15:47:28 RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf 15:47:28 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/28-silver-conf-irc 15:47:40 Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup 15:47:51 Date: 28 Apr 2022 15:47:55 Chair: Janina 15:47:59 rrsagent, make log public 15:48:02 agenda? 15:48:05 Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items 15:48:05 agenda+ Continued Discussion https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html 15:48:08 agenda+ Other Business 15:48:10 agenda+ Be Done 15:49:06 Regrets: Todd_Libby 15:56:25 rrsagent, make minutes 15:56:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/28-silver-conf-minutes.html janina 15:58:46 ToddL has joined #silver-conf 16:01:04 DarrylLehmann has joined #silver-conf 16:01:21 present+ 16:01:34 present+ 16:01:34 present+ 16:01:50 present+ 16:02:42 SusiPallero has joined #silver-conf 16:02:43 shadi has joined #silver-conf 16:02:50 Wilco has joined #silver-conf 16:02:55 present+ 16:02:56 present+ 16:03:01 present+ 16:03:52 jeanne has joined #silver-conf 16:04:11 maryjom has joined #silver-conf 16:04:22 scribe: Wilco 16:04:33 present+ 16:04:40 zakim, take up next 16:04:40 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina] 16:05:24 Janina: standard agenda, no announcements 16:05:52 PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf 16:05:56 present+ 16:05:59 Announcement: https://amazonfiretv.blog/fire-tv-launches-hearing-aid-pairing-423d56625683 16:06:02 present+ 16:06:46 Peter: We launched support for connecting hearing aids to fire TV. 16:08:52 zakim, take up next 16:08:52 agendum 2 -- Continued Discussion https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html -- taken up [from janina] 16:09:27 Janina: Started a discussion last week, not sure if anyone has had time to work on this. 16:10:23 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html <- Github version of examples 16:10:24 Jeanne: I stared moving examples into GitHub 16:10:36 Janina: We might use these as we refine them. 16:11:18 Jeanne: I still have an issue with the heading, needs to be a W3C heading. 16:11:41 ... I put in abstract, document status, and the introduction 16:12:19 ... When we get into the situations, there were some minor changes. I gave each example its own heading so it'd be picked up in table of contents 16:12:36 ... No changes other than formatting for situation 1 and 2. 16:13:21 ... I started with example 3.1. I started breaking it down so it applies specifically to the example. 16:13:57 ... I took those directly from WCAG. I think we can add more to this. 16:14:17 q+ 16:14:32 ... The next one, I broke down identifying core functionality. 16:16:04 ... I didn't go far into accessibility policies. I left that generic. I want to see if people like this approach. 16:16:42 ... The request was to make the title WCAG 3 use cases for conformance 16:16:50 q+ 16:16:50 q? 16:17:00 ack pe 16:17:23 Peter: Like where this is heading. I wonder if the second bullet; guidance on prioritizing critical errors best lives in a technical standard or in company guidance. 16:17:28 q+ to suggest timeframes for policy 16:17:39 ack 16:17:42 ack pet 16:18:49 ... I wonder if that better lives in accompanying guidance, rather than technical standard. 16:19:04 Jeanne: I think you're right. 16:20:45 Jeanne: I'm not sure what'll go forward, but we did have three levels of critical errors. 16:21:07 ... interference, then task completion. Those are technical. 16:21:20 ... The idea in the first one, I broke down examples of non-interference. 16:21:59 Jeanne: I'll put specific examples of types of critical errors related to task completion 16:22:58 Gregg: Love this document, but continue to have concerns. We talk about situations where technical guidance will be hard / impossible. Under technical we should have nothing but the word "require" 16:23:12 ack gr 16:23:49 ... We can require or have exceptions. Guidance is in the second category. We don't put guidance into technical document because of length. That's why we have understanding documents. 16:24:33 ... A lot of these, under technical we should say nothing. There's nothing we can do. This is a policy issue. 16:24:35 q+ to say "guidelines" 16:24:42 q+ 16:25:27 Gregg: if it's a policy issue it's not technical. 16:25:47 ... We are in WCAG 3 trying to figure out how to get beyond the testable / required. 16:26:36 ... If we're going to go beyond that, we will have to add guidance in some other layer. 16:27:33 ... I'm hopeful we can make the additional guidance testable. I.e. instead of testing the page you get a higher score because you did something, made a claim, carried out a process. This is testable. 16:28:39 Janina: I think it's correct to say we put guidelines into guidance. 16:29:10 ... I think we might just leave attestation as part of requirements. Tell us you've done it, show us the process. 16:29:20 q+ 16:29:39 ... Maturity model hopefully will be a form that will help you track what you were doing to conform to XYZ requirements. 16:30:32 ... That might help with attestation. We may not agree on what a good test is. But there is this cascade of things we know you shouldn't be doing, like flashing content. 16:31:33 ... It's not just going to be one spec or one document, a number of documents coming from different groups. 16:32:27 ... We have an obvious one for policy; timeframe. We won't say how much time an organisation needs, but regulators are well attuned to that. 16:32:29 q? 16:32:30 q+ to say "make 4 categories instead of 3. 1) Technical changes (requirements), 2) Guidance within the Tech Document (guidance beyond requirements), 3) Supplementary Guidance (Understanding WCAG 3), 4) Policy Group/Agency Actions 16:32:33 ack ja 16:32:33 janina, you wanted to suggest timeframes for policy 16:32:48 ack jea 16:32:48 jeanne, you wanted to say "guidelines" 16:33:10 Jeanne: Ultimately what we're writing is guidelines. Guidelines give guidance. I do believe it belongs in a technical standard. 16:33:31 ... One of the very important results form the Silver research was that people love the guidance of WCAG 2. 16:33:56 ... That's why I disagree that we can't say guidance under a technical standards. 16:34:36 ... I can certainly adjust the wording to make it clear this is on technical requirements of WCAG 2. 16:34:48 ... We already know that non-interference SCs are the most important to fix right away. 16:34:58 ... We can pull those out to say you must do this first. 16:35:24 q+ to say "make 4 categories instead of 3. 1) Technical requirements, 2) Tech Guidance - within the Tech Document (guidance beyond requirements), 3) Supplementary Guidance (Understanding WCAG 3), 4) Policy Group/Agency Actions 16:36:11 Jeanne: We could start giving a number of requirements from ATAG, and that would be a clear example. This one is harder to do because it's so broad. 16:36:22 ack pet 16:37:02 Peter: I want to speak on guidance. I don't disagree, but there's an important step, that is defining levels of criticality. 16:37:50 +1 to removing Prioritizing' 16:38:21 ... If I dropped the word "prioritising" then the technical standard isn't taking a position on the order, but it's giving a latch point for policies to say, you can take up to N months to bring content in compliance, however within the first X days you must address the critical ones. 16:38:43 ... For this one and quite a few others, having that basic latch point of defining what is truly critical is important. 16:39:08 Gregg: Makes sense. Even in WCAG 2 criticality was indicated with levels. 16:40:22 ack gr 16:40:22 GreggVan, you wanted to say "make 4 categories instead of 3. 1) Technical changes (requirements), 2) Guidance within the Tech Document (guidance beyond requirements), 3) 16:40:25 ... Supplementary Guidance (Understanding WCAG 3), 4) Policy Group/Agency Actions and to say "make 4 categories instead of 3. 1) Technical requirements, 2) Tech Guidance - 16:40:25 ... within the Tech Document (guidance beyond requirements), 3) Supplementary Guidance (Understanding WCAG 3), 4) Policy Group/Agency Actions 16:40:42 Gregg: Jeanne mentioned those are guidelines. None of those are what people pay attention to. What people pay attention to are success criteria. 16:41:36 ... Guidelines are the direction. Interestingly in 3 we still have guidelines, we then have requirements, and maybe below that more detailed guidance to get higher badges / levels. 16:41:40 q? 16:42:04 ... In particular I think maybe we should have 4 levels. 1. Technical requirements. 16:42:48 ... Next is technical guidance. Things in the technical document as guidance. That's where we go beyond requirements. I'd personally like to get process things into testable. 16:43:21 ... Third is guidance, this goes into understanding and advice to policy makers. In understanding docs we can always say what we think policy makers should do. 16:43:50 q? 16:44:02 .. The fourth level is policy, here's where we write things we can put into the third level. 16:45:23 Shadi: Mulling over it. I wonder if it's getting too much into separate places. 16:45:58 Gregg: For WCAG 2 for the longest time we wanted 2 levels, we went on that for the longest time. 16:46:14 ... Everyone wanted to have 2 because people wanted to take AA either in A or in AAA. 16:46:38 q? 16:46:42 q+ 16:46:56 ... By having the technical requirements be one category, and then have a second category of technical guidance. 16:47:35 q+ to talk about the paradigm switch away from A AA AAA. 16:48:04 ack sh 16:48:33 Shadi: The focus I'm thinking about is to think more broadly and recognise that WCAG isn't responsible for everything. 16:48:45 ... There are other areas of responsibilities. 16:49:08 ... The categories made some sense, it matches a bit what we have in WCAG 2. 16:49:23 ... I think there are general techniques. 16:49:40 ... There's no reason we can't have a best practice technique for sign languages. 16:50:02 ... But I lost track when it went to levels. That seems like a different thing. 16:51:37 Jeanne: We're trying to make a shift away from A - AAA levels. What came out of the design sprint was that we'd look at the imporance of the task, rather than say anything for text alternative is level A. 16:51:46 Q+ to clarify 1) Technical requirements, 2) Tech Guidance within the Tech Document (guidance beyond requirements), 3) Supplementary Guidance (Understanding WCAG 3, Techniques, etc.), 4) recommended Policy Group/Agency Actions (these would end up in the guidance docs in 3 as guidance to policy people - along with our guidance to authors or others)\ 16:52:07 ... We could say for example this icon is a control in the navigation, that's more important than a graphic in the footer. 16:52:33 ... What they wanted us to do is look at how it's used to set the criticality of it. 16:52:56 ... I don't want us to get bogged down into separating out the technical requirements. 16:53:19 q? 16:53:23 ack jea 16:53:23 jeanne, you wanted to talk about the paradigm switch away from A AA AAA. 16:53:24 ... It would make this document unnecessarily complicated, and it might build in some assumptions that other groups may take in a different direction. 16:53:54 ... I think I'd prefer the levels we have 16:53:57 ack gr 16:53:57 GreggVan, you wanted to clarify 1) Technical requirements, 2) Tech Guidance within the Tech Document (guidance beyond requirements), 3) Supplementary Guidance (Understanding 16:54:00 ... WCAG 3, Techniques, etc.), 4) recommended Policy Group/Agency Actions (these would end up in the guidance docs in 3 as guidance to policy people - along with our guidance 16:54:00 ... to authors or others)\ 16:54:36 Gregg: To clarify, the level discussion was an example of criticality we did in the past. 16:54:41 q? 16:55:12 ... I always worry about other people deciding whats important or not. 16:55:42 q? 16:56:02 ... Even if you decided it was an example, we're getting into real detail about what's critical and not critical. 16:56:28 q? 16:57:16 ... It's like having laws, if I'm sitting at a red light 3 in the morning with nobody around, I still wait for it to turn green. Not because it's important, but because it's the rule. 16:57:40 ... If as drivers we start deciding when something's important we get accidents. 16:57:46 q+ 16:58:24 q+ to talk about the danger of analogy - we have research that industry wants us to address the issue of criticality. Lawsuits for trivia 16:58:25 ... I'd rather figure out what the really big issues are, rather than fine tune. 16:59:12 Shadi: I think we shouldn't swing too far the other way. Traffic lights do have sensors, there are other ways to do things. 16:59:22 ... It's about finding a balance. 16:59:32 Regrets - I need to drop to attend my next meeting 17:00:01 fantastic meeting today! 17:01:48 zakim, end meeting 17:01:48 As of this point the attendees have been DarrylLehmann, ToddL, janina, GreggVan, shadi, SusiPallero, Wilco, maryjom, PeterKorn, jeanne 17:01:50 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:01:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/28-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim 17:01:53 I am happy to have been of service, Wilco; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:01:57 Zakim has left #silver-conf