Meeting minutes
screibe: jeanne
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
JS: We are on the AGWG agenda for Tuesday
… we are not on the Silver Friday meeting
Jeanne: Consider it done.
JS: We will talk about the elevator speech today
JS: Those outside of North America, the time changes again. Because we are on the Tuesday AGWG, we want this group to be there at the AGWG meeting.
JS: We will take up the feedback from Tuesday on our Thursday call. Thank you to Shadi for the work on the document.
User Scenarios Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
JS: Shadi has reordered the items. We want to talk about our presentation because we can assume that peole won't read the document, or maybe get lost in the details.
SAZ: Thank you all for the reviews that everyone has been doing and the suggestions.
… the introduction hasn't changed substantially, except the last paragraph which clarifies what it isn't going to cover
… we have changed the order as we talked about the leadin and what brings the explanation along
… we added another level to the table of contents with the name of the examples.
PK: Does the group feel that the order we have now will ease the reader in comfortably?
jeanne: +1 to Peter's comment
<Wilco> that was not my impression
PK: Starting with Third Party has been discussed with AG. End User 3rd party would be a good starting point.
PK: Push 6 up and 1 & 2 down
GV: I like 1 first, because I think it is uncontroversial. The problem is people that don't want to fix the bugs.
… 3rd party is well worn ground, but it is still not resolved.
… I don't want 3rd party at the bottom, because it is so important.
… we have to push archival down because people object to it, but we need to address it .
… what I like about this document is that it takes all the cans we have been kicking down the road
SAZ: I think we agreed we wanted 3rd party to be toward the high end of the middle
… there are two 3rd party issues, they go togetther.
… I have been thinking about thematically go together
… I didn't merge 8 & 9 b ecause I had second thoughts
JS: I agree with keeping the thematic clumps
… I am in favor of keeping bugs up top because bugs do always exist. We are addressing the real world where things are always changing and our standards will tell people how to deal with that.
SAZ: The European Accessibility Act provides a mechanism where a hardware product doesn't comply with the EAA, the economic operator is notified and they have a reasonble period to fix it. If not, they can be pulled from the market.
… it doesn't have a mechanism for services like a website
… at the end of the day, could this have been built in. If you have a bug, and you fix it right away, then you comply. Just an example of how policy can apply balance.
GV: This is a policy thing. We shouldn't say that it conforms if it does not. We have to separate the ruler from the rules
… when it is minimally accessible or not. If it doesn't conform, it doesn't conform.
… how can you make a claim that is accurate
… I think the grouping of the content is good.
… 3 and 4 are closely related and we can have a good conversation. 5 will drag people off from trying to solve 3 & 4
… 5, 10, 11 should be left at the bottom
… number 2 needs to go down the bottom. People with disabilities should be considered from the beginning. 2 & 5 should be grouped
SAZ: We are still a long way from having tolerance metrics
… but we may be able to say that if there is an established mechanism to address bugs, we could say it conforms
… the proposal to move 5, 2, 10, 11 to the bottom
PK: Agreed, except I think bugs should go in the middle.
… 1 before 2 near the end
… 3, 4, 8, 9, 1, 5, 2, 10, 11
<shadi> 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 5, 2, 10, 11
<shadi> Peter's proposal ^
jeanne: +1 of this proposed order
PK: I don't necessarily see this as the final order
<shadi> 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 5, 2, 10, 11
<shadi> Janina's proposal ^
JS: I am afraid that we get immediately into exceptions
GV: We say that we should change the technical requirements. That I don't agree with. I think the examples are great, but the technical and the policy should not be in the standard. We shouldn't call it accessible if it is not.
… I am great with examples and dividing it between technical and policy. But it seems to see that this group calls for things to be called accessible when they aren't just because they are hard.
<PeterKorn> [I'm in queue specifically to respond to Gregg]
SAZ: It is not trying to call it accessible.
JS: We can say, these may not all be correct with the suggestions
… we need to focus on "are we describing the landscape" correctly?
GV: Should they be removed?
JS: I think we should say that they are a work in progress, and focus on the examples, not the solution. We like the 3 buckets, but we don't know how they all work together.
<GreggVan> +1 to that
<GreggVan> 3.2 before 3.1
PK: We define a set of requirements that can be met in all these cases. The word "minimum" is the problem. We can say that even in these examples, if we can't do it all, that isn't a reason to do any.
WF: There is nothing that is accessible to everyone. It used to work in 2005 but to set one bar that applies to everyone all the time. By looking at this we can start to categorize and group things together.
… what large business and small business meeds and can do is different
SAZ: We need to work on how this comes across.
<PeterKorn> "Define the set of a11y standards that can be met in this example" (vs. "define the minimum a11y requirements"
<shadi> 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 5, 2, 10, 11
<PeterKorn> scribe PeterKorn
<PeterKorn> jeanne: suggest we do this as a slide presentation.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to recommend that we turn this into a slide show with only the examples.
<PeterKorn> ...just show the ToC
<PeterKorn> shadi: likes that; show the buckets on Tuesday
SAZ: We could also discuss the buckets
<PeterKorn> "Define the set of a11y requirements that can be met in this scenario"
GV: the examples are good and the next 3 parts. Flag the ones where there isn't consensus
shadi: will add a note that we don't have full consensus on "how tech standards might contribute"
Gregg: also make clear in our Silver/AGWG presentation "this is a heartbeat"
<shadi> Janina: have we missed anything
<shadi> Janina: "have we missed anything" as a question to the group
"Identify the set of a11y requirements that can be met even under these circumstances"
Janina: the point remains that these 3 buckets are the least developed from this group.
… want feedback from Silver, AGWG, on the example scenarios at this point.
Gregg: also always invite people to bring their thoughts to the group
<shadi> 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 5, 2, 10, 11
Maryjo: just because occurance of bugs on websites is everywhere, I think it hsould be first
Gregg: would put it first because if we start off with well-trod ground, they might tune out.
Wilco: don't care much on the order question
Todd: I'm with Wilco.
<shadi> 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 5, 2, 10, 11
shadi: will say clearly "this is a first draft bringing nto group"
… are areas we don't have full consensus. Invite people to participate. Talk about the bukets.
… ask if people have additional situations.
… anything else to do when presenting?
shadi: re-iterate at stop of doc. value of what we are doing.