16:42:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
16:42:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/10-silver-conf-irc
16:43:06 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
16:43:17 <janina> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
16:43:22 <janina> Date 10 Mar 2022
16:43:27 <janina> Chair: Janina
16:43:57 <janina> Regrets: Todd_Libby
16:44:27 <janina> agenda?
16:44:32 <janina> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
16:44:32 <janina> agenda+ User Scenarios Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
16:44:35 <janina> agenda+ Next Steps: Strategy Presenting to AG
16:44:38 <janina> agenda+ Other Business
16:44:40 <janina> agenda+ Be Done
16:44:50 <janina>  rrsagent, make minutes
16:44:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/10-silver-conf-minutes.html janina
16:48:22 <janina> present+
16:58:50 <shadi> shadi has joined #silver-conf
16:59:19 <PeterKorn> PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
16:59:40 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver-conf
17:01:49 <KimD> KimD has joined #silver-conf
17:01:56 <KimD> Present+
17:01:59 <DarrylLehmann> DarrylLehmann has joined #silver-conf
17:02:07 <DarrylLehmann> present+
17:02:10 <shadi> present+
17:04:29 <jeanne> scribe: jeanne
17:04:46 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
17:04:46 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
17:04:47 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #silver-conf
17:04:50 <Wilco> present+
17:05:00 <jeanne> present+
17:05:01 <PeterKorn> present+
17:06:19 <jeanne> JS: We need to think about how to present this to AGWG.  I timed my screenreader which took 45 minutes to read.  I think we need to think about a summary and how to handle details.
17:06:45 <jeanne> JS: Should we meet next week?  It is the CSUN week.
17:06:52 <jeanne> WF: not available
17:07:13 <jeanne> PK: would want to leave early,
17:07:34 <jeanne> JS: We aren't presenting to AGWG until the 29th.
17:07:44 <DarrylLehmann> +1 on schedule
17:07:49 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver-conf
17:08:04 <jeanne> ... propose skipping next week, meeting on the 24, presenting to Silver on the 25th.
17:08:06 <maryjom> present+
17:08:13 <PeterKorn> +1 to inviting Judy again
17:08:15 <jeanne> SAZ: We may want to invite Judy again
17:08:52 <jeanne> JS: Shadi sent her an update a week ago
17:09:18 <jeanne> ... we should hear her concerns
17:09:55 <jeanne> SAZ: We have addressed her concerns, now we should look at her recommendations for next steps
17:10:14 <jeanne> JS: I will followup with Judy
17:10:21 <jeanne> zakim, take up next
17:10:21 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- User Scenarios Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios -- taken up [from janina]
17:10:54 <jeanne> JS: I love the way it reads with the latest updates
17:11:38 <jeanne> SAZ: I think the Intro part is very important
17:11:49 <jeanne> ... 1) walk through the changes
17:11:51 <janina> q?
17:11:59 <jeanne> ... 2) look at 8 & 9
17:12:07 <SusanaPallero> SusanaPallero has joined #silver-conf
17:12:31 <SusanaPallero> present+1
17:12:37 <jeanne> ... 3) go up a level and think about the order of situations and examples, especially what we lead with. First impressions are important
17:12:39 <janina> q+
17:13:30 <jeanne> JS: I had a structural thought on presenting it to AG.  If we named the examples and built the table of contents so they would cluster under the section which would give a better sense of what we are proposing
17:13:37 <janina> ack ja
17:14:46 <janina> ack PeterKorn
17:14:49 <janina> q?
17:14:59 <jeanne> SAZ: I didn't address every comment but I did take the major comments
17:15:47 <jeanne> SAZ: The Approach section is improved
17:15:53 <janina> q?
17:15:59 <jeanne> ... all the "can" to "might"
17:16:25 <jeanne> ... made "accessible" more consistent.  Removed "partial conformance"
17:17:14 <jeanne> ... used "conforming" to apply to standards
17:17:17 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver-conf
17:17:24 <Azlan> present+
17:17:52 <jeanne> ... In situation 2, when content is rarely used.  I kept the weather forecast report.
17:18:38 <PeterKorn> q+
17:18:44 <jeanne> ... I separated the content into "outdated content" and "current content rarely used"
17:19:37 <jeanne> q+ with some minor nits on the Intro
17:19:50 <janina> ack pe
17:19:52 <jeanne> q+ to say some minor nits on the intro'
17:20:42 <jeanne> PK: Outdated vs Current: the important example in situation 2 is that content that is generated contemporaneously, but we don't know when it will be meaningful.
17:21:10 <jeanne> ... Outdated doesn't fit with it, but we don't know it is important until we want to look back on it
17:21:21 <jeanne> SAZ: That would make it too close to Situation 3
17:21:34 <janina> +1 to agree a different accumulating example might communicate better than weather; but weather will do until we have a better one!
17:23:26 <jeanne> PK: Trying to look at this with a critical eye, when we say "library" it is a place where everything should be accessible.  A better example would be searching for exoplanets where there are thousands of photos and we rarely every go back to. We archive them in real-time because we will only look at them again if necessary.
17:24:31 <jeanne> ... this feels more like "content rarely used" than "content accumulating too rapidly".  We have no idea if we are going to use the information that is being captured very rapidly.
17:25:50 <jeanne> SAZ:  (reads) Example 2.2 - current content that is rarely used: An organization is continuously archiving thousands of electronic titles, including of digital books, video and audio recordings, scanned documents, and more. It ensure that those presented to the general public, for example displayed in an exhibition, conform to the technical standard. However, the majority of titles are
17:25:50 <jeanne> archived and very rarely used. Occasionally, researchers, collectors, and others may be interested in the one or other title for particular reasons. These rarely accessed titles are marked to all users as archived, for example in a banner that conforms to the technical standard. The organization decides not to prioritize retrofitting archived titles, to make them conform to the technical
17:25:51 <jeanne> standard. The organization indicates in an accessibility statement that archived titles may have accessibility issues, and describes the types of issues that tend to occur in these titles. The organization also provides a mechanism for users to request conforming versions of archived titles, for example for research purposes.
17:27:32 <jeanne> PK: It uses "digital books, video and audio". Digital books should be accessible.  We are trying to capture the concept that we don't know if it needs to be accessible until we go back later.
17:27:48 <DarrylLehmann> q+
17:27:48 <PeterKorn> q-
17:28:17 <jeanne> DL: We could replace the word "digital books" with "point form notes"
17:28:34 <jeanne> ... I really like the improvements
17:28:49 <jeanne> q-
17:29:08 <jeanne> JS: Astronomical observatory
17:29:42 <janina> scribe: janina
17:29:57 <janina> jeanne: Like how the doc has developed; it's direction and examples
17:30:05 <janina> jeanne: Only concern is how long it takes to read
17:30:43 <janina> jeanne: perhaps a presentation format for AGWG where we describe hiding much of the detail
17:30:49 <DarrylLehmann> q+
17:30:50 <janina> jeanne: also have another use case, but later
17:31:01 <jeanne> scribe: jeanne
17:31:50 <jeanne> SAZ: I'm running out of ideas of how to make it more readable
17:32:15 <jeanne> DL: I think it has a lot of potential to help out the broader group
17:32:47 <jeanne> ... maybe we could hide out the technical and policy sections with dropdowns
17:33:04 <PeterKorn> q+
17:33:13 <janina> ack da
17:33:15 <janina> ack pe
17:33:21 <jeanne> ... maybe we could go into the first example in details, with less detail in the later doc
17:34:00 <jeanne> PK: Rather than adding to the main document, putting a summary in advance with an invite to read the details
17:34:19 <jeanne> ... we could use expand/collapse more
17:35:01 <jeanne> SAZ: Expand/collapse can increase more usability issues
17:35:11 <janina> q+
17:35:22 <jeanne> ... we could put it in a survey in breakdown so people can read it.
17:36:07 <jeanne> JS: The calligrapher example needs more work to fully explain what we want to accomplish.
17:36:45 <jeanne> SAZ: I want to look at the order so that the first example has the most interest to the group so that they want to read more
17:36:58 <janina> ack ja
17:36:59 <jeanne> ack jan
17:37:46 <jeanne> SAZ: HOMEWORK: Take a look at the Introduction section and make it clearer.  On list or offlist or pidgeon
17:37:55 <janina> topic: situations 8 and 9
17:37:56 <jeanne> Topic: Situation 8
17:39:45 <jeanne> SAZ: We only have one example. The 8.2 example was removed because it really was a technical issue and fit better in section 9
17:40:01 <PeterKorn> q+
17:40:52 <jeanne> SAZ: the real-time example could fit into 9, and couild have a shorter document.
17:40:55 <janina> ack pe
17:41:36 <jeanne> PK: I had more examples for real-time: Plain language and language simplification which cannot be done in real-time
17:42:09 <PeterKorn> q-
17:42:15 <jeanne> ... when it is in multiple languages, you have to wait for the translater first, then the caption. That makes real-time captioning much more difficult.
17:42:45 <jeanne> JS: I am open to either option, and also open to changing the order
17:43:11 <jeanne> ... what principle we use to reorder is important.
17:43:21 <jeanne> q+
17:43:25 <DarrylLehmann> +1 on merge for page size
17:43:35 <janina> scribe: janina
17:43:40 <janina> jeanne: Like them separate
17:43:57 <janina> jeanne: the Real Time aspect is important to keep separate from current limitations
17:44:08 <janina> jeanne: could live with it -- but ...
17:44:23 <jeanne> scribe: jeanne
17:44:46 <janina> scribe: janina
17:44:59 <janina> shadi: the real time would still be there
17:45:16 <janina> jeanne: 9 is broader -- applies across more technologies
17:45:23 <janina> jeanne: 8 is unique for RTC
17:45:43 <janina> jeanne: Feels a bit lost in 9
17:46:03 <maryjom> +1 to what Jeanne said. I think these are separate conceptual situations.
17:46:26 <janina> PeterKorn: could we do it via example in 9?
17:46:28 <janina> jeanne: yes
17:46:44 <jeanne> PK: Could we put it into the title, that way it addresses the problem of it getting lost
17:47:12 <KimD> +1 to merging AND +1 to adjusting the heading in 9
17:47:13 <jeanne> MM: Technology and time are different concepts, but addressing it with labeling is fine
17:47:52 <jeanne> Topic: Ordering the Use Cases
17:48:36 <PeterKorn> q+
17:48:43 <jeanne> SAZ: The order is just what occured to me as I wrote them, so it may be subconscious.  I don't have a suggestion of how to reorder it.
17:48:45 <jeanne> ack jea
17:49:27 <jeanne> ... Janina suggests adding the example headings to the table of contents
17:49:33 <janina> ack pe
17:49:52 <jeanne> ... then the order of the examples is more important
17:50:27 <jeanne> PK: We want to put the most common and least controversial at the top
17:50:46 <jeanne> ... we don't want to exempt for all time, but they are not controversial today
17:51:06 <jeanne> ... the standards change is another one that will resonate with AGWG
17:51:18 <PeterKorn> q-
17:51:19 <jeanne> ... I like the idea of closing with small business at the end
17:51:20 <DarrylLehmann> q+
17:51:28 <janina> ack da
17:51:41 <jeanne> jsp: +1 to Peter's suggestion to reordering
17:52:14 <jeanne> DL: So many companies depend on outside services, example 4 should go further forward
17:53:04 <jeanne> PK: I disagree.  I see the list as everything that needs to be considered, but it is more controversial, and we want to get people onboard before they confront more controversial material
17:53:31 <jeanne> DL: Buy-in is important, then we could address the more nuanced material
17:54:18 <jeanne> SAZ: What would the top be?
17:54:28 <PeterKorn> +1 for Real-time / Current tech limits early in list
17:54:30 <DarrylLehmann> +1 on realtime
17:54:31 <jeanne> JS: I think real-time: 8 & 9 first
17:55:00 <PeterKorn> I'd keep 6/Bugs in later half of doc
17:55:14 <KimD> Nothing new from me
17:55:15 <jeanne> GVH: I will read it again
17:55:57 <PeterKorn> I like the idea of putting 1 and 3 next to each other, as both are speaking to "large volumes of content"
17:56:09 <jeanne> SAZ: "realitive accessibility" still needs more work, so Gregg, please come up with some proposals on.
17:57:10 <PeterKorn> q+
17:57:15 <jeanne> GVH: I don't have good solutions.  It would be a tragedy if pages about accessibility were inaccessible.  Instead of making them a priority, we could address them as "of course, the accessibility pages have ot be accessible"
17:57:20 <janina> ack pe
17:57:37 <shadi> s/come up with some proposals/look at this in particular
17:58:06 <KimD> KimD has left #silver-conf
17:58:10 <jeanne> PK: The example might be a service like ParaTransit.  A service that is specifically aiming at people with disabilities.  It needs to be at the top of the list.
17:58:23 <jeanne> q+ to talk about another use case
17:59:14 <jeanne> GVH: we don't want to say that something is a second priority or a lower priority, just that accessibility of accessibility has to be an "of course"
18:00:16 <janina> scribe: example use case was a third party pushing updates faster than they can be tested
18:00:37 <PeterKorn> Jeanne - maybe a new example in section 5?
18:00:39 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #silver-conf
18:00:46 <GreggVan> present+
18:01:13 <jeanne> rrsagent, make minutes
18:01:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/10-silver-conf-minutes.html jeanne
18:01:26 <janina> zakim, bye
18:01:26 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been janina, KimD, DarrylLehmann, shadi, Wilco, jeanne, PeterKorn, maryjom, 1, Azlan, GreggVan
18:01:26 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf
18:01:30 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
18:01:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/10-silver-conf-minutes.html janina