16:46:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
16:46:43 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/03-silver-conf-irc
16:46:55 <janina> agenda?
16:47:02 <janina> zakim, clear agenda
16:47:02 <Zakim> agenda cleared
16:47:18 <janina> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
16:47:27 <janina> Date 03 March 2022
16:47:31 <janina> Chair: Janina
16:47:37 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
16:48:08 <janina> Regrets: Azlan_Cuttilan
16:49:30 <janina> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
16:49:30 <janina> agenda+ User Scenarios Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
16:49:33 <janina> agenda+ Next Steps in Presentations to Silver and AG
16:49:36 <janina> agenda+ Other Business
16:49:38 <janina> agenda+ Be Done
16:53:01 <janina> present+
17:00:05 <ToddL> ToddL has joined #silver-conf
17:00:23 <DarrylLehmann> DarrylLehmann has joined #silver-conf
17:01:06 <shadi> shadi has joined #silver-conf
17:01:47 <PeterKorn> PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
17:01:56 <shadi> present+
17:01:58 <DarrylLehmann> present+
17:02:00 <PeterKorn> Present+
17:02:03 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #silver-conf
17:02:47 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #silver-conf
17:02:56 <Wilco> agenda?
17:03:12 <GreggVan> present+
17:03:13 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver-conf
17:03:20 <Wilco> present+
17:03:22 <Wilco> scribe: Wilco
17:03:24 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
17:03:24 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
17:03:27 <ToddL> present+
17:03:42 <maryjom> present+
17:04:09 <Wilco> Janina: AGWG decided to take week off for CSUN. Not sure if the Friday call happens, but we'll not be presenting on the 15th.
17:04:36 <Wilco> ... AGWG has agreed to presenting on the 29th.
17:04:54 <Wilco> ... We'll have to go to Silver call at least once before.
17:04:55 <KimD> KimD has joined #silver-conf
17:05:03 <KimD> Present+
17:05:21 <Wilco> ... The main purpose is to continue to perfect the document.
17:05:46 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
17:05:46 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Wilco
17:06:31 <Wilco> Shadi: We didn't finish situation 2 last week. I want to get back to it today.
17:07:11 <Wilco> ... On Friday we brought this document to Silver. There was no opposition, so I interpret that as positive.
17:07:29 <Wilco> ... There were some clarifications, so I took another stab at the introduction part.
17:08:02 <Wilco> ... Explain a little more, thinking about what falls on the spectrum between technical and policy.
17:08:32 <PeterKorn> no objection
17:08:47 <SusiPallero> SusiPallero has joined #silver-conf
17:09:08 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
17:10:21 <janina> q?
17:12:36 <PeterKorn> finished
17:14:17 <janina> finito
17:14:19 <maryjom> done
17:14:21 <KimD> done
17:14:26 <DarrylLehmann> done
17:14:38 <GreggVan> done
17:14:45 <ToddL> done
17:16:34 <Wilco> Kim: I can probably not help with plain language
17:17:04 <Wilco> Gregg: I suggest we take this to the committee, and then ask how to do it in plain language.
17:17:31 <Wilco> Janina: We're only required to have plain language summaries.
17:17:46 <Wilco> Shadi: We want to be clear to a broad audience.
17:17:56 <Wilco> ... I like the suggestion of taking it to the plain language group.
17:18:45 <GreggVan> q+
17:18:53 <SusiPallero> I can help as I helped some banks in Spain remediate their contracts in plain language, and if I can understand it in my poor english then it must be easy. I could test the translation motors too.
17:18:59 <Wilco> ... Please do get me suggestions, or flag it if a sentence is too complex.
17:19:47 <janina> q+
17:19:48 <shadi> q- peter
17:19:59 <PeterKorn> q-
17:20:01 <janina> ack pet
17:20:40 <Wilco> Gregg: Not sure about the word authoritative. Saying way has an authoritative role in policy gets arguments.
17:21:05 <Wilco> ... Under problems, have 1 example to get heads in the right direction of what it is.
17:21:13 <PeterKorn> @Gregg - 2nd bulet says "technical guidance"; what kind of guidance is the third bullet guidance (vs. "authoritative")?
17:21:40 <Wilco> ... Next "can" sounds like it's decided. Maybe "might" to invite conversation.
17:22:33 <Wilco> ... Saying fully accessible is meeting the guidance contradicts what we've always said about guidance.
17:22:46 <Wilco> ... I think we should call that fully conformant.
17:24:01 <Wilco> ... Reasonable effort, I'm not sure where we're using that.
17:24:46 <PeterKorn> +1 to "reasonable efforts standard".  I would also drop "standard" from that; "reasonable efforts concept" or "framing" maybe?
17:24:47 <Wilco> ... I don't think that should be cited if we're going to include more.
17:26:26 <Wilco> Janina: We've kind of avoided getting into the "why" of this document. It might be useful to have a few sentences.
17:26:40 <Wilco> ... Looking for patterns, looking for ranges, how to define what is critical and what is less so.
17:26:40 <PeterKorn> q?
17:26:43 <PeterKorn> q+
17:26:55 <Wilco> ... Helping figure out how to produce a real-world situation conformance model.
17:27:15 <Wilco> ... I expect the Tuesday call will challenge us on "why"
17:27:58 <shadi> ack gr
17:28:01 <shadi> ack pe
17:28:05 <janina> ack ja
17:28:05 <shadi> ack ja
17:28:38 <Wilco> Peter: Maybe we should say we avoid the word accessible. It's a short hand that can mean different things.
17:29:17 <Wilco> ... We could say conforms means you adhere to some number of technical standards. Fully conforms means to conform to all of them.
17:29:37 <Wilco> ... Noting it's not fully accessible. It makes the document more dry, but likely to get less attacked.
17:29:41 <janina> q/
17:29:42 <Wilco> Gregg: +1
17:29:44 <janina> q?
17:29:58 <Wilco> Peter: I think it might be helpful.
17:30:02 <KimD> q+
17:30:34 <Wilco> ... Regarding relevance to PwD, I wonder if it's still a useful concept in a prioritisation context.
17:31:16 <Wilco> ... If I'm fed gov, working through a bunch of sections. I might prioritise accessibility of social security over door handle procurement.
17:31:26 <Wilco> Gregg: Having accessible door handles may mean they can or can't get in.
17:31:35 <KimD> q-
17:31:52 <Wilco> .. I have a concern, but I don't have a recommendation. Don't like to do that but don't know how to solve.
17:32:17 <Wilco> Peter: Maybe the answer is to highlight that concept is not ready.
17:32:30 <Wilco> Shadi: Other thoughts?
17:32:45 <PeterKorn> (I need to briefly step away from my computer; still listening)
17:33:04 <Wilco> Shadi: I want to prioritise comments that impact the presentation of the document.
17:34:34 <Wilco> ... Looking at the list of situations. Example 1.1 would read making content fully conformant requires specialists.
17:34:37 <Wilco> q+
17:34:48 <janina> 1.1 requires specialists and presumes unicode for ancient gliphs
17:35:16 <janina> q+
17:35:25 <PeterKorn> scribe: PeterKorn
17:35:34 <PeterKorn> Wilco: not liking the language approach read out
17:35:47 <Wilco> scribe: Wilco
17:35:59 <Wilco> Shadi: I was surprised we changed to fully accessible
17:36:01 <PeterKorn> q+
17:36:09 <shadi> ack wilco
17:36:12 <shadi> ack janina
17:36:14 <Wilco> Janina: I like the shift to talking about conformance. It's what we'd be producing
17:37:12 <Wilco> ... We define standards / guidance. Things do or don't conform. In 1.1 it struck me it's not just calligraphy, you need to know a unicode character.
17:37:14 <GreggVan> Q+ to say  Summarize   "Suggest   1) removing "authoritative" from bullet 3  since it is about policy and W3C/WAI is not the authority for policy.  I see the idea but suggest removing.  2) Put an example after the first sentence in Problem Description - to get people's heads going in the right direction (since some developers find everything about WCAG a challenge and we arent talking about that level of challenge.  3)  in the three
17:37:14 <GreggVan>  bullets - change CAN to MIGHT so we dont sound like we have decided these -- but are open to discussion about them at this point.   4) i see problems with "fully accessible".    this contradicts WCAG which says nothing is fully accessible even if fully conform to WCAG     then we say more accessible is more than fully accessible..    Peter just spoke and i like his suggestion for handling this.     5) "relevance to People with
17:37:14 <GreggVan>  disabilities -- always bothers me.   but i dont know how to handle.  Yes - info for PWD SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be accessible -- but then ALL the other information on the site SHOULD ALSO ABSOLUTELY BE ACCESSIBLE if it is important to anyone - it is important to PWD.    so it is a concern but i dont know how to resolve   6) Reasonable Effort standard --- is just one standard.  there is also Undue burden and other measures.  Many are stronger.
17:37:14 <GreggVan>  I would not adopt one standard here - but leave that to policy people   "
17:37:24 <Wilco> ... Yes, I prefer replacing accessible with conformance
17:38:09 <GreggVan> q+
17:38:25 <Wilco> Peter: I wonder if another way to frame this is "conforms to same" vs "conforms to all".
17:39:03 <shadi> ack peter
17:39:12 <Wilco> ... I don't like partial conformance, that caries over. Maybe we can say you can say conforms to some, and part of what technical guidance can do is guide us to what might be more achievable.
17:39:33 <PeterKorn> scribe: PeterKorn
17:39:49 <PeterKorn> Wilco: don't feel strongly opposed to the change; slight preference for "accessible"
17:40:03 <PeterKorn> ...not about "fully conforms" vs. "conforms"
17:40:04 <Wilco> scribe: Wilco
17:40:05 <shadi> ack gregg
17:40:05 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say  Summarize   "Suggest   1) removing "authoritative" from bullet 3  since it is about policy and W3C/WAI is not the authority for policy.  I see the idea
17:40:08 <PeterKorn> scribe: wilco
17:40:09 <Zakim> ... but suggest removing.  2) Put an example after the first sentence in Problem Description - to get people's heads going in the right direction (since some developers find
17:40:09 <Zakim> ... everything about WCAG a challenge and we arent talking about that level of challenge.  3)  in the three and to
17:40:26 <janina> We're also teasing out that some conformance criteria are more critical than others; though that can vary by situation
17:40:54 <Wilco> Gregg: I agree with Peter. I think we're better off talking about conforming / not conforming. Declaring that something that meets WCAG 2 is accessible drives people crazy.
17:41:24 <PeterKorn> "I'm partially pregnant"?
17:41:48 <janina> partially dead?
17:41:50 <Wilco> ... I think saying something is partially conformant makes no sense. Getting rid of partial conformance doesn't mean anything.
17:41:55 <DarrylLehmann> +1
17:41:56 <Wilco> Shadi: There is also levels of conformance.
17:42:10 <PeterKorn> [Shades of the Princess Bridge - "he's only mostly dead"]
17:42:20 <Wilco> ... I'm hearing the group lean towards trying conformance.
17:42:55 <ToddL> I'm in agreement with the conversation so far. Apologies, I'm multi-tasking today.
17:43:04 <maryjom> +1 to Peter's suggestion
17:43:05 <janina> q+
17:43:11 <Wilco> Peter: I know we can roll things back, but it might be interesting to have a document that does the conformance transplant, so we can see them side by side
17:43:36 <Wilco> Shadi: I won't use partially conformant
17:44:16 <Wilco> Janina: In the 2.x series it was unspecific. I think we're heading towards some things being critical and others we'd forgo depending on the situation.
17:44:32 <Wilco> Shadi: I'll take a stab, then we can look at them side by side
17:44:49 <PeterKorn> scribe: PeterKorn
17:45:09 <PeterKorn> Shadi: Returning to Situation #2
17:45:34 <janina> q+
17:45:40 <PeterKorn> ... have only one example: archived content
17:46:08 <PeterKorn> q
17:46:12 <PeterKorn> q+
17:46:39 <PeterKorn> .... initially, some discussion in the group about things on the same page, but not as important [prioritzation discussion?]
17:46:50 <PeterKorn> .... question: do we have other examples here?
17:46:56 <maryjom> Q+
17:47:48 <PeterKorn> Janina: Peter's idea from last time - keeping data generating now that you don't know now is important, but it may become important later.
17:48:18 <PeterKorn> ... and then in situation #1, extend text description of what is in the scroll is an extreme edge case.
17:48:49 <PeterKorn> q-
17:48:54 <PeterKorn> ack janina
17:49:27 <janina> scribe: janina
17:49:45 <janina> PeterKorn: Images of section of stars, and later you find there's a comet in that sector
17:50:08 <janina> PeterKorn: Now, by looking back you can find where you missed it at first; but if not archived, you'd not be able to look back
17:50:35 <janina> PeterKorn: point is we don't know whether the data is important until something later indicates examining past data makes it more important
17:50:58 <janina> PeterKorn: it might also be situation 3, too rapid for a11y, but might be important later
17:51:04 <PeterKorn> scribe: PeterKorn
17:51:27 <PeterKorn> maryjom: thinking in software scenario - processes or things only used by certain roles of people: e.g. installers.
17:51:42 <PeterKorn> ... scenarios that occur only once; is that a "rarely used" scenario?
17:51:52 <PeterKorn> [Peter aside: "Maintenance and monitoring spaces" from 508 refresh]
17:52:36 <PeterKorn> Shadi: example 3.1, about generating content.
17:53:49 <PeterKorn> ... collect parts of 1.1 & 2.1 & 3.1 - taking pictures that may be worth looking at later
17:54:31 <PeterKorn> ... and put them together into situation 2.  And change situation 3 into user-generated content specifically
18:00:46 <janina> zakim, bye
18:00:46 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been janina, ToddL, Azlan, PeterKorn, maryjom, KimD, shadi, DarrylLehmann, GreggVan, Wilco
18:00:46 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf
18:00:46 <KimD> KimD has left #silver-conf
18:00:53 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
18:00:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/03-silver-conf-minutes.html janina