16:43:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
16:43:57 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/13-silver-conf-irc
16:44:08 <janina> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
16:44:15 <janina> Date: 13 Jan 2022
16:44:23 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
16:44:27 <janina> Chair: Janina
16:44:37 <janina> agenda?
16:44:40 <janina> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
16:44:40 <janina> agenda+ WBS https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/conf-3rd_party/
16:44:40 <janina> agenda+ Other Business
16:44:40 <janina> agenda+ Be Done
16:44:54 <janina>  rrsagent, make minutes
16:44:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/13-silver-conf-minutes.html janina
16:48:54 <janina> regrets: Susana_Pallero
16:53:38 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #silver-conf
16:57:33 <shadi> shadi has joined #silver-conf
17:00:55 <DarrylLehmann> DarrylLehmann has joined #silver-conf
17:01:07 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #silver-conf
17:01:10 <Wilco> present+
17:01:19 <PeterKorn> PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
17:01:29 <shadi> present+
17:02:02 <PeterKorn> present+
17:02:05 <JF> JF has joined #silver-conf
17:02:09 <DarrylLehmann> present+
17:02:14 <JF> Present+
17:02:17 <JF> agenda?
17:02:25 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver-conf
17:02:39 <Azlan> present+
17:02:44 <janina> present+
17:02:52 <jeanne> present+
17:03:04 <ToddL> present+
17:03:11 <jeanne> scribe: jeanne
17:03:33 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
17:03:33 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
17:03:56 <jeanne> JS:  I put one thing on the agenda -- the survey has a number of responses
17:04:29 <jeanne> ... Jeanne and I made an executive decision to take the questions iteratively a few at a time
17:04:45 <jeanne> WF: I appreciate you didn't do them all at once
17:05:27 <jeanne> JS: One of the conclusions is that we need to give advice to regulators, but we need some guidance from management on how to do that
17:05:48 <jeanne> ... I saw the responses and invited Judy to come and talk to us about that
17:06:12 <jeanne> ... I said that it could be a last minute decision
17:06:44 <jeanne> ... we may put items into the different buckets
17:06:57 <JF> Q+
17:07:07 <jeanne> ... we did get responses to the survey from people who cannot usually attend the meeting, so that is helpful.
17:07:10 <janina> ack jf
17:07:40 <shadi> q+
17:09:04 <jeanne> JF: I agree about getting guidance to talking to regulators.  It is a larger conversation than just Conformance or even WAI.  It is active in the W3C Advisory Committe about Privacy and there hasn't been anyone in accessibility weigh in.
17:09:35 <jeanne> ... I saw people on the thread saying that they needed to talk to regulators.
17:09:45 <janina> ack sh
17:10:27 <jeanne> SAZ: I'm delighted with the responses.  Given the short time, I want to thank everyone who responded.
17:11:32 <PeterKorn> q?
17:11:34 <PeterKorn> q+
17:11:41 <jeanne> ... I want to be cautious about framing things about "how to talk with regulators".  I think the approach isn't about regulatory -- it's about looking at WCAG from a very technical viewpoint.
17:11:54 <jeanne> ... we can raise certain aspects of the discussion
17:12:03 <janina> q?
17:12:47 <jeanne> ... timeframes may be set differently by different industries.  We are raising the challenge from a technical perspective.
17:12:55 <JF> Q+ to note it's more than just "technical" - it's also editorial
17:13:19 <jeanne> ... it's a slightly different framing.  Not telling policy makers how to make policy.
17:14:54 <jeanne> JS: I am inviting Judy because of in our conformance conversations we may need to point to different things where it may be better handled outside the technical standard and give recommendations of considerations
17:14:56 <janina> ack pe
17:15:53 <jeanne> PK: We need to be clear within ourselves to be clear what is in our purvue or not.  Whatever else the requirements should be, "third party should do X. Y, Z"
17:15:56 <jeanne> ack jf
17:15:56 <Zakim> JF, you wanted to note it's more than just "technical" - it's also editorial
17:16:04 <janina> q?
17:16:20 <jeanne> JF:  It's not just about the technology, it also editorial.
17:16:50 <jeanne> JS: Recently you have been identifying "editorial" differently.
17:17:05 <jeanne> ... we have normative and informative.  Is that what you mean?
17:17:31 <janina> q?
17:17:36 <jeanne> JS: When we were talking about Third Party -- who is responsible for third party.
17:18:14 <jeanne> s/JS: When we were t/JF: When we were t
17:18:32 <jeanne> JS: Even among ourselves we are having difficulty being precise.
17:19:06 <jeanne> ... Thank you to Shadi for giving all the questions.
17:19:10 <janina> q?
17:19:25 <jeanne> ... what we will do for next week is add more questions to the existing survey and reopen it.
17:19:34 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
17:19:34 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- WBS https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/conf-3rd_party/ -- taken up [from janina]
17:20:10 <janina> q?
17:20:22 <jeanne> SAZ: some of the comments are editorial.  I will get input today and then rework the document based on the input.
17:20:35 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/conf-3rd_party/results
17:20:42 <jeanne> ... I will go through the results where I need more explanation
17:21:22 <jeanne> ... Gregg makes a number of comments on changing order and wording. I will do that.
17:21:57 <jeanne> ... But the section that is "Role of the Technical Standard"  I think there may be a misunderstanding.
17:22:55 <janina> q?
17:23:00 <jeanne> ... I propose splitting it into two sections: Core Normative Part and Informative Additional Guidance
17:23:25 <jeanne> +1
17:23:36 <PeterKorn> Would it be helpful to include "for example" in these?
17:23:37 <DarrylLehmann> +1
17:23:47 <jeanne> JS: We may not all agree on the boundary which would be helpful discussion
17:24:00 <janina> q?
17:24:00 <jeanne> SAZ: I am trying to keep it at a higher level for now.
17:24:28 <janina> q+
17:24:29 <jeanne> ... I can incorporate Peter's suggestion
17:24:46 <jeanne> SAZ: Moving on to Wilco's comment
17:25:32 <jeanne> ... Should an organization be allowed to claim conformance for doing the bare minimum and claiming that they will do better later.
17:26:04 <janina> q?
17:26:11 <PeterKorn> q+
17:26:34 <jeanne> ... the example of the MOOC.  We know that the reality is that it will take time.  Can a certain amount of accessibility be accemptable, or should it be not accessible until it is?
17:27:09 <jeanne> WF: We should be careful that we should not set up a situation where people can claim conformance just on a promise to do better.
17:28:32 <jeanne> ... it seems to be that there should be a date where anything newer must be fully accessible and maybe older versions could be declared not accessible.
17:28:35 <jeanne> ack jan
17:29:50 <jeanne> JS: I disagree that paintings are not an easy example.  The easy part is providing the painter name and date.  It is important that the museaum provide a "pull" description that is detailed for the painting.
17:30:13 <jeanne> ... when people point to wCAG guidance there is a lack of clarity
17:30:14 <janina> https://www.amazon.com/Return-Prodigal-Henri-J-M-Nouwen/dp/0385418671
17:30:38 <jeanne> ... one specific painting has a book as the description.
17:31:14 <jeanne> ... some things really do have different levels.  That is no where near as critical as the "Push" part
17:31:17 <Wilco> q+
17:31:21 <jeanne> ack Pe
17:31:38 <ToddL> scribe: ToddL
17:33:07 <janina> ack ja
17:33:17 <ToddL> SAZ: Need to be clear in the language.
17:33:55 <ToddL> WF: Specifically talking about short name
17:34:26 <PeterKorn> Maybe better is to change the museum example from paintings and to digitized videos.
17:34:29 <ToddL> JS: Need to get rid of the shorthand.
17:34:32 <Wilco> +1, totally fair
17:34:52 <ToddL> SAZ: Action is on Shadi to clarify.
17:35:21 <Wilco> q+
17:35:31 <shadi> q+ PeterKorn
17:36:55 <jeanne> q+ to suggest using the example of the handwritten responses to government comment on proposed regulation
17:36:57 <Wilco> q-
17:36:59 <ToddL> PK: Legacy could be legacy videos, recordings of songs that could be transcribed.
17:37:25 <GreggVan> q+
17:37:35 <shadi> ack jeanne
17:37:35 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest using the example of the handwritten responses to government comment on proposed regulation
17:37:40 <ToddL> JS: Thought we had example.
17:38:50 <janina> q?
17:38:54 <DarrylLehmann> +1 on example being clearly non trivial effort
17:39:01 <ToddL> GV: We don't want to call something accessible if it's not.
17:39:25 <ToddL> ... seaparate things that archival from things that are meant to be used.
17:40:29 <janina> q+ to ask who pays for what the researcher needs?
17:40:33 <ToddL> ... monumental amount of work when it comes in. ARe we still looking for the right language?
17:40:39 <ToddL> SAZ: No tlooking for language.
17:41:10 <ToddL> ... talking about whether digitizing paintings is a good example or not.
17:41:32 <ToddL> ... active content that this example is highlighting
17:41:40 <PeterKorn> No disagreement
17:41:46 <Wilco> +1
17:41:51 <ToddL> ... Does anyone disagree?
17:41:53 <shadi> ack gregg
17:42:42 <JF> +1 to Gregg
17:42:57 <PeterKorn> This is why I like the video or audio media example.
17:44:02 <JF> I recall "back in the day" that the Gov. of Canada adopted a policy for legacy "archive" content, where they overlaid a 'modal' that advised that the content might not be fully accessible, but that the user could request an accessible version, delivered in X amount of time
17:44:10 <ToddL> PK: Hope we can go to another example and move on.
17:44:12 <janina> q?
17:44:15 <janina> ack pe
17:44:18 <janina> ack ja
17:44:18 <Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask who pays for what the researcher needs?
17:45:02 <janina> q?
17:46:20 <janina> q?
17:46:43 <ToddL> PK: Speaks on the regulatory matter
17:47:10 <ToddL> SAZ: Take MOOC example, some courses accessible, some are not. Meets certain set of technical requirements.
17:47:33 <ToddL> ... We all agree it needs to be clearly indicated which do and which don't
17:47:34 <ToddL> ...
17:47:35 <janina> q+ Quick Comment: Accessible for one academic course will not satisfy a different academic course
17:48:25 <ToddL> SAZ: Need to differenciate website-wide claim vs website coomponents or pieces.
17:48:46 <ToddL> JS: What you need in one course may be totally wrong for another one.
17:48:58 <ToddL> JS: Need to capture nuances.
17:49:10 <janina> ack ja
17:49:10 <PeterKorn> q?
17:50:28 <PeterKorn> I wonder how much of the concerns being raised about "standard shouldn't allow these things to conform" might be addressed with a more text in the introduction, along the lines of...
17:50:40 <ToddL> SAZ: in certain types of situtions it may not be feasable to address them all at once
17:50:44 <PeterKorn> ...the purpose of this document is to illustrate the difference between where things are best addressed.
17:50:55 <janina> q?
17:51:12 <ToddL> DL: Pull back on the tail end of comment at this point.
17:51:42 <ToddL> ... Splitting will help align those.
17:52:00 <ToddL> SAZ: Are things sufficiently clarified in the meanwhile?
17:52:37 <ToddL> DL: Yes. Might be a little too ahead of where we need to be right now.
17:52:58 <ToddL> DL: Pretty good on the rest of the comments.
17:53:22 <ToddL> SAZ: Reads through Bruce Bailey's comments
17:54:07 <janina> q?
17:54:14 <jeanne> q+
17:54:17 <JF> Q+
17:54:23 <janina> ack jea
17:54:38 <ToddL> JS: Like the idea of passed examples, failed examples that clarify.
17:55:00 <ToddL> ... Start thinking about more examples that uillustrate and narrow down things in this section.
17:55:21 <ToddL> JF: +1 to Jeanne's comment
17:56:12 <PeterKorn> Actually, I'm inclined against JF/Jeanne on this - because the existence of national laws DOES illustrate the fact that policy DOES speak to this situation, and is the right place to speak to it.
17:56:38 <ToddL> SAZ: Need a good mix of examples
17:56:52 <ToddL> PK: Academic examples DO prove the point.
17:57:40 <ToddL> JS: More questions next week or leave it as-is?
17:58:06 <ToddL> PK: Need additional material in the introduction to illustrate tricky situations that need judgment in the regulatory space.
17:58:19 <shadi> [[Providers may run into challenges when trying to make content accessible. They then need to decide if they need to pull or not publish the content versus seeking more pragmatic approaches to address the challenges to the extent possible. The following is a collection of such challenges, and how these could be addressed through a combination of technical standards and policies on accessibility.]]
17:59:02 <janina> q?
17:59:40 <ToddL> q?
18:00:10 <ToddL> JS: Hearing leave as-is for now.
18:00:42 <ToddL> Jeanne to extend deadline.
18:00:54 <JF> Bye All
18:01:20 <GreggVan> present+
18:01:26 <ToddL> zakim, bye
18:01:26 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been Wilco, shadi, PeterKorn, DarrylLehmann, JF, Azlan, janina, jeanne, ToddL, GreggVan
18:01:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf
18:01:47 <ToddL> rrsagent, make minutes
18:01:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/13-silver-conf-minutes.html ToddL
18:11:26 <janina> rrsagent, bye
18:11:26 <RRSAgent> I see no action items