Meeting minutes
<janina> rrsagent make log public
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
Janina: Was hoping Judy could join but could not.
Peter: How was the topic framed to Judy?
Janina: E-mail that goes back a few weeks. Don't recall the exact wording.
… Along the lines; considering how we might write conformance that hints at things that are better dealt with by regulators.
… We wanted to know how to frame this.
… I'm confident there is wide-spread desire for consistency planet-wide. The more can be in standards, the more effective the standards might be.
<Zakim> GreggVan_, you wanted to say "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
WBS https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/conf-3rd_party/
<shadi> https://
Shadi: The most significant changes are example 1.1, digitising paintings is now digitising ancient scrolls.
… This now uses images of text.
… All the examples now have a brief summary.
… I see comments from Darryl and Mary Jo. I want to pick up some questions from before.
… I'm wondering if anyone has over-all comments or thoughts.
JF: Regarding the policies bullet. I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to integrate this into the WCAG structure
Shadi: I'm trying to step back from any particular version of WCAG. Just say what things standards can do and what things policies can do.
… We won't write policy, so the best we can do is guidance for policy makers who want to adopt WCAG.
… For example defining what acceptable timelines are for making content accessible.
… I think its useful to go step by step. Maybe in an interim have some kind of WAI guidance on what policy makers need to consider when adopting WCAG.
… That could maybe later on be adopted as a protocol
Gregg: What did you mean, adopt as protocol?
Shadi: JF is in a protocols sub-group, which can refer to things like content useable. Get points in WCAG for considering.
<Zakim> PeterKorn, you wanted to discuss JF's Q
Peter: It feels premature. Most important now is to get comfortable with the scenarios and what we feel is best handled by policy.
… If this has a bigger life, within WCAG 3 or as stand-alone guidance, I think that's to be decided.
… I think we focus on this part first.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to follow up
JF: Not sure I agree. What we're trying to do is figure out scenarios where we're less then perfect that can be acceptable.
… Wanting to have a global way to measure succes, it strikes me that if we acknowledge that policy has to be part of determining compliance, I feel we need a mechanism for addressing that.
… We keep kicking that can down the road. I'm all for policy addressing shortcomings, but how do we integrate that?
JF: Protocols is an attempt to bring requirements into WCAG that are difficult to test/measure/repeat.
… One of the things we seem to have landed on is protocols measure input as opposed to output.
… What guidance have you used. Making a public commitment to using that.
Shadi: I think we're getting into design. This may be premature.
… I don't think we can have a central guideline, applying to the entire world that includes all policies.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "I like the idea of - example - what the role of technical stds may be here - what the role of policymakers is here
Gregg: I think the standards / guidance / policy model is excellent. It lets you talk about testable things, untestable guidance, and things outside our scope.
… How these relate to WCAG 3. It can't be policy. WCAG can't be in WCAG 3. But in terms of standards and guidance we need to decide.
… If it includes both standards and guidance, this needs to be stated.
Peter: +1
Janina: We have some expectations. When are we going to deliver on third-party? At some point we should look at how to respond or ask adjustments. Other things depend on what we're going to do.
Shadi: To me this is a framework to help me respond on third-party
<shadi> https://
Shadi: Going to the section Relevance...
… Where it says how policies can address the situation. I was wondering if there are certain types of content that might be particularly relevant.
… Can't make the whole museum accessible but I'll prioritise a certain part.
Gregg: As long as it's prioritising things people are most interested in, as opposed to just things people with disabilities.
Janina: Some of this we should admit, not only does it take long to make something accessible, it might not be a priority to provide textual descriptions.
… It seems to me that people are interested in all kinds of things. What matters depends.
… What is required in order to say we're accessible may not be the description is there in all cases.
… Trying to caption all YouTube videos is impossible.
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to suggest "or ever" is meaningful
Peter: If you have a situation where it's impossible to do everything, you might want to prioritise. Videos that show how to use access features you may want to put in queue.
Shadi: For the museum example. Either we wait for the launch or we publish the accessible parts as we have it.
… Policy makers will consider such claims on a case by case basis. They'll look at type and volume.
… One of the considerations they'll have. We're looking at what kinds of considerations policy makers will look at whether they're in scope of a policy or not.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say and to say "agree - we should find wording that says If all can't be made accessible immediately then 1) prioritize info on accessibility first, then 2) information of most interest to everyone - or info unique in the site. (but don't stop or pause at end of #1. In any case - the informaiton
Gregg: I agree with Peter. If all can't be made accessible, maybe prioritise information on accessibility first, then maybe the most interested, but don't stop there.
<PeterKorn> Suggest we make a note that we might want to get into more depth in this section, and move on to Situation #2
Shadi: We don't have a consideration for prioritising. This is just about not being able to do it all immediately. Is that within policy or not? That's the question.
… Mary Jo commented on terminology and concepts.
… I'll skip over these comments for now. These will resolve as we work out what things need definitions and what don't.
… I tweaked example 1.2; training example. What Mary Jo proposes is to not only publish with captions but to publish with automated captions and fix the captions later.
<PeterKorn> +1 to the addition
+1
Mary Jo: Often you may not initially teach something to someone with a disability, but want the recording for after.
… We publish it and then later fix what was wrong.
<JF> Wilco: there is a sub-thought here - a conference where you know your audience and may not need to add captioning
<JF> (i.e. limited size of audience with known participants)
<JF> JS: is this based on an intranet or similar
<JF> Wilco: or where attendees have registered, and content owner knows in advance who needs what kind of accomodation
<JF> Shadi: a new scenario
<PeterKorn> +1 to this being a new scenario.
<JF> Shadi: paraphrase - because we know the users in advance, we can relax some requirements as not having a need/requirement
<JF> outside of a small group
<PeterKorn> If none of the people registered for a presentation requested a specific access modality/feature, the can omit while live (and fix when posted later)
Janina: Knowing your audience helps to prioritise
Peter: It feels to me like a new scenario related to live. If you ask for, and nobody says they need it, you prioritise when you post it as opposed to when it's live.
Shadi: It gets me a little concerned as people may need to disclose their disability, but I get the point.
JF: What occurred to me, there is a different between public and private.
<maryjom> +1 to Wilco's scenario as well. In those kinds of situations, you wouldn't prioritize creating captions or audio descriptions - or may never plan on providing them unless someone new comes along and needs it.
JF: Would this then mean that internet needs to be accessible. To what point do we have to provide every strategy, if there's just seven of us?
Shadi: Good thought, will take it on board.
Shadi: Back to comments. Mary Jo talk about acquiring a company that has content with not accessible content.
… Wilco made a comment about a related example about MOOC. Is that related, does that strengthen the example?
Mary Jo: This is a real scenario, it would be good to have this in some way represented.
… Combining with MOOC is fine.
+1 to combining
<PeterKorn> +1 to including that example in one of our scenarios
Gregg: I think this is the same as the large bowl of information. It has to be prioritised, the rest is policy.
… It's the same situation as if someone gives a ton of content. What order to fix it is guidance, not standards.
Shadi: These are about that situation, too much to do immediately, but you're on the trajectory. Can the standard say what the minimum things are, but put metadata which parts are not accessible.
Gregg: That sounds like a guideline, not a standard.
Shadi: Okay. We have it written under what can technical standard do.
Shadi: Under situation 2, another comment from Mary Jo.
… In this situation we deem certain parts of the content that we're not going to make accessible.
… Mary Jo suggests a different situation, where not the content is legacy but the tool is based on an older standard. Can't throw away the tool.
… I wonder if that fits better under situation 5, where content provider depends on other services.
… This could not be a third-party system, but there's a dependency on the tool.
Mary Jo: Don't know about situation 5.
Peter: 5 doesn't seem right.
Mary Jo: Anyone in an older product, may have been made accessible under an older standard.
Peter: I think you can look at this example through a few scenarios.
… Going back to acquired a company; It could involve deprecating things.
… The other version; the new law kicks in, our path to fix it is to replace it, which requires more time.
… The third one is the standard is updated and we comply with the older standard?
… Maybe rather than getting at it that way we factor those scenarios into the examples.
Gregg: I don't think you can go back to build a whole new product once they are released. Websites yes, products not.
<PeterKorn> @Janina - that feels like it is the same larger scenario: new standard (new facet of existing standard); what to do with legacy tool you will be replacing
Janina: Another scenario is new standards. I think one of the most visible support is people that rely on AAC symbols. Support for those come over time.
… I'm wondering if we want to continue with discussion on these, or do we want to focus these back to third-party?
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "I think it would be (for active products) "this product met XXXX standard which was the operable standard when it was designed. Replacement products will be built to new standards"
<GreggVan> correct
Peter: I like what we're going. I think we make real progress sticking to the feedback.
+1
<PeterKorn> I need to drop now.