15:40:16 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:40:16 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/21-silver-conf-irc
15:40:22 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
15:40:34 <janina> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:40:44 <janina> Date: 21 Apr 2022
15:40:48 <janina> Chair: Janina
15:40:52 <janina> agenda?
15:40:57 <janina> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:40:57 <janina> agenda+ Trialing Another  Approach -- Scenario 3.1 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html
15:41:00 <janina> agenda+ Next Steps
15:41:03 <janina> agenda+ Other Business
15:41:05 <janina> agenda+ Be Done
15:41:57 <janina> regrets: Todd_Libby, Darryl_Lehmann
15:42:06 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
15:42:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/21-silver-conf-minutes.html janina
15:48:45 <janina> regrets+ Peter_Korn
15:56:13 <janina> present+
15:57:33 <shadi> shadi has joined #silver-conf
16:02:01 <janina> present+
16:02:12 <shadi> present+
16:02:13 <jeanne> present+
16:02:18 <Susi_Pallero> Susi_Pallero has joined #silver-conf
16:02:30 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #silver-conf
16:02:35 <Wilco_> present+
16:02:42 <Susi_Pallero> present+
16:02:49 <shadi> zakim, take up next
16:02:49 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina]
16:03:37 <shadi> Janina: new approach by Jeanne
16:03:40 <shadi> ...in GitHub format
16:03:46 <shadi> ...will explain why later
16:04:01 <shadi> zakim, take up next
16:04:01 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Trialing Another  Approach -- Scenario 3.1 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html -- taken up [from janina]
16:04:28 <shadi> Janina: might take some of this content into the explainer?
16:04:45 <shadi> Jeanne: not sure yet, met the planning meeting yesterday
16:05:13 <shadi> ...typically use cases go into the explainers
16:05:27 <shadi> ...but not yet sure if there is consensus on this
16:06:05 <jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html
16:06:37 <shadi> Jeanne: task was to work on Situation 3
16:07:36 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver-conf
16:07:38 <janina> q+
16:07:43 <shadi> ...some issues with Respec but mostly based on wiki content
16:07:44 <Azlan> present+
16:07:48 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #silver-conf
16:08:01 <maryjom> present+
16:08:11 <shadi> ...took introduction, problem description, key concepts and terms
16:08:31 <shadi> ...made each example into it's own heading
16:08:57 <shadi> ...otherwise no changes, except for Situation 3
16:09:04 <shadi> ...worked on example 3.1
16:09:55 <shadi> ...worked on "How ... might contribute ..." sections per example
16:10:06 <shadi> ...previously this was for the entire situation
16:10:13 <shadi> ...trying to be more specific
16:10:22 <shadi> ...want feedback on that
16:11:06 <shadi> [reads Example 3.1]
16:11:45 <janina> q?
16:14:27 <shadi> ack jan
16:14:42 <shadi> Janina: we might not be limited to WCAG use cases
16:14:58 <shadi> ...focusing on a broader conformance model
16:15:17 <shadi> ...some situations may not be addressed by WCAG
16:16:00 <Wilco_> +1 I had similar thoughts
16:16:10 <shadi> ...small tweak at the beginning is sufficient
16:17:08 <janina> ack ja
16:17:47 <Wilco_> scribe: Wilco
16:18:18 <Wilco_> Shadi: I think this is great. I like having this referred to from the explainer.
16:18:56 <Wilco_> .. I think there might be merit to adding more detail to the examples. Might that mean we need more examples?
16:19:27 <Wilco_> ... Adding more detail per example might lead to more examples, is that good?
16:19:27 <janina> q?
16:19:38 <maryjom> q+
16:19:45 <jeanne> q+ to think about more examples
16:20:12 <Wilco_> Shadi: I like the idea of adding more details, but I'm also worried that we'll start going into solutions now.
16:20:55 <Wilco_> ... Maybe it's rephrasing, an example of how it could work. But now it's maybe proposing solutions that might not have consensus.
16:21:09 <Wilco_> ... Third, I wonder how repetitive this starts getting.
16:21:13 <janina> q?
16:21:39 <Wilco_> ... Last we talked about flipping the sections, putting policy first.
16:21:51 <janina> q+
16:21:57 <Wilco_> ... An example would be to provide guidance to policy makers to consider timelines.
16:22:29 <janina> ack mar
16:23:04 <shadi> MaryJo: agree with a lot of what Shadi said
16:23:15 <shadi> ...worry a little about Maturity Model
16:23:23 <shadi> ...does not give specific guidance
16:23:44 <shadi> ...more on elevating accessibility, not so much on prioritization
16:24:46 <shadi> Janina: critical errors could help Maturity Model provide such guidance
16:25:42 <shadi> MaryJo: not currently what the Maturity Model provides
16:26:28 <janina> q?
16:26:34 <janina> ack jea
16:26:34 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to think about more examples
16:26:37 <shadi> Janina: on-going discussion, to be decided
16:26:39 <jeanne> ack shad
16:26:47 <janina> ack ja
16:26:47 <jeanne> ack jean
16:27:25 <shadi> Jeanne: don't want to get into solutions but want to give a clear message
16:27:45 <shadi> ...that what we are proposing is more work rather than letting people off the hook
16:28:02 <shadi> ...included Maturity Model just to have it mentioned
16:28:31 <shadi> ...happy to rephrase that with suggestions, MaryJo
16:28:37 <janina> q?
16:28:45 <shadi> MaryJo: will work on something
16:28:57 <shadi> q+
16:29:09 <Wilco_> scribe: Wilco
16:30:06 <Wilco_> Shadi: I don't know the solution. Maybe the first bullet, rather than provide guidance, maybe say something like define critical errors that are to be avoided in all cases. Examples could include...
16:30:29 <Wilco_> Shadi: I'm not sure the role of WCAG is prioritising, but it is to define critical errors
16:30:46 <maryjom> Suggest: Consult the W3C Maturity Model for guidance on improving organizational awareness, expertise and execution of accessibility.
16:31:17 <Wilco_> ... For example if SC 1.1.1 is broken down, this could help us identify critical pieces to this SC.
16:31:23 <janina> q+
16:31:33 <Wilco_> ... If something's not accessible it's not, but at least we can say how bad is it.
16:31:50 <Wilco_> ... The first step would be to define critical errors, then frame it as examples.
16:32:02 <shadi> ack me
16:32:15 <shadi> scribe: shadi
16:32:44 <shadi> Janina: the standard will define critical errors
16:33:02 <shadi> ...in this specific example, the organization identifies the critical errors
16:34:36 <shadi> ...explain process of how standards help
16:35:01 <shadi> Jeanne: was intended but can work more on that
16:35:11 <shadi> Janina: can help with word-smithing
16:35:41 <shadi> ...this group will not define what critical errors are
16:35:55 <shadi> ...but the process to find the critical errors first
16:36:03 <janina> q?
16:36:06 <shadi> ...subtle shift here
16:36:06 <janina> ack ja
16:36:31 <Susi_Pallero> q+
16:37:23 <janina> ack su
16:37:31 <shadi> Susi: criteria are on-size-fits-all but conformance is trying to be more fair
16:37:47 <shadi> ...cannot apply the same level to different types of companies
16:38:00 <shadi> q+
16:38:12 <shadi> Janina: I think you are right
16:38:51 <shadi> Janina: in terms of getting too detailed and having more examples
16:39:13 <shadi> ...only add examples that expose new things not provided elsewhere
16:42:23 <janina> q?
16:42:42 <Susi_Pallero> The effort to be accessible needs to be directly proportional to the amount of resources and the size of the company. Move at your own pace, but move.
16:42:53 <Wilco_> scribe: Wilco
16:43:02 <janina> ack sh
16:43:19 <Wilco_> Shadi: I want to remind the discussion about conformance vs compliance.
16:43:58 <maryjom> q+
16:44:05 <Wilco_> ... I think the standard needs to be do different things, but at the end of the day if an image doesn't have a description, it doesn't and it doesn't matter the company
16:44:29 <Wilco_> ... The fairness part is where policy comes in. Most policies I know don't have a concept for bugs and oversight.
16:45:00 <Wilco_> ... They require absolute WCAG, which we know is not feasible. Yet at the same time how can we expect this if we don't have the concept of critical errors.
16:45:18 <Wilco_> ... We need to put in the hooks so it can be used.
16:45:57 <shadi> scribe: shadi
16:46:02 <shadi> ack me
16:46:04 <janina> ack mar
16:46:30 <shadi> MaryJo: we accessibility experts might understand the difference between these two terms
16:46:32 <shadi> q+
16:47:03 <shadi> ...but most others might not recognize the nuance of this discussion
16:48:09 <shadi> Janina: agree that difference is difficult to distinguish
16:48:24 <shadi> ...but might be relevant in several situations
16:49:39 <shadi> ...not our part to develop policies but maybe guidance
16:50:24 <Wilco_> scribe: Shadi
16:50:28 <janina> ack sh
16:50:29 <Wilco_> scribe: Wilco
16:51:01 <Wilco_> Shadi: I agree, I remember when the WCAG WG came to the realisation that WCAG is not accessibility.
16:51:12 <Wilco_> ... It addresses accessibility requirements but isn't accessibility itself.
16:51:33 <Wilco_> ... maybe that same realisation. WCAG isn't a policy, and needs to be put in the context of policy.
16:52:03 <Wilco_> ... Recognising that, building in hooks and guidance to build more sensible policies.
16:52:14 <Wilco_> ... Maybe because of shortcoming in WCAG they're not able to do more.
16:52:36 <shadi> scribe: shadi
16:53:24 <janina> q?
16:53:28 <janina> q?
16:53:32 <Susi_Pallero> Now I completely understand! Thanks
16:54:21 <shadi> Wilco: what are next steps?
16:54:32 <shadi> Jeanne: more people volunteer?
16:55:30 <shadi> Shadi: happy to help but not sure can do it this week
16:55:49 <shadi> Janina: same here, can help word-smithing but not this week
16:57:31 <shadi> zakim, end meeting
16:57:31 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been janina, shadi, jeanne, Wilco_, Susi_Pallero, Azlan, maryjom
16:57:33 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:57:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/21-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim
16:57:36 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, shadi; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:57:40 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-conf