Meeting minutes
<Todd> Only available in irc today due to another Zoom call.
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
janina: TPAC will be in Vancouver 12-16th February. No specific plans - expect we will meet. The conference will be available virtually as well as in person.
Correction - September 12-16th not Feb
WBS https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/conf-3rd_party/
<shadi> https://
shadi: No new comments in the last week. Have addressed the comments.
Under the heading situation 1, second bullet has been reworked as agreed last week.
shadi: Next comment (3rd bullet) - we agreed last week a reason could be they have been acquired by a company that does accessibility., Example 1.3 has been updated.
Next bullet - to clarify, have tweaked the example that the videos were automatically playing and this must be fixed immediately.
GreggVan: Question - it is ok to have inaccessible content as long as it does not impede upon the other content?
shadi: we are trying to reflect the situation "I want to make the content accessible but I can't immediately"
GreggVan: If you can't make the site accessible right away, make as much as you can and get the rest done as fast as you can. Is that what we are saying?
shadi: what must be done right away and then prioritise the rest.
janina: We are teasing out a more nuanced meaning of what is accessible. We are generating options for conformance. We do need to work on this one. Get things done as fast as you can can lead to some things never getting done.
PeterKorn: Without trying to solve it now, is there a role for a technical standard to provide guidance on prioritisation? It is up to the policy whether and when you take the prioritised approach.
Like the example of turning off automatic playback, prioritising critical errors.
<janina> ~q+
GreggVan: Think you hit it with the policy part. It is up to policy to decide. We don't change the definition of accessible but through policy change what is expected.
janina: Important point - you shouldn't be sued. We need to find a way to define things and critical errors may be an important piece of that.
PeterKorn: Suggest it is not this groups business to address the "drive-by lawsuits"
<DarrylLehmann> +1 GreggVan
GreggVan: Point of clarification - "how much is good enough" is crossing into policy.
shadi: The concept of critical errors is being discussed. In WCAG 2 there is "non-interference". There are a few specifically mentioned items in non-interference criteria.
GreggVan: Critical errors are show-stoppers. Worry for somebody with a cognitive disability may have something lower down the list as being a show-stopper. Worry cognitive will be overlooked.
shadi: Will take another pass at it.
shadi: Moving onto comments under situation 2. New example 1.4
<shadi> An organization follows a certain set of accessibility requirements defined by a technical standard, such as WCAG. A new version of that technical standard changes the accessibility requirements that the organization wants to follow, for example by modifying some, removing others, and adding new ones to the set. The organization cannot transition all its content and applications immediately. For example, some of the tables and forms are
<shadi> generated by a content management system (CMS) that does not yet support the latest technical standard and the accessibility requirements that the organization wants to meet. The organization prioritizes requirements that it can address more quickly. For example, it changes the visual design to address a new calculation for color luminosity that is introduced in the new standard. The organization also has a plan for addressing the remaining
<shadi> accessibility requirements. It indicates the accessibility status of the different content areas and provides an accessibility statement with details regarding the plan to transition the content to the new set of accessibility requirements.
Azlan: Seems this is dependent on the CMS involved? Takes us back to 3rd party
Azlan: Understand allowance for org to have time to make changes
PeterKorn: We might want to avoid CMS to avoid the third party hole
janina: We probably can't avoid it entirely
shadi: we have something for that. Maybe for this situation we can avoid it.
GreggVan: Key is that we need to separate into categories: requirement, additional guidance and policy. We need to be acknowledge the categories and keep from wandering between the three.
shadi: Think this relates to next steps. We will come back to it.
shadi: Example 7.3 (situation 7)
<shadi> Example 7.3 - product demo with limited functionality and accessibility: A company is developing a product iteratively, starting with a series of non-functional designs followed by a series of product demos with limited functionality. Throughout this process the company considers accessibility to the extent possible because the demos may be shared with project team members and external stakeholders with disabilities. For example, the company
<shadi> ensures that buttons that are essential for the purpose of the demo are properly labelled. However, since some buttons do not yet provide the intended functionality, the demo can be confusing for some users. Also, other parts of the demo might not provide the same level of accessibility. For example, the demo intended to show the "product selection" function might have accessibility barriers in the "purchase" function, which is not yet ready
<shadi> for demo. For each demo release, the company describes the accessibility considerations and the scope of these considerations. For example, that it provides labelled buttons in the "product selection" function. It also describes the intent of the demo and known accessibility limitations, for example in an accessibility statement.
<janina> I like how you picked up on a recent APA design pattern!
Azlan: What do we mean by demo? Is it a try before you buy?
shadi: No this is a development demo. Will clarify the use of the term.
shadi: last bullet under overall comments. Wilko raised "what if it is a small group and we know their accessibility requirements"
Examples have been added.
maybe number 10 needs to be looked at. What are the next steps? Would like to pursue how we can work on the guidance parts.
janina: Don't feel we have hit all the situations we need to.
We will need to define really critical errors and we haven't quite captured that. We need good statistical data for what is an acceptable number of errors.
janina: Will try to get these for next week.
Want to capture where it might be economically unfeasible to make everything accessible.
Shadi to confirm with Mary-Jo to verify if the amendments have addressed their comments.