Silver Task Force & Community Group

17 Dec 2021


jeanne, janina, Wilco, Makoto, Jemma, ToddL, sarahhorton, kirkwood, JenniferS
Wilco, jeanne, Chuck


<jeanne> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

Proposed definitions of conformance and compliance

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

Janina: This comes out of conformance options sub group. We're crafting a definition for conformance, which contrasts with compliance.
... This is an important distinction to keep in mind.
... We think this could be helpful to continue develop guidelines and outcome. Especially in conformance criteria.
... We're not law maker, we shouldn't try to play them. We think that by being clear on the distinctions it might be easier to write the part of our specification.
... We know regulators rely on what we've done in the past.
... The idea is we introduce this here, come back to it in January
... Do people think this definition might be useful?

<jeanne> Conformance Definition Proposal text: meeting the requirements of a specification or standard.

<jeanne> Something is said to "conform to" a particular standard (as contrasted to some entity complying to a law). An example in this context is conforming to this specification (WCAG 3.0). Some standards define different levels of conformance. In that case, conformance could be to one of the levels of such a standard.

<jeanne> NOTE 1: Conformance is sometimes confused with compliance. Something (e.g. content) would conforms to a standard. An entity (e.g a person or company) complies with a law.

<jeanne> NOTE 2: Compliance with some laws may involve conformance to a standard.

<Chuck> reading...

<Chuck> +1 to good idea (not to adopting yet)

Makoto: This is very helpful and useful.
... Conformance is confused with compliance all the time when we translate these into Japanese.
... Some standard define different levels. Conformance can be to one such level.

<ToddL> Apologies for the lateness.

Janina: We note that in a standard there may be multiple levels.
... The idea is there.

Jeanne: WCAG 2 is an example. You can conform to level A, AA or AAA
... We didn't include bronze, silver, gold yet. Didn't want to get into that discussion.

Jemma: We're trying to define conformance, not the relationship with compliance

Janina: Correct, we don't define compliance, or even say much about.

Jemma: In Korea I hear that WCAG conformance doesn't have an association with compliance.

Janina: The W3C can't tell anyone who writes regulations what to do.
... Some governments can say you need to conform to WCAG, as part of their compliance.
... When it's adopted it's usually level AA. It's not something W3C decides, or should try to decide.

Jemma: Some countries are not proactive on adopting WCAG.
... I'm talking more about how they adopt it. Conformance is not in their regulatory system. They try to come up with their own WCAG, or change some parts of it.

Jeanne: This came from a discussion where people said that conformance and compliance are the same.
... In many dictionary definitions they are the same. We need a way to say what governments are responsible for, and what we are responsible for.
... We want language to use when coming up against issues that are more applicable to governments than to a standards group.

Kirkwood: I feel privileged to have been on the government side, and on the compliance/conformance side to guide an agency to meet WCAG criteria.
... The language gives more of a legal perspective on it, but I don't think it makes much of a difference.

<Jemma> +1 kirkwood's description of real application.

Kirkwood: We can write the specifications for it. It's written in the contracts they have to meet these requirements.
... I don't think it'll make much of a difference.
... I don't think we should spend too much time interpreting what the legal language should be.

Jeanne: I think this gives us a way to speak about it internally.

<Jemma> I think he touched on the part I was trying to address.

<jeanne> scribe: jeanne

<Jemma> +1 helpful background info, wilco

WF: Example: Third party content - deciding what is first party and what is third party is legal decision and we can't do that. We can say what is required for third party and first party.

<Wilco> Janina: Can we take this back in January before we make the decision?

<scribe> ACTION: discuss again in January

Review Conformance issue draft responses

Issue 460


<Wilco> Jeanne: Makoto drafted a response.

Draft Response:

Thank you for your comment.

We agree with you that we have to consider the need for flexibility around large and highly dynamic websites and complex software. And we already got this concern in the #448. Please let us use it to address this issue.

And we will use this issue (#460) to track your proposal to create a mapping between "WCAG 2.x" and "WCAG 3.0". We will definitely create it to encourage those already using WCAG 2.x to adopt WCAG 3.0.

<Wilco> Jeanne: This ties it to issue 448.

<Wilco> ... Any comments or suggestions?

<Chuck> I like it!

<Wilco> Wilco: Suggest not starting the sentence with "and". It's editorial

draft RESOLUTION: Accept response to Issue 460 with editorial adjustment

<Chuck> scribe: Chuck

<sarahhorton> +1

Jeanne: If you agree to accept amended response, please +1

<jeanne> +1

<ToddL> +1


<janina> 1

<Makoto> +1

<janina> +1

<Jemma> +1 it is guiding where the issue will be taken care of.

<Rachael> +1

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

RESOLUTION: Accept response to Issue 460 with editorial adjustment

Issue 470

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/470

Rachael: We took this into the process subgroup. It's being worked on. Don't need to track it here.
... Mike has taken this.

<jeanne> ACTION: Assigned to label Process

Issue 494

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/494

Jeanne: This issue is about content-free applications and frameworks
... Shawn wrote a draft response.

<jeanne> Draft response:

<jeanne> Definitely something that we'll continue working through, and the continuation of establishing how basic conformance and scoring will work can help set some of the foundations that we'll need before we can really answer this more completely.

Jeanne: Are we going to accept a "we know, we'll work on it in the future" as language to close the issue?

Rachael: Don't think we can close it until it's addressed.

Chuck: Agreed. I think it needs work.

Michael: Can we tag it to a milestone, make sure it gets picked up at the right time.

Jeanne: This is an internal comment, it does not need to be processed officially.
... We have a label for internal comments. It is so labelled.

Rachael: We could tie this into the validating conformance portion of the schedule.

Jemma: I think this issue is more about conformance

Jeanne: I updated the comment.

<Jemma> +1 to Jeanne

<Chuck> +1 to Jeanne.

<Chuck> no survey

Rachael: Let's see what JF says. If we're not closing it, it doesn't need to go to survey

<jeanne> draft RESOLUTION: Issue 494 will remain open for now.

<Chuck> +1 no objections

RESOLUTION: Issue 494 will remain open for now.

Conformance options response on Issue 450

<janina> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/450

Janina: The comment has two bullets. The recently published draft begins to address one of the points, but not the other.
... We'd like to get the response of the commenter. Therefor this comment.

<jeanne> DRAFT RESPONSE: The updated WCAG 3 Working Draft just published contains Sec.

<jeanne> 6.2: User Generated Content which

<jeanne> responds to your second bullet in your comment. We solicit and welcome your

<jeanne> response to this first iteration of proposed conformance criteria relating to

<jeanne> user generated content even as we continue to bring additional third party

<jeanne> guidance into future WCAG 3 Working Drafts.

<jeanne> We are still in active discussion on your first bullet.

Jemma: Janina, would you mind, what is the current direction for the second bullet.

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

Jeanne: That's part of the draft published last week.

Janina: We added a link to section 6.2

Jeanne: I'm putting this in as ready for survey. We aren't going to close since we're in active conversation about the first bullet.

Jemma: So there is no responsibility of the site owner for example to add alternative text?

Jeanne: The proposal for user generated content included increased responsibility to have the tools available to make the content accessible, but not to make the content accessible.
... The example on text alternatives was not accepted by the working group.

Jemma: I don't think it's reasonable that the content provider has no responsibility.

Janina: Should YouTube be responsible to provide good captions for all video?

Jemma: I think so. They should check.
... When it comes to compliance, YouTube is responsible.
... They are first gatekeeper. It's part of education too as a third-party vendor.

<kirkwood> +1 JaEun agreed all points

Janina: I think it's important to be practical, not expect every child who puts a comment on a social media site to hold them to our rules that require some expertise.
... But say a major company uses social media site, they have a need.
... This is something a regulator is much better equipped to do.

Jemma: When a teenager uploads a picture, Instagram should add for an alternative text.

<sarahhorton> +1 Jemma

Janina: Prompting the user, providing good tooling is what we expect to happen. Enforcing it is something else.

Jemma: Including education. I think this is fundamental.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that what we are trying to do is to have requirements to provide the tools to users to make their content accessibnle, but the individual tools are in

<kirkwood> +1 JaEuan

Jeanne: We're trying to make vendors more responsible then they are today. They have no responsibility. It's third-party content, not part of conformance, and it's undue burdon.

<Chuck> +1 to Jeanne's point, this is increasing responsibility.

Jeanne: They don't have to do anything today. What we're trying to do is if you have a website that accepts user generated content, you must provide the tools to make it accessible.
... We're trying to make sites more responsible, not less.

Jemma: That's the direction I'd like to support.

Jeanne: This is in section 6.2

Janina: I think we said the specific steps would be addressed per guideline.

Jemma: I wish this had inside user generated content.

Janina: We may have a lot of guidelines.

Jemma: I want the intention clear in user generated content
... Is there anywhere I can see this?

Janina: We had work that wasn't approved by AGWG

Jemma: I just want to see the intention of user generated content

Rachael: If we have something to include, we can create an issue and tie it into this item

Jemma: Sounds good

Janina: All of it will be improved

Rachael: We have tools, create and group issues. We can note them and postpone them.

Jeanne: We have a lot of work that has to be done in parallel

<jeanne> draft: RESOLUTION: To accept the response on Issue 450

<Chuck> +1

<janina> +1

<ToddL> +1

<Makoto> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Jemma> +1

<sarahhorton> +1

Jemma: I'll create an issue

RESOLUTION: To accept the response on Issue 450

<jeanne> Next meeting: January 7

Jeanne: We'll meet again on January 7th

<JenniferS> +1

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Assigned to label Process
[NEW] ACTION: discuss again in January

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accept response to Issue 460 with editorial adjustment
  2. Issue 494 will remain open for now.
  3. To accept the response on Issue 450
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/12/17 15:56:13 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: jeanne, janina, Wilco, Makoto, Jemma, ToddL, sarahhorton, kirkwood, JenniferS
Present: jeanne, janina, Wilco, Makoto, Jemma, ToddL, sarahhorton, kirkwood, JenniferS
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco
Found Scribe: jeanne
Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne
Found Scribe: Chuck
Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco
Scribes: Wilco, jeanne, Chuck
ScribeNicks: Wilco, jeanne, Chuck

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: assigned discuss

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]