Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

07 April 2022


Azlan, DarrylLehmann, GreggVan, janina, jeanne, maryjom, PeterKorn, shadi, SusiPallero, Wilco

Meeting minutes

<janina> Date 07 Apr 2022

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

janina: We want to focus on the outcome sections.

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

User Scenarios -- Which to refine?

Azlan: No preference on which to focus on

Darryl: Me neither

Jeanne: Would like 2 and 3

<PeterKorn> +1 2 3

Shadi: Side comment, while going through this I spotted an issue in 2 and 4.
… We can come back to that later
… On which to select; I liked the approach of getting some type of criteria. It should have a mix of technical,
… But also policy considerations, and additional content.
… Another criterion is may to not raise third-party too early.
… I could go with Jeanne's suggestion of 2 and 3

Gregg: I thought the ones we should do first are not the ones we've been debating before.
… We should talk about new ones.

<SusiPallero> I agree with Gregg, and I would like to start with 2

Wilco: No preference

Mary Jo: Same

Peter: I'll +1 to number 2 and 3

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

<DarrylLehmann> +1 to scenario 3

Susane: Vote for #2, I see a lot of concern to that kind of content, especially educational institutions

Janina: We're canvasing the group and pick the ones are most fruitful to refine.

Janina: I'm includes to 3 and 4.
… I believe these can subsume much of the rest of the situations if we're careful
… I don't think the firehose do much that isn't covered by standards from 3.
… I don't see how 2 is a separate situation. 4 also subsumes 5, and several of the other ones.
… A lot of what we talk about would come under 4, arguably, with the use of CMS
… 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

<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 responses -- to remove the technical standard part from many items

Gregg: I agree, 2 and 3 are so close, you're better off discussing them together.
… I noticed a lot of our responses are boiler plate. It's the same response.
… 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.
… If we feel under technical there isn't nothing we should say that.

Peter: I thought the assignment was to take a first stab at policy guidance, moving away from boilerplate.
… I think there's an important difference between 2 and 3.
… Situation 3 you'll get to it eventually, but situation 2 you'll never get to. Firehose does not slow down.
… I think there's something connected to technical standards with 2, and perhaps with 3.
… 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
… That's the thing the tech standard can do; have enough granularity for the policy.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to caution that we don't want to take on something too broad to start -- Recommend keeping it narrow.

Jeanne: I'd like to caution this not get too broad. Don't try to include too many things.

<PeterKorn> +1 - dive deeper first on one of them, rather than trying to stretch across multiple.

Jeanne: 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.

2 and 3 in particular will have a greater impact on the overall direction of WCAG 3.
… They're all important, but not as consequential. They're narrow enough that we can dive into a lot of detail.

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.
… I keep not understanding how 2 and 3 are so different.
… 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.
… Leaving out 4 or 5 leaves out third party for now, which I think would be a miss.

<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 eventually first -- and the one where we never will catch up after that."

Gregg: I agree that 2 and 3 are different, but they're in the wrong order.
… Something gets 100k letters that you can't sit on for a month. So you put them up.
… It's something that has to be made available right away, but can't be done all at once.
… The second case is 100k every day, or minute. This is a more extreme case that you can't eventually catch up.

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.
… There might be an easier one to get started with. Maybe #1 on bugs is the easier one.
… 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.
… The issue isn't so controversial as content we won't get to.

Peter: Lets start with 3 and see where it takes us.
… It seems there are enough people behind that.

<GreggVan> +1

<jeanne> +1 to Peter. Let's not waste a whole meeting debating it

Janina: It's going to take us to defining things you really have to do.
… We have this concept, if you haven't done everything you couldn't possibly conform.
… We're in a world where you have to prioritise. Maybe then we go back to 2.

Janina: Hearing no objections to taking up 3

<Zakim> just, you wanted to say "let's just get started, and start with 3"

Janina: We may want to refine the name of the situation to include we might never get everything done.

Shadi: The response on exceptions was from one person. I don't know what plans are to get more responses.
… There wasn't much time for discussion.

Janina: If we want a survey we should write questions.

Gregg: Survey what?

Janina: These 11 situations. We did not discuss that.

Shadi: I'm wondering about reactions on the page.
… I'm slightly concerned about going too far in a direction when we haven't taken the group with us.

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.
… We can write up a few of those and see how they look and feel.

Gregg: I think exceptions should be held for things technically impossible.
… 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.
… I think we're better off doing 3 and then doing 2. Close one out before opening the other.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say not to include 2 in the discussion of 3

Jeanne: Lets keep it narrow.
… Once we have more detail on 3, lets send that to AGWG as a survey and get their feedback, just on 3.

Shadi: There wasn't really time for discussion. We've seen this before.

Gregg: I concur. We should mention there's a separate one as a note.

Peter: Do we need to decide now?

Janina: We'll work on 3, and when we're done we'll present to AGWG

Next Steps

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.

Gregg: Agree, and I suggest responding in the list

<jeanne> I would like to take a stab at it.

Janina: I'll work with jeanne.
… I propose there's no call next week. I'll be out, as is Peter.
… We'll be back in two weeks.

Gregg: I'll be happy to respond

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Maybe present: Darryl, Gregg, Peter, Susane