– DRAFT –
Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

<SusanaPallero> janina: Announcement WCAG 2.2 has been updated

Silver and AGWG Rechartering

WCAG2ICT

<SusanaPallero> maryjom: I am a co facilitator yet to be officially identified there are some candidates showing their interest. WCAG2ICT is application of WCAG to non web applications, such as mobile, desktop, other products you can install IT from. European standards have done it, for example.

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict/

<jeanne> maryjo: introduces WCAG2ICT

<SusanaPallero> maryjom: We need to update the WCAG2ICT with new criteria and there are some issues discovered regarding difficulty applying some criteria to non web technology and we need to address that

<SusanaPallero> maryjom: This is going to be discussed in the group. If you have interest in participating on this silver group I am leaving a link in the channel

<SusanaPallero> shadi: I recall seeing some issues on github or there are more issues you want to work on?

<SusanaPallero> maryjom: Yes, some issues are under WCAG and tagged as WCAG2ICT but also some other members who have been experiencing some consternation regarding some of the criteria, the originally wcag was not that descriptive and the handling of that was left to policy or people developing the standards. There are some problems and we will be addressing those in the group and other people that would like to join.

<SusanaPallero> maryjom: We will try to have a balance so we still have disability advocates, industries all represented and coming together to make this update to WCAG2ICT

<PeterKorn> Thanks Janina for remembering that and bringing it up.

<SusanaPallero> janina: There is a huge appendix specifically to ICT issues, some of them with content and other with content yet to be developed.

<SusanaPallero> GreggVan: I will be happy to work in WCAG2ICT. Peter is core to the original WCAG2ICT discussions. I think that 508 it does not address it that well. That has always been a weak spot in 508.

<SusanaPallero> GreggVan: If WCAG2ICT is going to go deep into products it will be strange to tackle web content it will have impact in WCAG.

<SusanaPallero> PeterKorn: I don't have capacity to work in WCAG2ICT. I should be involved in published reviews. Your point is great (talking about Gregg) maybe WCAGICT is better to say that some web technologyy is not applying to other technologies.

<janina> opic: AGWG Rechartering

AGWG Rechartering

<janina> https://www.w3.org/2022/05/03-ag-minutes.html

<jeanne> survey

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/one_or_two_groups/

<maryjom> WCAG2ICT Draft work statement: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/wcag2ict/work-statement

<SusanaPallero> janina: Important conversation about how to address and discuss new content within WCAG 2.X and 3.0. There are a survey that you must respond before Tuesday's meeting. I like to know that this conversation is on going about different processes and how to put them in place. This conversation is on going and is pretty close to what we try to solve here in our meetings.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: We put a lot of effort on creating Public Working Drafts and after we have made very little progress and this is not working and I would like to ask people on this group to divide this group. We should be able to publish more often and move it a litlle bit faster.

<SusanaPallero> shadi: What I perceive on the resistence on publishing and wonder if this would remain once we make this change.

<maryjom> Here's the survey on reopening WCAG2ICT: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG2ICTV2/

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: Nothing is certain but what we have been doing is knocking ourselves out to make progress and we have failed. What we are currently doing does not work.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: People that want to be on WCAG 2.2 should put their efforts on that and people that wants to move into innovating and recurringly publishing can move to a new group. Bringing new people, going to a more agile framework.

<SusanaPallero> GreggVan: Most of the other staff at W3C are technical standard and not law regulation and this is different. Saying we will create a new group to change the policy then having another group is not the right decision. The reason we have not done progress is we don't want to embrace reality yet. We want this to be required.

<SusanaPallero> GreggVan: There are a lot of great things in WCAG3.0 that represent best practices and not requirements, but we are still resistant to that.

<SusanaPallero> GreggVan: Having two groups to be working on the same standard is not the right decision.

<SusanaPallero> GreggVan: We have come to a decision we don't want to do and that took us here.

<SusanaPallero> MichaelC: WCAG2 we had a group for each change, some years down the road and the team needs a scope to create a mindset. In the same place than in mantainance mindset.

<Azlan> +1 to janina

<SusanaPallero> janina: I don't know if that is going to work as WCAG3 is trying to be innovative. We are going to a different direction from the rest of the groups and maybe we have to. We need to reset expectations.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to s/process/procedure

<SusanaPallero> MichaelC: We are talking about procedure better than process.

<SusanaPallero> janina: accepts the correction

Continued Discussion https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: I moved all the wiki content to github. Here is the link to the use cases.

<jeanne> Github of the use cases ->

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

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: It could be standalone or incorporated but otherwise we have better html and accessibility.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: I moved all of the other situations. I started to work on 4.2 and it is not yet in github so you won't be able to see it right now.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: 4.2 is a good example on where we could take existing guidelines. There are specific ATAG 2 requirement that would set very well on this.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: I hope member of this group could take some situations and collaborate from a technical and policy standpoint.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: I would like to see the 4.X because there are an important problem we need to solve. We could start writing the 4. 4.1 website that allows users to create their own websites 4.2 is adding content from other parties. We need good technical solutions that may have policy implications.

<SusanaPallero> shadi: how do we collaborate as I might be absent in the next meetings.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: Right now you can make a pull you need a reviewer on the process and we could merge it. You can branch from main.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: Ask about start the discussion about 4.1

<SusanaPallero> shadi: We talked about 3.1 and are there updates happening to that? I recall we had some issues there.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: I have a document with notes about that

<shadi>

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios#Situation_4:_Content_provider_does_not_own_or_directly_control_the_content

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: 4.1 website that allows users to create their own websites. Reads aloud "A service provider creates a tool that allows others to create their own online presences. The tool itself conforms to the technical standard, and helps users to create conforming content. For example, the tool allows users to indicate headings, to provide text alternatives for images, and it generates accessible markup. The tool also provides acce[CUT]

<SusanaPallero> checker tools. The provider offers additional consulting services including for privacy, security, internationalization, and accessibility. It also encourages non-professional and non-business users to implement accessibility requirements, and explains the many benefits of this including for improving search-engine optimization (SEO). In some counties, professionals and businesses are required to meet accessibility requirements[CUT]

<SusanaPallero> Despite all this, the tool provider cannot ensure conformance of the content created by non-business and business users of the tool because it does not own or directly control the content. (Note: this example is the opposite of example 5.3; it is about shortcomings in the content generated by an authoring tool that principally supports accessibility.)

<SusanaPallero> First bullet How technical standards might contribute to addressing this situation did not reached consensus in the subgroup. Let's discuss that.

<jeanne> Define the set of accessibility requirements that can be met even under these circumstances. Examples of such requirements might include providing functionality to help content creators to create conforming content, and carrying forward accessibility features that content creators provide (for example when content is being converted from one format to another, being rendered or processed,

<jeanne> or such). [wording for this bullet does not yet have full consensus in the subgroup]

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: ATAG part A says the actual interface of the AT must be accessible themselves. That is good starting point to 4.1. We have success criteria to be met about this in ATAG.

<SusanaPallero> janina: They are measurable and adopted I recall.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: They are. And largely implemented in the open source world.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: There are a requirement that when you have a list of for example templates you must indicate which ones are accessible and which ones are not.

<SusanaPallero> shadi: This entire section is more about policy and recognize there might be things that we don't have control over.

<SusanaPallero> shadi: The policy needs to recognize that may be a supply chain (provider, distributor of content, creators) different flows that regards technical standards some parts of wcag can be if you are uploading an image you should provide the way to make it accessible.

<SusanaPallero> janina: It is important what shadi mentioned about the responsibility of each author for their content. Then there are some others cases where creators are relying on other platforms for content management. If they pay for analytics for example, they could provide security, internationalization, accessibility and others

<SusanaPallero> janina: We need to pick up all of the cases.

<SusanaPallero> jeanne: Is it under technical or policy security for example?

<SusanaPallero> janina: Not our call to be done. When APA reviews the expected level of support is there.

<SusanaPallero> janina: it is a little bit interdependent what we are creating here. At least we have a path of who is responsible and how to follow the maturity model. That will come from regulators and not from technicians.