IRC log of silver-conf on 2021-12-16
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 16:42:53 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
- 16:42:53 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/16-silver-conf-irc
- 16:42:57 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #silver-conf
- 16:43:08 [janina]
- Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
- 16:43:14 [janina]
- Date: 16 Dec 2021
- 16:43:20 [janina]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 16:43:24 [janina]
- agenda?
- 16:43:29 [janina]
- queue:
- 16:43:33 [janina]
- Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
- 16:43:33 [janina]
- agenda+ Issue 450 Candidate Response https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/450
- 16:43:36 [janina]
- agenda+ Conformance and Compliance Glossary Definition Followup https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates
- 16:43:39 [janina]
- agenda+ Deliverables Planning for 2022 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Deliverables
- 16:43:42 [janina]
- agenda+ Other Business
- 16:43:45 [janina]
- agenda+ Be Done
- 16:46:21 [janina]
- present+
- 16:46:32 [janina]
- zakim, who's here?
- 16:46:32 [Zakim]
- Present: janina
- 16:46:34 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, jeanne, janina, MichaelC, Rachael, trackbot
- 16:47:48 [janina]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 16:47:48 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/16-silver-conf-minutes.html janina
- 16:58:48 [JF]
- JF has joined #silver-conf
- 16:58:52 [JF]
- agenda?
- 16:59:05 [JF]
- Present+
- 16:59:59 [ToddL]
- ToddL has joined #silver-conf
- 17:00:19 [Wilco]
- Wilco has joined #silver-conf
- 17:01:17 [PeterKorn]
- PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
- 17:01:36 [PeterKorn]
- present+
- 17:01:42 [shadi]
- shadi has joined #silver-conf
- 17:02:15 [shadi]
- present+
- 17:02:29 [Azlan]
- Azlan has joined #silver-conf
- 17:02:42 [Azlan]
- present+
- 17:03:53 [ToddL]
- present+
- 17:06:20 [janina]
- present+
- 17:06:24 [jeanne]
- present+
- 17:06:37 [Wilco]
- scribe: Wilco
- 17:07:11 [Wilco]
- zakim, take up next
- 17:07:11 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
- 17:07:20 [Susi_Pallero]
- Susi_Pallero has joined #silver-conf
- 17:07:47 [Wilco]
- Janina: Filing an issue on one of the issues assigned to us.
- 17:08:06 [Wilco]
- ... Wanted to get a sense of if we're ready to advance it.
- 17:08:32 [Wilco]
- ... Looking at issue 450 our distinction may matter.
- 17:08:32 [GreggVan]
- GreggVan has joined #silver-conf
- 17:08:38 [GreggVan]
- present+
- 17:09:01 [Wilco]
- ... Again, this is our last meeting of the year. Next meeting is January 6th.
- 17:09:28 [Wilco]
- zakim, take up next
- 17:09:29 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- Issue 450 Candidate Response https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/450 -- taken up [from janina]
- 17:10:04 [Wilco]
- Janina: Issue 450 was assigned to us. There is more than one topic. I have a proposed comment at the end.
- 17:10:09 [Susi_Pallero]
- present+
- 17:11:10 [GreggVan]
- q+
- 17:12:03 [janina]
- q+
- 17:12:09 [janina]
- ack gr
- 17:12:12 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Bullet 2 is particularly interesting. As long as it's user contributed, and they're contributing it freely, that's one category.
- 17:12:42 [Wilco]
- ... When you're paying someone. You pay for a movie you put on a site. That's a contractual relationship where you can say I'll pay for the movie but it needs captions.
- 17:13:03 [Wilco]
- ... Otherwise you get into a slippery slope of always paying a third party.
- 17:13:12 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 17:14:04 [Wilco]
- Janina: The response don't cover everything. I think we're not going to want to get involved of which kind of content needs which level in the standard.
- 17:14:10 [JF]
- Q+ to note Gregg's observation of paid-for content
- 17:14:27 [Wilco]
- ... Free of paid is interesting, but even that's possibly outside a technical standard. Leans more towards compliance.
- 17:14:39 [Wilco]
- ... The response is intentionally brief and focused on user generated.
- 17:14:46 [janina]
- q?
- 17:15:06 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Are we reviewing just the response, or 6.2 from the draft.
- 17:15:47 [Wilco]
- Janina: 6.2 is from the draft. We may update 6.2 on this call. It came out of this group.
- 17:15:55 [janina]
- q?
- 17:15:58 [janina]
- ack ja
- 17:16:41 [Wilco]
- peter: Minor tweak is to be more clear on the particular request. Respond to the second bullet, or something.
- 17:17:03 [PeterKorn]
- q-
- 17:17:24 [janina]
- ack jf
- 17:17:24 [Zakim]
- JF, you wanted to note Gregg's observation of paid-for content
- 17:17:48 [Wilco]
- JF: Gregg's point, using paid for content as a dividing marker is interesting. Don't want to lose that idea.
- 17:18:10 [Wilco]
- Janina: Will try to pick it up.
- 17:18:28 [janina]
- q?
- 17:18:32 [GreggVan]
- q+ "For content that is contracted -- your first bullet -- we are still in active discussion. For the second bullet ..."
- 17:19:21 [Wilco]
- Peter: I would not change their word. They didn't use the word contracted.
- 17:19:33 [Wilco]
- ... Or just say "your second bullet" and be done with it.
- 17:19:40 [Wilco]
- Janina: I'd rather point to what we addressed.
- 17:20:08 [jeanne]
- DRAFT RESPONSE: The updated WCAG 3 Working Draft just published contains Sec.
- 17:20:08 [jeanne]
- 6.2: User Generated Content which
- 17:20:08 [jeanne]
- responds to your second bullet in your comment. We solicit and welcome your
- 17:20:08 [jeanne]
- response to this first iteration of proposed conformance criteria relating to
- 17:20:08 [jeanne]
- user generated content even as we continue to bring additional third party
- 17:20:08 [jeanne]
- guidance into future WCAG 3 Working Drafts.
- 17:20:08 [jeanne]
- We are still in active discussion on your first bullet.
- 17:20:13 [Wilco]
- Janina: Any objections?
- 17:20:20 [JF]
- +1
- 17:20:26 [Wilco]
- Jeanne: I'll mark it ready for survey
- 17:20:29 [Wilco]
- zakim, take up next
- 17:20:29 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 -- Conformance and Compliance Glossary Definition Followup https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates -- taken up [from janina]
- 17:20:57 [GreggVan]
- +1 to Peters comment that we need to be careful to not put words into the mouths of commenters when we respond.
- 17:21:01 [Wilco]
- Janina: Wonder if we think it's ready for the Friday call.
- 17:21:15 [janina]
- q?
- 17:22:05 [janina]
- q?
- 17:22:05 [Wilco]
- Peter: Absent more that makes use of these terms, throwing just glossary definitions may not be productive.
- 17:22:11 [janina]
- q+
- 17:22:20 [GreggVan]
- q+
- 17:22:35 [Wilco]
- Janina: I see it as a bit of chicken/egg. We'll get there fast. We're already there with our user generated response.
- 17:23:25 [Wilco]
- .. Do we try in WCAG 3 to slice and dice between what AWK was asking for.
- 17:23:50 [Wilco]
- ... There may be other edge cases where we might want to rely on us not wanting to decide everything.
- 17:24:16 [Wilco]
- Peter: Completely agree. I'm just wondering if having a discussion on this devoid of place where it would help us may be ineffective.
- 17:24:57 [Wilco]
- Janina: Knowing we're likely to get back to our media discussions. Third party is part of our deliverables.
- 17:25:20 [Wilco]
- ... If we rush to make this distinction, do we block ourselves off?
- 17:25:24 [janina]
- q?
- 17:25:27 [janina]
- ack gr
- 17:25:35 [janina]
- ack ja
- 17:26:09 [Wilco]
- Gregg: I think we do it now. There is a lot of confusion in the group. All normative words should be defined. Compliance is not. We don't really have a standing. As a note under conformance its nice to make a contrast.
- 17:26:22 [JF]
- Q+
- 17:26:29 [Wilco]
- ... The reason to put it in is so everyone can see it and comment.
- 17:26:31 [janina]
- q?
- 17:26:43 [Wilco]
- +1 to Gregg's alternative
- 17:27:26 [Wilco]
- Gregg: You talked about an United posting on YouTube. It's United that's on the hook for that, not YouTube
- 17:27:46 [janina]
- q+
- 17:27:49 [janina]
- ack jf
- 17:28:06 [Wilco]
- JF: Agree to getting it there. This came up Tuesday.
- 17:28:24 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 17:28:32 [Wilco]
- Janina: This fear of publishing makes sense to for WCAG 2.2, but for 3.0 we should have an easier attitude.
- 17:29:01 [GreggVan]
- +1 to janinas comment RE new in 2.2 vs new in 3.0 which is nascent
- 17:29:22 [janina]
- q?
- 17:29:24 [JF]
- agenda?
- 17:29:27 [janina]
- ack ja
- 17:29:28 [janina]
- ack pe
- 17:29:33 [Azlan]
- q+
- 17:29:55 [Wilco]
- Peter: No objection to bring this to Silver / AGWG. It's important. My only question is do we do it with just this text, or bring it with additional context around where this is important.
- 17:30:10 [janina]
- q?
- 17:30:19 [Wilco]
- ... so that we can say this is one of the places where it's important.
- 17:30:37 [GreggVan]
- +1 to providing context -- but I would not tie it to media or any other topic. that will draw all that into the discussion and this is generic
- 17:30:43 [GreggVan]
- q+
- 17:30:50 [Wilco]
- ... It's just a question of what will help make the discussion most effective.
- 17:31:05 [janina]
- ack az
- 17:31:38 [PeterKorn]
- Prefer 2nd option.
- 17:32:07 [Wilco]
- Azlan: Do we have a prefer the alternate version or the new one.
- 17:32:20 [Wilco]
- Janina: I think we get rid of the initial text and make the alternate version the proposed one.
- 17:32:50 [Wilco]
- ... At least maybe we should trial it on the Friday call.
- 17:32:56 [shadi]
- +1 to ditching the initial version in favor of the second and more improved version
- 17:33:00 [janina]
- ack gr
- 17:33:33 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Agree not to have two things. I agree we should provide context, but it should be generic. We're doing this because there is a lot of confusion around these therms.
- 17:34:00 [Wilco]
- ... I would not tie it around any particular topic. I would predict the conversation switches quickly to the other topics.
- 17:34:09 [janina]
- q?
- 17:34:30 [shadi]
- q+
- 17:34:37 [Wilco]
- ... Don't want to see it get tangled in a larger discussion.
- 17:34:40 [janina]
- ack sh
- 17:35:10 [Wilco]
- Shadi: This is different. I much prefer the second version. I do have a wording comment.
- 17:35:36 [Wilco]
- Janina: Lets discuss it.
- 17:36:18 [Wilco]
- Shadi: The second paragraph in conformance... "something, as contrasted to some entity"
- 17:36:33 [Wilco]
- ... That implies that only entities comply, and I wonder if products can also comply.
- 17:36:45 [GreggVan]
- q+
- 17:37:02 [Wilco]
- ... Later on we talk about entities that comply, I'm not sure it's that restricted. I believe there are laws that might provide tolerances.
- 17:37:09 [JF]
- Q+
- 17:37:20 [janina]
- q?
- 17:37:28 [Wilco]
- ... I can provide these wordings in writing.
- 17:37:49 [jeanne]
- Jeanne notes that the examples were just notes from the meeting. Please feel free to edit them.
- 17:38:17 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Only entities can comply with the law. Laws are a requirement on legal entities. It can't be on a chair, the person who manufactured it has to comply.
- 17:38:25 [Wilco]
- ... Content conforms, entities comply.
- 17:38:25 [JF]
- ack me
- 17:38:30 [janina]
- q?
- 17:38:31 [JF]
- a huge +1 to Gregg
- 17:38:38 [janina]
- ack gr
- 17:38:46 [Wilco]
- ... Regarding tolerances, you conform to provisions. Provisions is where you put tolerances.
- 17:39:07 [JF]
- Q+
- 17:39:15 [Wilco]
- ... I think that the idea of tolerances is interesting to explore, but it wouldn't be in the definition.
- 17:39:21 [shadi]
- q+
- 17:39:42 [PeterKorn]
- I've swapped the two on the page, but otherwise left the text contents alone
- 17:39:48 [jeanne]
- q+ to say that the examples were notes taken in the last meeting
- 17:39:48 [PeterKorn]
- (if you want to refresh the page)
- 17:39:53 [Wilco]
- Janina: That's some place compliance is accustomed to put different requirements on entities with different resources.
- 17:39:56 [shadi]
- q- later
- 17:40:07 [janina]
- ack jf
- 17:40:30 [Wilco]
- JF: When you comply to section 508 you conform to WCAG, but there are other requirements.
- 17:40:59 [Wilco]
- ... I think it's important we continue to make the distinction.
- 17:41:05 [janina]
- ack jea
- 17:41:05 [Zakim]
- jeanne, you wanted to say that the examples were notes taken in the last meeting
- 17:41:26 [Wilco]
- Jeanne: Those examples do not have to be part, we can change or delete them as you want.
- 17:41:53 [janina]
- q+
- 17:41:54 [Wilco]
- Shadi: Looking at dictionary definitions, it's a little ambiguous.
- 17:42:03 [Wilco]
- ... compliance is the act of obeying a rule.
- 17:42:10 [shadi]
- ack me
- 17:42:35 [janina]
- ack ja
- 17:42:37 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Example is how to enforce the law, you arrest people. You can't issue a fine against a page.
- 17:42:54 [Wilco]
- ... The only way to enforce laws, you can never enforce a law against an object.
- 17:43:31 [Wilco]
- Janina: Let me propose we have this proposal, and lets take it to Silver on Friday. We're not quite ready for AGWG.
- 17:43:44 [GreggVan]
- q+
- 17:43:48 [Wilco]
- Jeanne: Tuesday agenda is already set.
- 17:44:03 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 17:44:05 [Wilco]
- ... I'll check with Shawn if we can get it on the agenda for Friday.
- 17:44:31 [Wilco]
- Janina: We have two items, 450 response and the glossary definitions.
- 17:44:37 [janina]
- ack gr
- 17:44:49 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Current draft still has the old draft at the bottom. I suggest we delete it.
- 17:44:57 [PeterKorn]
- +1 to delete; just left it while we were discussing
- 17:45:36 [Wilco]
- Peter: Agreed. I would also drop the examples if we're asking Silver to look at it. We haven't had a chance to discuss them.
- 17:45:52 [Azlan]
- +1
- 17:46:02 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Agreed. It's not really an example, it's redundant.
- 17:46:38 [PeterKorn]
- Order executed
- 17:47:24 [PeterKorn]
- Don't call me Shirley!
- 17:47:44 [janina]
- q?
- 17:47:55 [janina]
- ack pe
- 17:48:13 [Wilco]
- Jeanne: Confirmed, we're on the agenda tomorrow.
- 17:48:49 [Wilco]
- zakim, take up next
- 17:48:49 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 -- Deliverables Planning for 2022 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Deliverables -- taken up [from janina]
- 17:49:30 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 17:50:08 [Wilco]
- Gregg: This meeting is about conformance, so the issues here have to do with conforming, reporting conforming, deciding, correct?
- 17:50:23 [Wilco]
- Janina: Yes. The kind of stuff from the challenges paper.
- 17:50:51 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Then I would add tolerances in here, to see if we can sort out what the role of tolerance should be in conformance.
- 17:50:59 [Wilco]
- ... It seems we ought to think of that.
- 17:51:14 [janina]
- q?
- 17:51:14 [Wilco]
- ... I think there are two types. Tolerance at the provisional level, and tolerance at the standard level.
- 17:52:05 [Wilco]
- Peter: I don't know if that fits in with what I added at the bottom. All software has bugs, or whether the tolerances idea is distinct from that. They are certainly related.
- 17:52:18 [Wilco]
- ... I'd like to discuss that sooner than Q4 2022.
- 17:52:32 [Wilco]
- Gregg: I think they are separate topics, both important.
- 17:52:59 [Wilco]
- ... We have to figure out how to make it without claiming accessibility issue is just a bug.
- 17:53:08 [Wilco]
- ... Maybe it has to do with remediation?
- 17:53:16 [PeterKorn]
- ?
- 17:53:18 [PeterKorn]
- q?
- 17:53:39 [Wilco]
- Janina: Another spin, people relying on third-party libraries which are no longer maintained.
- 17:53:52 [Wilco]
- Gregg: Some cases there isn't an alternative.
- 17:54:22 [Wilco]
- Janina: Some of the abandoned open source libraries, maybe get some of the open source groups fix a few issues.
- 17:54:34 [Wilco]
- ... Not permanent, problems that need to be fixed.
- 17:54:50 [janina]
- q?
- 17:54:53 [janina]
- ack pe
- 17:54:59 [Wilco]
- q+
- 17:55:22 [Wilco]
- Peter: I think how much of tolerance is within conformance, how much is a compliance question.
- 17:55:36 [Wilco]
- ... All software has bugs may have a compliance component when it comes to remediation timelines.
- 17:56:12 [Wilco]
- ... Another that comes to mind is where and how one might do public betas.
- 17:56:27 [jeanne]
- q+ to talk about scheduling from chairs work
- 17:56:35 [Wilco]
- ... Part of what's being beta-tested
- 17:56:40 [Wilco]
- q-
- 17:56:50 [shadi]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
- 17:57:00 [Wilco]
- ... What to do when there is a new UI interaction model with no known way to make it accessible.
- 17:57:45 [Wilco]
- Jeanne: This schedule is part of the larger project. The chairs put a lot of work into looking at what can be done in parallel and what things have dependants.
- 17:58:00 [Wilco]
- ... I think we first do the work the chairs have asked us for.
- 17:58:09 [shadi]
- q+
- 17:58:38 [PeterKorn]
- q?
- 17:58:41 [JF]
- that plan here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yzR1H0SnNFRELGchb_BJr4Necsrj6xVjDF1n7Tc0kTc/edit#gid=0
- 17:58:41 [Wilco]
- Wilco: We can ask the chairs if it could work, but would prefer to keep the order
- 17:58:53 [Wilco]
- Janina: I see that as a given
- 17:59:09 [Wilco]
- ... It's a good point that this is from parallel processing.
- 17:59:15 [Wilco]
- ... You can see where things fit.
- 17:59:41 [janina]
- ack sh
- 18:00:07 [Wilco]
- Shadi: The thought here was not to add more deliverables. I think these are all issues I've heard in different discussions.
- 18:00:18 [Wilco]
- ... Happy to handle things as issues come in.
- 18:00:19 [PeterKorn]
- Regrets, I need to drop.
- 18:00:46 [Wilco]
- ... I have difficulty understanding the larger plan of conformance. This was a suggestion to try and have the big picture.
- 18:01:15 [Wilco]
- Janina: If we need chair assistance we can request it in January.
- 18:03:42 [ToddL]
- ToddL has left #silver-conf
- 18:05:15 [Wilco]
- zakim, end meeting
- 18:05:15 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been janina, JF, PeterKorn, shadi, Azlan, ToddL, jeanne, GreggVan, Susi_Pallero
- 18:05:17 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 18:05:17 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/16-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim
- 18:05:20 [Zakim]
- I am happy to have been of service, Wilco; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
- 18:05:24 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #silver-conf