Meeting minutes
<janina> Date 24 Feb 2022
<ToddL> I cannot scribe today either. Apologies.
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
User Scenarios Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
Shadi: thanks for everyone who helped with review & feedback for the doc.
… quick synopsis of changes made in doc
… removed auto-gen TOC, replaced with manual header, so the intro & problem desc. come earlier.
… using "fully accessible" and "relevant to PwDs" - explaining this in Key Terminology & Concepts
… editing headings as we discussed last week; some few more just came in from Judy
… updated example 1.3 to make acquisition more general (vs. just of MOOC).
… example 2.2 is being removed - it was really a 3rd party issue, so only one example in situation 2.
… cosmetic changes in example 3.2, 4.1. (and make 4.1 more clearly distinct from 5.3)
… added time limitation consideration for policy around "forever beta" state.
… some further edits in 9.2 around text alternatives.
… rest of changes are editorial.
Janina: in situation 4 remediations (maybe also in 5), we say 1st party, 2nd party, 3rd party doesn't match up with typical meaning of 1st party, etc.
… maybe drop the "party" designation, and instead just be descriptive
… shadi: anyone opposed to that change?
<no disagreement with Janina's suggestion>
<ToddL> Full support here.
Janina: like shorthand version of "fully a11y". Good that we know how to add more a11y, but want a shorthand for ...
PeterKorn: There's no way to avoid the issue but how is the situation best presented when if you can't do everything but recognising doing everything may take longer.
… maybe in our concept of "fully accessible" we give an example?
… This document is about prioritising where you can't do everything immediately
Shadi: summary of Judy concerns. Situations 1 & 3 have the concerns.
… "When making content fully accessible is not achievable immediately" - isn't this something potentially EVERY web developer might claim?
… also "When content is accumulating too rapidly to make fully accessible" - again something most web developers would see applying to them?
Shadi: maybe not focusing on rates, but on volumes. E.g. "Large volumes of content"
<maryjom> +1 to volume
<Zakim> Azlan, you wanted to say where do you draw the line? Just employ more staff no matter how big your archive is?
Azlan: As Peter said, just because you haven't bothered to hire enough staff to do the work... where do you draw the line?
Shadi: happy to add examples to the content. Judy's primary concern (for now) is peoples skimming headers, coming to conclusions just from those.
… add examples now, or continue to refine titles?
+1 for titles
Janina: biggest hit is top level labels
Shadi: add "large volumes of" in front of "content" in situations 1 & 3.
<Azlan> +1
Shadi: does that work?
+1
<ToddL> +1
<KimD> +1
Shadi: other situation from Judy was with situation 2. "When content is seldom used, if ever"
… initial discussions were about parts of a page/views that was less relevant/less essential
… only thing left in situation 2 is archived content
<maryjom> One example might be archives of government content - eg old census info, old birth certificates, deeds, legal documents and so on that may have been scanned but not OCR or described.
maryjom: reiterates her typed comment.
… old data like family history going back generations. Seldom used, but you would want to use on demand.
… court documents, deeds. Lots of older/historical data. Not all digitized. And they are digitizing it over time.
… there is some other method/mechanism to get access.
Janina: likes not having "archived" in the situation title.
… like ancestry example, as it covers the situation better than legal deeds (not just gov't)
Shadi: is any of the data current, or is it all old? Is there a temporal component to this?
Shadi: 3 approaches
… 1: Shadi tries to come up with something for situation 2 title; 2: remove the situation from the document and return to it later;
… 3: continue discussing it, maybe beyond end of hour
Peter: "rarely if ever" or "almost never"?
shadi: before returning microphone to Janina - any thoughts from Tod/Azlan/Wilco?
Azlan: listening to discussion (not minuted) of prioritization, the example makes a lot of sense to him.
… makes more sense than archives of new content. Can hear Gregg "if we are making content available to some people, why not all?"
… prioritzation is a situation I can completely understand. Even as new content comes in - may supersede something that may not have been made a11y.
KimD: really like what Peter said earlier - "you don't know what you need until you need it"
… we don't make PDFs of every single thing that is available in print. But if a student needs it, we make the print material available in a11y digital format.
… you don't know in advance what you will need in the alternate format.
<ToddL> I've got to run to another meeting. Thank you everyone.
Janina: we have 1/2 of Friday call (2nd on agenda).
… expect that Shawn will turn mic over to Janina, who will pass to Shadi.
… while we were tasked with 3rd party, we actually found 11 situations that needed to be addressed. We felt an overall map was important.
… then we might do a deeper dive w/Silver on 1 or 2 of them, and invite Silver to do a close read on their own after.
… also ask folks to consider "neutral language" in this text.
… remaining question: what to walk out of meeting with?