15:49:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:49:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/07-silver-conf-irc
15:49:30 <janina> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:49:39 <janina> Date 07 Apr 2022
15:49:43 <janina> Chair: Janina
15:49:50 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
15:49:53 <janina> agenda?
15:49:57 <janina> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:49:57 <janina> agenda+ User Scenarios -- Which to refine?
15:49:57 <janina> agenda+ Next Steps
15:49:57 <janina> agenda+ Other Business
15:49:57 <janina> agenda+ Be Done
15:50:13 <janina>  rrsagent, make minutes
15:50:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/07-silver-conf-minutes.html janina
15:54:53 <janina> present+
16:00:25 <DarrylLehmann> DarrylLehmann has joined #silver-conf
16:00:41 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver-conf
16:01:15 <shadi> shadi has joined #silver-conf
16:01:20 <shadi_> shadi_ has joined #silver-conf
16:02:31 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver-conf
16:02:39 <Azlan> present+
16:02:44 <DarrylLehmann> present+
16:02:55 <shadi> present+
16:04:24 <PeterKorn> PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
16:04:58 <Wilco> Wilco has joined #silver-conf
16:05:02 <Wilco> present+
16:05:03 <maryjom> present+
16:05:09 <Wilco> scribe: Wilco
16:05:16 <jeanne> jeanne has joined #silver-conf
16:05:19 <PeterKorn> present+
16:05:25 <jeanne> present+
16:05:32 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
16:05:32 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
16:05:46 <jeanne> agenda?
16:05:50 <SusiPallero> SusiPallero has joined #silver-conf
16:06:08 <SusiPallero> present+
16:06:16 <Wilco> janina: We want to focus on the outcome sections.
16:06:19 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
16:06:40 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
16:06:40 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- User Scenarios -- Which to refine? -- taken up [from janina]
16:06:49 <janina> zakim, who's here?
16:06:49 <Zakim> Present: janina, Azlan, DarrylLehmann, shadi, Wilco, maryjom, PeterKorn, jeanne, SusiPallero
16:06:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see SusiPallero, jeanne, Wilco, PeterKorn, Azlan, shadi, maryjom, DarrylLehmann, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, MichaelC, Rachael, trackbot
16:07:25 <Wilco> Azlan: No preference on which to focus on
16:07:41 <Wilco> Darryl: Me neither
16:07:58 <Wilco> Jeanne: Would like 2 and 3
16:08:05 <PeterKorn> +1 2 3
16:10:19 <Wilco> Shadi: Side comment, while going through this I spotted an issue in 2 and 4.
16:10:23 <Wilco> ... We can come back to that later
16:10:58 <Wilco> ... On which to select; I liked the approach of getting some type of criteria. It should have a mix of technical,
16:11:13 <Wilco> ... But also policy considerations, and additional content.
16:11:35 <Wilco> ... Another criterion is may to not raise third-party too early.
16:11:51 <Wilco> ... I could go with Jeanne's suggestion of 2 and 3
16:13:00 <Wilco> Gregg: I thought the ones we should do first are not the ones we've been debating before.
16:13:07 <Wilco> ... We should talk about new ones.
16:13:10 <SusiPallero> I agree with Gregg, and I would like to start with 2
16:13:41 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #silver-conf
16:13:51 <GreggVan> present+
16:14:15 <Wilco> Wilco: No preference
16:14:18 <Wilco> Mary Jo: Same
16:14:31 <Wilco> Peter: I'll +1 to number 2 and 3
16:14:45 <shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios
16:14:59 <DarrylLehmann> +1 to scenario 3
16:15:38 <Wilco> Susane: Vote for #2, I see a lot of concern to that kind of content, especially educational institutions
16:16:07 <Wilco> Janina: We're canvasing the group and pick the ones are most fruitful to refine.
16:16:19 <GreggVan> q+
16:16:41 <Wilco> Janina: I'm includes to 3 and 4.
16:16:59 <Wilco> ... I believe these can subsume much of the rest of the situations if we're careful
16:17:17 <PeterKorn> q+
16:17:20 <Wilco> ... I don't think the firehose do much that isn't covered by standards from 3.
16:17:48 <Wilco> ... I don't see how 2 is a separate situation. 4 also subsumes 5, and several of the other ones.
16:18:20 <Wilco> ... A lot of what we talk about would come under 4, arguably, with the use of CMS
16:18:31 <jeanne> q+ to caution that we don't want to take on something too broad to start -- Recommend keeping it narrow.
16:18:39 <GreggVan> Q+ to say   " 2 and 3 seem to be the same -- or same enough that you will end up being repetitive.    Also   need to talk about changing all of the boilerplate responses   -- to remove the technical standard part from many items
16:18:39 <Wilco> ... the only one of the 11 that isn't as clearly covered is where we don't know how to do it because the technology is new
16:18:46 <janina> q?
16:18:55 <janina> ack gr
16:18:55 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   " 2 and 3 seem to be the same -- or same enough that you will end up being repetitive.    Also   need to talk about changing all of the boilerplate
16:18:58 <Zakim> ... responses   -- to remove the technical standard part from many items
16:19:05 <Wilco> Gregg: I agree, 2 and 3 are so close, you're better off discussing them together.
16:19:18 <janina> q?
16:19:19 <Wilco> ... I noticed a lot of our responses are boiler plate. It's the same response.
16:19:45 <Wilco> ... The other thing is, across all them we felt like we had to say something under technical but there's nothing that can be done.
16:20:14 <Wilco> ... If we feel under technical there isn't nothing we should say that.
16:20:14 <janina> q?
16:20:22 <janina> ack pe
16:20:50 <Wilco> Peter: I thought the assignment was to take a first stab at policy guidance, moving away from boilerplate.
16:21:00 <Wilco> ... I think there's an important difference between 2 and 3.
16:21:15 <janina> q+
16:21:29 <Wilco> ... Situation 3 you'll get to it eventually, but situation 2 you'll never get to. Firehose does not slow down.
16:21:46 <Wilco> ... I think there's something connected to technical standards with 2, and perhaps with 3.
16:22:35 <GreggVan> q+ to say   "Ah   - I see what you mean Peter.    I now agree that they are different -- but we should switch the order so we talk about the one we will solve eventually first -- and the one where we never will catch up after that."
16:22:40 <Wilco> ... There's enough there to allow policy to say this part is a lot easier then another part. The policy might say to do this part before that part. But you can only do that if there's enough granularity in the technical standard
16:22:55 <Wilco> ... That's the thing the tech standard can do; have enough granularity for the policy.
16:23:00 <janina> ack jea
16:23:00 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to caution that we don't want to take on something too broad to start -- Recommend keeping it narrow.
16:23:31 <Wilco> Jeanne: I'd like to caution this not get too broad. Don't try to include too many things.
16:23:36 <PeterKorn> +1 - dive deeper first on one of them, rather than trying to stretch across multiple.
16:23:56 <shadi> q+
16:24:01 <Wilco> ... I agree with Gregg avoiding the boilerplate. But I think we pick things we know the problem space well, and write specific information for each one.
16:24:16 <Wilco> 2 and 3 in particular will have a greater impact on the overall direction of WCAG 3.
16:24:37 <Wilco> ... They're all important, but not as consequential. They're narrow enough that we can dive into a lot of detail.
16:25:39 <Wilco> Janina: One thing that came up in the last call, our technical guidance can give them a nuanced understanding and steer them, outside the scope of what a standard would do.
16:26:00 <Wilco> ... I keep not understanding how 2 and 3 are so different.
16:27:13 <PeterKorn> q?
16:27:13 <Wilco> ... There may be controlled situations where a museum eventually gets all its content accessible. If we just add the word "all" in that time context, we pretty much have all the situations that'd be in the firehose.
16:27:42 <Wilco> ... Leaving out 4 or 5 leaves out third party for now, which I think would be a miss.
16:27:43 <janina> q?
16:27:48 <janina> ack ja
16:27:50 <janina> ack gr
16:27:50 <Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say   "Ah   - I see what you mean Peter.    I now agree that they are different -- but we should switch the order so we talk about the one we will solve
16:27:53 <Zakim> ... eventually first -- and the one where we never will catch up after that."
16:28:16 <Wilco> Gregg: I agree that 2 and 3 are different, but they're in the wrong order.
16:28:23 <janina> q?
16:28:47 <Wilco> ... Something gets 100k letters that you can't sit on for a month. So you put them up.
16:29:07 <Wilco> ... It's something that has to be made available right away, but can't be done all at once.
16:29:35 <Wilco> ... The second case is 100k every day, or minute. This is a more extreme case that you can't eventually catch up.
16:29:55 <PeterKorn> q+ just to say "let's just get started, and start with 3"
16:30:01 <janina> q+
16:30:54 <Wilco> Shadi: I feel it might reraise the discussions. It's a tough discussion I think we have to have, but leading with that discussion might be an uphill thing.
16:30:55 <janina> ack sha
16:31:11 <Wilco> ... There might be an easier one to get started with. Maybe #1 on bugs is the easier one.
16:31:31 <GreggVan> Q+   to ask --  are we talking about the order we discuss internally?  or the order in the document we present.  I keep hearing both?
16:31:51 <Wilco> ... It's mostly a policy thing. But if WCAG had more granularity you could separate out what types of bugs occured. There are some technical aspects as well.
16:32:17 <Wilco> ... The issue isn't so controversial as content we won't get to.
16:32:40 <Wilco> Peter: Lets start with 3 and see where it takes us.
16:32:57 <Wilco> ... It seems there are enough people behind that.
16:33:11 <GreggVan> +1
16:33:11 <jeanne> +1 to Peter. Let's not waste a whole meeting debating it
16:33:30 <Wilco> Janina: It's going to take us to defining things you really have to do.
16:33:54 <Wilco> ... We have this concept, if you haven't done everything you couldn't possibly conform.
16:34:21 <Wilco> ... We're in a world where you have to prioritise. Maybe then we go back to 2.
16:35:05 <Wilco> Janina: Hearing no objections to taking up 3
16:35:44 <shadi> q+
16:35:49 <Wilco> ack just
16:35:49 <Zakim> just, you wanted to say "let's just get started, and start with 3"
16:35:54 <shadi> queue=
16:35:58 <shadi> q+
16:36:27 <PeterKorn> q+
16:36:37 <GreggVan> q+
16:36:37 <Wilco> Janina: We may want to refine the name of the situation to include we might never get everything done.
16:36:51 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
16:36:52 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Wilco
16:36:59 <janina> q?
16:37:14 <jeanne> q+ to say not to include 2 in the discussion of 3
16:37:22 <janina> ack sh
16:37:38 <Wilco> Shadi: The response on exceptions was from one person. I don't know what plans are to get more responses.
16:37:43 <Wilco> ... There wasn't much time for discussion.
16:38:16 <Wilco> Janina: If we want a survey we should write questions.
16:38:20 <Wilco> Gregg: Survey what?
16:38:30 <Wilco> Janina: These 11 situations. We did not discuss that.
16:39:13 <Wilco> Shadi: I'm wondering about reactions on the page.
16:39:20 <janina> q?
16:39:35 <Wilco> ... I'm slightly concerned about going too far in a direction when we haven't taken the group with us.
16:39:50 <janina> ack pe
16:41:01 <Wilco> Peter: I suggest one of us work on an example; Museum receives a ton of letters. To support that in technical we want a small list of separable things, for example name and date of the letter and have the transcript be separate.
16:41:12 <Wilco> ... We can write up a few of those and see how they look and feel.
16:41:16 <janina> ack pe
16:41:17 <janina> ack gr
16:41:36 <shadi> q+
16:42:01 <Wilco> Gregg: I think exceptions should be held for things technically impossible.
16:42:25 <Wilco> ... When we say something can't be done immediately, it's good for us to say that rather than tackle them one at a time, it's better to triage.
16:42:56 <Wilco> ... I think we're better off doing 3 and then doing 2. Close one out before opening the other.
16:43:15 <janina> ack je
16:43:15 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say not to include 2 in the discussion of 3
16:43:27 <Wilco> Jeanne: Lets keep it narrow.
16:43:44 <Wilco> ... Once we have more detail on 3, lets send that to AGWG as a survey and get their feedback, just on 3.
16:43:50 <Wilco> q+
16:43:56 <GreggVan> q+
16:44:47 <Wilco> Shadi: There wasn't really time for discussion. We've seen this before.
16:44:57 <shadi> ack me
16:45:09 <Wilco> Gregg: I concur. We should mention there's a separate one as a note.
16:45:14 <Wilco> Peter: Do we need to decide now?
16:45:54 <Wilco> q-
16:46:12 <Wilco> Janina: We'll work on 3, and when we're done we'll present to AGWG
16:46:53 <janina> q?
16:47:00 <janina> ack g
16:47:06 <Wilco> zakim, take up next
16:47:06 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Next Steps -- taken up [from janina]
16:47:36 <Wilco> Peter: I think it might be most efficient if one of us takes a stab at it, rather than try to write it in committee.
16:47:57 <Wilco> Gregg: Agree, and I suggest responding in the list
16:48:26 <jeanne> I would like to take a stab at it.
16:48:53 <Wilco> Janina: I'll work with jeanne.
16:49:08 <Wilco> ... I propose there's no call next week. I'll be out, as is Peter.
16:49:14 <Wilco> ... We'll be back in two weeks.
16:49:23 <Wilco> Gregg: I'll be happy to respond
16:50:07 <Wilco> zakim, end meeting
16:50:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been janina, Azlan, DarrylLehmann, shadi, Wilco, maryjom, PeterKorn, jeanne, SusiPallero, GreggVan
16:50:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:50:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/07-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim
16:50:13 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Wilco; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:50:17 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf
17:00:11 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver-conf
17:14:13 <janina> janina has left #silver-conf
17:38:49 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver-conf
17:51:29 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver-conf