Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

20 Jan 2021


DarrylLehmann, GreggVan, janina, jeanne, JF, maryjom, PeterKorn, shadi, ToddL

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

janina: reached out to Judy to discuss compliance

janina: Shadi has updated the use case document to incorporate discussion points

JF: (admin note) migrating IRC channels for sub groups

janina: will look into sub group channel change.

WBS https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/conf-3rd_party/

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

Shadi: Updated intro to substantial conformance to clarify the goals

Shadi: Changes to first section, museum sample more relevant (not archived material), sharpen the examples

Shadi: New example 1.2 added, training company. Needs a lot of material added to be inclusive

shadi: seperated out technical standard from examples scenarios from policy suggestions

GreggVan_: caution about shifting the bar higher due to our current exploration

GreggVan_: the examples focus on industry, rather than problematic use cases of those industries.

GreggVan_: specifically, what issues exist. Does a museum hold back galleries of images as a result of non conformance

GreggVan_: are there use cases where art perhaps doesn't require extended description

PeterKorn: we should state what is required. examples scenarios offer suggestions to policy.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I like this very much and think the comments of how the accessibility is being improved without having all the content being accessible.

PeterKorn: caution around looking into educational material.

jeanne: likes the examples of industry having problems meeting particular challenges with building inclusive content. gives us opportunity to offer guidance. can we clearly define what needs to be done to be accessible while not conforming necessarily to spec

GreggVan_: yes thanks Peter. I meant to add the bit about policy too. it would be 1) example 2) what is required 3) what might be required (in standard) 4) other things that can be done and 5) what is policy and not standard (e.g phased conformance) or must do alt text and then

<jeanne> I think that it is important to show the best practices because otherwise, AGWG is going to reject it because they don't understand that we are trying to raise the bar in exchange for conformance for inaccessible content.

janina: Agree with jeanne about examples being useful. Offer more examples that are radically different. The art description question is interesting one.

janina: offering examples of the Dead Sea scrolls being made accessible, challenges to audio descriptions of a symphony

<Zakim> GreggVan_, you wanted to say "yes thanks Peter. I meant to add the bit about policy too. it would be 1) example 2) what is required 3) what might be required (in standard) 4) other things that can be done and 5) what is policy and not standard (e.g phased conformance) or must do alt text and then

shadi: agree with GreggVan_ regarding complexity, while seeing the value in these scenario's at exploring our direction

shadi: would like clarification on example format

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about format

<shadi> 1+ to not trying to give exemptions

<PeterKorn> Jeanne is covering my points well.

jeanne: likes the format for exploration. Plus, helps us persuade the AGWG that we are not trying to provide exemptions. Helps identify the problems seen by content creators

<PeterKorn> I don't think we need to use this document just now to get into what additional requirements we think should be in WCAG 3 in THIS document NOW.


JF: agree with jeanne for the most part. However, we are offering exemptions with some guidance. Careful with how we present this.

GreggVan_: when discussing exemptions, what requirements are we talking about, does it make the content accessible or not. Does every item need an extended description.

janina: Any way of organizing the examples will inevitably leave some gaps.

shadi: feels that the majority are ok with the format, suggestions to changes are welcome

<PeterKorn> No strong opinion either way

shadi: idea of dropping 1.1 Museum example?

janina: do we instead add more divergent examples to balance?

shadi: please do send more examples with group concensus

<jeanne> I have a real-life example of a museum that I consulted with a couple years ago.

<jeanne> I will write it up for Shadi.

<shadi> thanks!

JF: would like 1.1 kept in. beyond the specific naunce, the example offers an issue to volume of content.

+1 JF

<jeanne> +1 to JF, the purpose of example 1 is the volume of material

JF: question of volume, time+resources. example offered of notice to users to request an expedited conformance

shadi: please send suggestions for further examples

jeanne: Adding heading detail to describe what issue the example infers

<JF> +1 to Jeanne minus "new" - it could apply to legacy content too

<jeanne> I agree with JF

shadi: inquiry into group's review of the updated examples

<PeterKorn> +1 for moving on to next parts of doc.

janina: let's progress on the example set and revisit as we discover new strategies

<ToddL> +1 to moving forward to next part of doc as well.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest that we add that to the title of each example

shadi: please take a look at discussion tab on examples.

GreggVan_: "suggest we not use "full accessibility" 1) there is never full accessibility 2) it implies that it is required by WCAG -- if we are talking about things beyond WCAG requirements

<shadi> Please chime in the comments on the discussion tab: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Talk:Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

<ToddL> Thanks all.

<JF> Bye all!

zakim bye

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/require alt description/require extended description

Maybe present: GreggVan_