IRC log of silver-conf on 2022-04-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:40:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:40:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
15:40:57 [janina]
Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:40:57 [janina]
agenda+ Trialing Another Approach -- Scenario 3.1
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 janina
15:48:45 [janina]
regrets+ Peter_Korn
15:56:13 [janina]
15:57:33 [shadi]
shadi has joined #silver-conf
16:02:01 [janina]
16:02:12 [shadi]
16:02:13 [jeanne]
16:02:18 [Susi_Pallero]
Susi_Pallero has joined #silver-conf
16:02:30 [Wilco_]
Wilco_ has joined #silver-conf
16:02:35 [Wilco_]
16:02:42 [Susi_Pallero]
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] 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 -- 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]
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]
16:07:43 [shadi]
...some issues with Respec but mostly based on wiki content
16:07:44 [Azlan]
16:07:48 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #silver-conf
16:08:01 [maryjom]
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]
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]
16:19:38 [maryjom]
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]
16:21:39 [Wilco_]
... Last we talked about flipping the sections, putting policy first.
16:21:51 [janina]
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]
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]
16:28:45 [shadi]
MaryJo: will work on something
16:28:57 [shadi]
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]
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] 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]
16:36:06 [shadi]
...subtle shift here
16:36:06 [janina]
ack ja
16:36:31 [Susi_Pallero]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:53:28 [janina]
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 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