– DRAFT –
Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

<shadi> Janina: new approach by Jeanne

<shadi> ...in GitHub format

<shadi> ...will explain why later

Trialing Another Approach -- Scenario 3.1 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html

<shadi> Janina: might take some of this content into the explainer?

<shadi> Jeanne: not sure yet, met the planning meeting yesterday

<shadi> ...typically use cases go into the explainers

<shadi> ...but not yet sure if there is consensus on this

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html

<shadi> Jeanne: task was to work on Situation 3

<shadi> ...some issues with Respec but mostly based on wiki content

<shadi> ...took introduction, problem description, key concepts and terms

<shadi> ...made each example into it's own heading

<shadi> ...otherwise no changes, except for Situation 3

<shadi> ...worked on example 3.1

<shadi> ...worked on "How ... might contribute ..." sections per example

<shadi> ...previously this was for the entire situation

<shadi> ...trying to be more specific

<shadi> ...want feedback on that

<shadi> [reads Example 3.1]

<shadi> Janina: we might not be limited to WCAG use cases

<shadi> ...focusing on a broader conformance model

<shadi> ...some situations may not be addressed by WCAG

+1 I had similar thoughts

<shadi> ...small tweak at the beginning is sufficient

Shadi: I think this is great. I like having this referred to from the explainer.
… I think there might be merit to adding more detail to the examples. Might that mean we need more examples?
… Adding more detail per example might lead to more examples, is that good?

Shadi: I like the idea of adding more details, but I'm also worried that we'll start going into solutions now.
… Maybe it's rephrasing, an example of how it could work. But now it's maybe proposing solutions that might not have consensus.
… Third, I wonder how repetitive this starts getting.
… Last we talked about flipping the sections, putting policy first.
… An example would be to provide guidance to policy makers to consider timelines.

<shadi> MaryJo: agree with a lot of what Shadi said

<shadi> ...worry a little about Maturity Model

<shadi> ...does not give specific guidance

<shadi> ...more on elevating accessibility, not so much on prioritization

<shadi> Janina: critical errors could help Maturity Model provide such guidance

<shadi> MaryJo: not currently what the Maturity Model provides

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to think about more examples

<shadi> Janina: on-going discussion, to be decided

<shadi> Jeanne: don't want to get into solutions but want to give a clear message

<shadi> ...that what we are proposing is more work rather than letting people off the hook

<shadi> ...included Maturity Model just to have it mentioned

<shadi> ...happy to rephrase that with suggestions, MaryJo

<shadi> MaryJo: will work on something

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...

Shadi: I'm not sure the role of WCAG is prioritising, but it is to define critical errors

<maryjom> Suggest: Consult the W3C Maturity Model for guidance on improving organizational awareness, expertise and execution of accessibility.

Shadi: For example if SC 1.1.1 is broken down, this could help us identify critical pieces to this SC.
… If something's not accessible it's not, but at least we can say how bad is it.
… The first step would be to define critical errors, then frame it as examples.

Janina: the standard will define critical errors
… in this specific example, the organization identifies the critical errors
… explain process of how standards help

Jeanne: was intended but can work more on that

Janina: can help with word-smithing
… this group will not define what critical errors are
… but the process to find the critical errors first
… subtle shift here

Susi: criteria are on-size-fits-all but conformance is trying to be more fair
… cannot apply the same level to different types of companies

Janina: I think you are right

Janina: in terms of getting too detailed and having more examples
… only add examples that expose new things not provided elsewhere

<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.

Shadi: I want to remind the discussion about conformance vs compliance.
… 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
… The fairness part is where policy comes in. Most policies I know don't have a concept for bugs and oversight.
… 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.
… We need to put in the hooks so it can be used.

MaryJo: we accessibility experts might understand the difference between these two terms
… but most others might not recognize the nuance of this discussion

Janina: agree that difference is difficult to distinguish
… but might be relevant in several situations
… not our part to develop policies but maybe guidance

Shadi: I agree, I remember when the WCAG WG came to the realisation that WCAG is not accessibility.
… It addresses accessibility requirements but isn't accessibility itself.
… maybe that same realisation. WCAG isn't a policy, and needs to be put in the context of policy.
… Recognising that, building in hooks and guidance to build more sensible policies.
… Maybe because of shortcoming in WCAG they're not able to do more.

<Susi_Pallero> Now I completely understand! Thanks

Wilco: what are next steps?

Jeanne: more people volunteer?

Shadi: happy to help but not sure can do it this week

Janina: same here, can help word-smithing but not this week