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
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]
16:43:29 [janina]
16:43:33 [janina]
Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
16:43:33 [janina]
agenda+ Issue 450 Candidate Response
16:43:36 [janina]
agenda+ Conformance and Compliance Glossary Definition Followup
16:43:39 [janina]
agenda+ Deliverables Planning for 2022
16:43:42 [janina]
agenda+ Other Business
16:43:45 [janina]
agenda+ Be Done
16:46:21 [janina]
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 janina
16:58:48 [JF]
JF has joined #silver-conf
16:58:52 [JF]
16:59:05 [JF]
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]
17:01:42 [shadi]
shadi has joined #silver-conf
17:02:15 [shadi]
17:02:29 [Azlan]
Azlan has joined #silver-conf
17:02:42 [Azlan]
17:03:53 [ToddL]
17:06:20 [janina]
17:06:24 [jeanne]
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]
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 -- 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]
17:11:10 [GreggVan]
17:12:03 [janina]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 -- 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]
17:22:05 [janina]
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]
17:22:20 [GreggVan]
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]
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]
17:26:29 [Wilco]
... The reason to put it in is so everyone can see it and comment.
17:26:31 [janina]
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]
17:27:49 [janina]
ack jf
17:28:06 [Wilco]
JF: Agree to getting it there. This came up Tuesday.
17:28:24 [PeterKorn]
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]
17:29:24 [JF]
17:29:27 [janina]
ack ja
17:29:28 [janina]
ack pe
17:29:33 [Azlan]
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]
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]
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]
17:34:30 [shadi]
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]
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]
17:37:20 [janina]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:43:48 [Wilco]
Jeanne: Tuesday agenda is already set.
17:44:03 [PeterKorn]
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]
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]
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 -- taken up [from janina]
17:49:30 [PeterKorn]
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]
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]
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]
17:54:53 [janina]
ack pe
17:54:59 [Wilco]
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]
17:56:50 [shadi]
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]
17:58:38 [PeterKorn]
17:58:41 [JF]
that plan here:
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 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