Meeting minutes
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
JS: I put one thing on the agenda -- the survey has a number of responses
… Jeanne and I made an executive decision to take the questions iteratively a few at a time
WF: I appreciate you didn't do them all at once
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
… I saw the responses and invited Judy to come and talk to us about that
… I said that it could be a last minute decision
… we may put items into the different buckets
… we did get responses to the survey from people who cannot usually attend the meeting, so that is helpful.
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.
… I saw people on the thread saying that they needed to talk to regulators.
SAZ: I'm delighted with the responses. Given the short time, I want to thank everyone who responded.
… 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.
… we can raise certain aspects of the discussion
… timeframes may be set differently by different industries. We are raising the challenge from a technical perspective.
… it's a slightly different framing. Not telling policy makers how to make policy.
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
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"
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note it's more than just "technical" - it's also editorial
JF: It's not just about the technology, it also editorial.
JS: Recently you have been identifying "editorial" differently.
… we have normative and informative. Is that what you mean?
JF: When we were talking about Third Party -- who is responsible for third party.
JS: Even among ourselves we are having difficulty being precise.
… Thank you to Shadi for giving all the questions.
… what we will do for next week is add more questions to the existing survey and reopen it.
WBS https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/conf-3rd_party/
SAZ: some of the comments are editorial. I will get input today and then rework the document based on the input.
<shadi> https://
SAZ: I will go through the results where I need more explanation
… Gregg makes a number of comments on changing order and wording. I will do that.
… But the section that is "Role of the Technical Standard" I think there may be a misunderstanding.
… I propose splitting it into two sections: Core Normative Part and Informative Additional Guidance
+1
<PeterKorn> Would it be helpful to include "for example" in these?
<DarrylLehmann> +1
JS: We may not all agree on the boundary which would be helpful discussion
SAZ: I am trying to keep it at a higher level for now.
… I can incorporate Peter's suggestion
SAZ: Moving on to Wilco's comment
… Should an organization be allowed to claim conformance for doing the bare minimum and claiming that they will do better later.
… 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?
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.
… 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.
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.
… when people point to wCAG guidance there is a lack of clarity
<janina> https://
JS: one specific painting has a book as the description.
… some things really do have different levels. That is no where near as critical as the "Push" part
SAZ: Need to be clear in the language.
WF: Specifically talking about short name
<PeterKorn> Maybe better is to change the museum example from paintings and to digitized videos.
JS: Need to get rid of the shorthand.
<Wilco> +1, totally fair
SAZ: Action is on Shadi to clarify.
PK: Legacy could be legacy videos, recordings of songs that could be transcribed.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest using the example of the handwritten responses to government comment on proposed regulation
JS: Thought we had example.
<DarrylLehmann> +1 on example being clearly non trivial effort
GV: We don't want to call something accessible if it's not.
… seaparate things that archival from things that are meant to be used.
… monumental amount of work when it comes in. ARe we still looking for the right language?
SAZ: No tlooking for language.
… talking about whether digitizing paintings is a good example or not.
… active content that this example is highlighting
<PeterKorn> No disagreement
<Wilco> +1
SAZ: Does anyone disagree?
<JF> +1 to Gregg
<PeterKorn> This is why I like the video or audio media example.
<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
PK: Hope we can go to another example and move on.
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask who pays for what the researcher needs?
PK: Speaks on the regulatory matter
SAZ: Take MOOC example, some courses accessible, some are not. Meets certain set of technical requirements.
… We all agree it needs to be clearly indicated which do and which don't
…
SAZ: Need to differenciate website-wide claim vs website coomponents or pieces.
JS: What you need in one course may be totally wrong for another one.
JS: Need to capture nuances.
<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...
SAZ: in certain types of situtions it may not be feasable to address them all at once
<PeterKorn> ...the purpose of this document is to illustrate the difference between where things are best addressed.
DL: Pull back on the tail end of comment at this point.
… Splitting will help align those.
SAZ: Are things sufficiently clarified in the meanwhile?
DL: Yes. Might be a little too ahead of where we need to be right now.
DL: Pretty good on the rest of the comments.
SAZ: Reads through Bruce Bailey's comments
JS: Like the idea of passed examples, failed examples that clarify.
… Start thinking about more examples that uillustrate and narrow down things in this section.
JF: +1 to Jeanne's comment
<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.
SAZ: Need a good mix of examples
PK: Academic examples DO prove the point.
JS: More questions next week or leave it as-is?
PK: Need additional material in the introduction to illustrate tricky situations that need judgment in the regulatory space.
<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.]]
JS: Hearing leave as-is for now.
Jeanne to extend deadline.
<JF> Bye All