Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

17 Feb 2022


Azlan, DarrylLehmann, GreggVan, janina, PeterKorn, shadi, Todd, Wilco
Azlan, PeterKOrn

Meeting minutes

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

User Scenarios Review

Other Business

Janina: welcome Judy to join the conversation, as we look at our scenarios document

Judy: concern that this doc may be repeating a trap that we ran into previously.

Judy: That said, document is very clear - lots of great content, way to start the discussion.

Judy: looking at table of context, language has statements that may give an incorrect gist.

Judy: e.g., "Situation 5: Content providers may have dependencies on other services" - a neutral statement of a thorny issue. Awesome.

Judy: e.g, "Situation 7: ..." - also neutral. Lays out a real-life thing. But the top few situations aren't this neutral.

Judy; "Situation 2: Not all content needs to be made accessible, especially legacy content". That is such a sweeping statement, rather than
… a neutral statement of a situation.

Judy: for people who only look at subheadings, we could give people the incorrect gist.

Judy: if you can address that, the document may be received better.

Judy: other things can say about the doc, but this is the priority item. It is really about framing

Gregg: Amen and +1 to Judy.

Gregg: suggests even with situation 5, better to have it be a "topic" rather than a "scenario"

Judy: hearing even one more level of neutrality

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say " shouldn't " Content providers may have dependencies on other services" be better worded as " Content providers and dependencies on other services" since "may" is a normative word and sounds like a statement rather than a topic.

Judy: Scenario 5 title as written speaks to the terrain of the issue. Group may want to debate what level of neutrality to go for.

Gregg: "might" instead of "may" would move us away from standards language.

<shadi> +1 to Janina

<Azlan> PeterKorn: Wonder how we can make these edits before Friday is we collect or address these comments now

Judy: don't have good language change suggestions quite yet

Judy: should we take a bit of time to do this - push the Silver review off by a week.

Shadi: don't feel we are going for approval; this is the first time broader group will see this. OK to come in with an early draft.

<Todd> +1 to Shadi

Want to get as much from Judy as we can just now.

<DarrylLehmann> +1 Shadi

Shadi: can we get as much from Judy now as we can.

Judy: respectfully disagree with taking this document with current headers up 1 level into Silver, it will be automatically bringing it in as a controversial document.

<Wilco> +1 this is already controversial

Judy: will bring it in with an inflamed discussion
… take things that look like statements and turn them into something that is more helpful rather than worrisome, you will have
… a whole evolution of the document smoother.

Janina: don't have an endpoint of this doc. Not very concerned with Friday/Silver call, but definitely trepidation with AGWG.

<shadi> +1 convinced by Judy

Judy: would be better prepared on a followup meeting

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on timing of subgroup revisions and bringing it to tf

Gregg: If you can just highlight the concerning subheadings, that would be helpful.

Janina: would be useful for Friday. They have provided friendly, useful input

Judy: expects you can figure most of these out -- this is a phenomenal group of people in this group...

User Scenarios Review

PeterKorn: Situation 5 seems pretty good. Situation 7 also pretty good. So will start from the top.

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

<shadi> [[When making content accessible can not be achieved immediately]]

PeterKorn: "Not all content needs to be made accessible" needs work

<DarrylLehmann> +1

Situation 3 - needs a little more work

Situation 4 - seems good

<shadi> [[When content is accumulating too rapidly to be made accessible]]

Situation 5 - Greggs suggested change "When content providers have..."

<shadi> [[When content providers have dependencies on other services]]

Situation 6 -

GreggVan: Want to insert "always"

Situation 7 - this is good

<shadi> [[Bugs and other issues of oversight ALWAYS occur in content]]

Situation 8 - needs more work

Situation 9 - needs work but it is not far off

<shadi> [[When there are limitations to how accessible content can be made]]

Situation 10 - "walled garden use case"

needs work

<shadi> [[Small businesses might observe particular challenges]]

Situation 11

<shadi> [[Small businesses face unique challenges]]

janina: "Small businesses face unique challenges"

PeterKorn: Returning to situation 1 - When making content accessible may not be achievable immediately

janina: Would be more comfortable with stating fully accessible

GreggVan: When Making content fully accessible may not be achievable immediately

When making content fully accessible is not be achievable immediately

<maryjom_> Maybe this: When making content fully accessible is not immediately achievable

PeterKorn: Situation 3: Content is accumulating too rapidly to make fully accessible

Situation 5: When content providers have dependencies on other services

Might want to look at example 5.3

<PeterKorn> Situation 8: Current limitations in providing full accessibility in real-time

Situation 9: Current limitations in making some content fully accessdible

<Todd> Have to run to another meeting. Thanks everyone.

<PeterKorn> "The university does not prioritize reviewing and retrofitting exchanges among the students on various discussion fora. These could have sporadic accessibility issues, such as unmarked language changes. The university indicates this accessibility limitation in an accessibility statement"

GreggVan: this is third party content so shouldn't be here

Situation 2: When content is seldom if ever used

PeterKorn: Given GreggVan concerns about example 2.2 do we need to clean this up before we go to Silver tomorrow?

shadi: we are not under time pressure we can wait a week

GreggVan: we could remove the examples that say the content doesn't have to be made accessible to everybody

Consensus we will spend extra time before going to silver

Wilco: Don't think it is this document that is controversial. It is that there are exceptions that is controversial

GreggVan: we need to be clear in the intro

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


Succeeded: s/these out./these out -- this is a phenomenal group of people in this group.../

Maybe present: Gregg, Judy