - flexibility for conformance is desperately needed. Incentive for adoption

Issue 460

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/460 - flexibility for conformance is desperately needed. Incentive for adoption

testing

Lauriat: reading through Github comment

Shadi this sounds like two separate comments, Lauriat agree

1. conformance for large, complex sites; 2. migration, documentation to help ppl understanding mapping of 2 to 3 wcag

Lauriat noting inclination to refer to previous

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to say we can split into two

Janina suggesting that the comment is split into two

Lauriat definitely agree, defer to those with stronger Github expertise on accomplishing that

Jeanne states that since it came from email, it can be split

Janina said close this, state split into two, and provide links to two new tix

Lauriat since we already have issues tracking the first…

Lauriat, then we can use this one to map the mapping

<shadi> +1 to Lauriat

Jeanne: we can say that we will provide mapping, since we must.

Makoto Let me give it a try!

Lauriat: thank you, Makoto!

470

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/470 <- process approach allows orgs to focus on making core tasks accessible. More clarity on defining process.

take up next

ACTION: Makoto to draft response to 460

Lauriat reads Github comment

Lauriat: we've discussed this at length, and we agree it needs more discussion

Lauriat: the response, this is an even more involved process than it appears, for the example, we do not have an answer - only opinions - today.

Jeanne: can we refer to Rachael's group that's defining process

<Rachael> +1 to moving it to process subgroup

ACTION: jeanne to assign 470 to subgroup working on Process and Tasks

zakim: take up next

494

<Lauriat> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/494 <- how will content-free applications like CMS be evaluated and scored?

Lauriat: JF would you like to summarize your comment, since this is from you?

JF: right now, I imagine profiles, where entities create products that are light on content and lots of templates

JF: i.e., a Wordpress theme

JF: a theme may support captioned videos but not have captioned videos

JF: that those things could make claims of conformance

JF: out of the box it's acceptable, but in use it isn't.

Janina: I want to add to our list of conformance options

JF: like design systems as another

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to speak to two sides of this that I see to work through

Lauriat: 1 work through the point of content mgt sys or theme have aspects of conformance apply to them and others that don't.

Lauriat: their level of conformance w/b diff than the site using the cms

<Jemma> Shawn's first point was the same as mine. not necessarily there is "content free" application although John is pointing a potential/critical silos.

Shadi: are you proposing or summarizing an idea

<Jemma> ex: wordpress - the way to select link through combobox

Lauriat: more or less, but c/b achieved through profiles or conf model include given applicable things…

JF: I think you … you used the word, "profile" as part of our conf & scoring work, we think of profiles

JF: as applicable through XR, there will things unique

JF: language of page may not be applicable in XR envi

JF: if score is on meeting reqs, then you'll get diff scores as things are not applicable

Shadi: I see profiles as being hard to maintain or not be confused

Shadi: wcag 2 says that if things aren't considered… [not quite following, sorry]

<Lauriat> +1 to Shadi, and I think this ultimately comes down to needing to test things out to see how they work

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we just drafted a response that said we are not going to have multiple conformance models

Jeanne: remind folks that 15m ago we drafted a response that we didn't want to draft multiple conf models, changing to 'profiles' is still that

Jeanne: I don't think I heard anyone respond that they were positive about multiple conf models

Lauriat: jumping in

<JF> +1 shawn

Lauriat: I don't think profiles = multiple conf models

<Zakim> Jemma, you wanted to hear again Shawn's second point - I think his second point is worth to discuss

Jemma: good discussion

Jemma: that something is accessible out of box, real use case

Jemma: Lauriat's 2nd point is useful

Lauriat: 2nd point = around when making conf claim around CMS, then diff guidance applies, vs a site built upon CMS… having clarity around what applied

Lauriat: within CMS having ability to add videos+captions and actively supported in adding, vs a page that has video embedded

Jemma: yes, that's it

Lauriat: as in design system, they claim this confs w/ wcag 3 what that means

Lauriat: one can use an accessible design sys or cms in unaccessible ways

Jemma: the prob comes in between blackboard and use, have to spend time in explaining why inaccessibility happens

Jemma: investigatign inaccessibility attributed form interaction between sys & human is time-consuming

JF: suggest it's too early to look at this comment, appreciate it's addressed, but until we figure out scoring…

JF: always thought scoring w/b related to outcomes, but dep on what is evaluated max score will be diff

JF: can still be averaged out but until we have scoring nailed down, my concern is early

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest testing and validating

Lauriat: that is pretty much what I added myself to queue for

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to make announcement about the 14th meeting before meeting ends

<Jemma> in priciple, I would agree with not separating conformance betweeen application and content.

reminder of Silver meeting of 14th

Jennifer: wants to state that cms or design sys must demonstrate due diligence of meeting conf standards and supporting content authors in delivery of conformance

Jeanne: AGWG mtg on 14 Dec = retrospective on the work the Errors group completed, and continuing where we left off on the blameless post-mortem we started, as a way of doing this we decided to have a third party facilitator

Lauriat: we have someone coming to facilitate, and encourage all to join!

<Jemma> will there be a deliverables from the meeting?

Lauriat: we are meeting on the 17th, not on 24th or 31st.