15:42:49 RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf 15:42:49 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/06/02-silver-conf-irc 15:43:03 Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup 15:43:25 Date: 02 Jun 2022 15:43:30 Chair: Janina 15:43:33 agenda? 15:43:37 Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items 15:43:37 agenda+ Meta Discussion: TPAC and Beyond 15:43:37 agenda+ Continued Discussion https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-apr22-js/use-cases/index.html 15:43:40 agenda+ Other Business 15:43:42 agenda+ Be Done 15:43:47 rrsagent, make log public 15:45:12 regrets: Azlan_Cuttilan, Todd_Libby, Darryl_Lehmann 15:45:19 rrsagent, make minutes 15:45:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/02-silver-conf-minutes.html janina 16:00:54 Wilco has joined #silver-conf 16:01:06 GreggVan has joined #silver-conf 16:01:36 be there soon -- gregg 16:02:03 SusanaPallero has joined #silver-conf 16:02:17 present+ 16:02:31 maryjom has joined #silver-conf 16:04:25 present+ 16:04:53 present+ 16:05:04 scribe+ 16:05:25 scribe+ SusanaPallero 16:05:32 present+ 16:06:08 present+ 16:07:10 zakim, next item 16:07:10 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from janina] 16:08:28 janina: Agenda for today general discussion, review documents and comments on what to bring to the table on September 16:08:52 , next item 16:09:18 Zakim, next item 16:09:18 agendum 2 -- Meta Discussion: TPAC and Beyond -- taken up [from janina] 16:11:30 janina: Started to list specific examples, but it is not done. It has been always challenging but we can do it. The more general we can make them more specific. She will post it as an email when it is done. 16:12:18 janina: is refering to Deliverables for TPAC 16:12:46 GreggVan: Is preparing some documents for this. 16:13:15 janina: Let's bring some of them to the table on Tuesday meeting. 16:14:06 shadi has joined #silver-conf 16:14:29 janina: Talked to Judy because the teams have so many things going on that we loose track and there are different sensitive issues, some bigger than others. So they will start working on that. 16:14:51 present+ 16:15:13 GreggVan: Requires feedback from the group for the content we have on different guidelines advice. 16:15:41 q? 16:15:43 q+ 16:16:15 GreggVan: We have things required, research challenges, some policy. I think we should do all four of those. We have 2 parts, guidelines and process. 1 This must be true on the website. 2 This should be truth from who provided the website. 16:17:15 GreggVan: And then I have: In scope and out of scope. Policy requirements should be out of scope. 16:18:23 GreggVan: last thing: testability, objective testing. 16:18:48 janina: Let's document right away Gregg's points 16:19:58 janina: W3C note track (when we publish something as a recommendation and notes, for example maturity model things that are not standards but continue to be published) 16:21:56 janina: Required is a must. Recommended is a may or should. There is a shall in 2919 but can't remember. Policy would be a note. 16:25:51 janina: Deliverables that need W3C approval: Public a registry. Note doesn't need w3c approval but a Statement does. Notes are only the opinion of a w3c group. Because statement would impact all the media. 16:25:55 jan 16:29:42 janina: wants to know about captioning and synchronisation live research from anyone. 16:30:52 https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/ 16:31:11 GreggVan: Recaps there are 4 kind of processes: Recommendations, notes, registries and statements. 16:32:43 q? 16:32:46 ack ja 16:33:30 q? 16:33:44 GreggVan: Will try to write up some ideas. The idea of the document is taking some of the fundamentals and gain consensus. 16:34:15 q+ 16:34:24 q+ 16:34:26 q? 16:34:32 ack wil 16:35:40 Wilco: We need to bring along the discussion about splitting the team as there is not consensus about it yet. 16:35:58 q? 16:37:01 q? 16:37:29 qq+ 16:37:43 shadi: agrees with wilco 16:38:35 shadi: maybe we need to do more work focusing on maybe one of them and try to hammer it out. Just keep discussing until we get to a consensus. 16:38:52 ack ja 16:38:52 janina, you wanted to react to Wilco 16:38:55 ack gr 16:40:19 q+ to disagree with moving content to policy 16:41:01 q+ 16:41:23 GreggVan: Think there are a lot of things in the use cases listed that are not technical, more like policy. There are repeated content. It doesn't tells you the technical issue. 3 categories should be techincal changes, support documents and policy. 16:42:07 GreggVan: Examples should remain as they are. 16:42:24 ack je 16:42:24 jeanne, you wanted to disagree with moving content to policy 16:42:38 q+ 16:42:58 jeanne: disagrees to move more into policy as it would make things worse in the application 16:43:09 ack sh 16:44:27 q+ 16:45:14 ack gr 16:45:24 shadi: fully agrees with the cutting down and group or regroup the examples. Some people perceives we are polishing too much, reducing too much. Let's focus on one example and work on it. Sometimes there are things that belong to policy and some to technical standards and each have their own opinion on these. 16:46:09 GreggVan: We cannot decide what is policy and what is technical, things are policy or technical. We should have 2 separate documents: 1 technical and 2 to recommendations for policy. 16:46:27 q+ 16:46:59 GreggVan: We need a separate document that encourages countries to adopt a standard policy as I agree if countries do separate policies it will be chaos. 16:47:41 janina: Until we get down on specific cases we won't figure out if they are technical or policy. 16:47:42 q? 16:47:55 ack sh 16:48:04 ack ja 16:49:02 q+ 16:49:53 q+ to ask "what do people think of the idea of a 16:50:00 q+ 16:50:30 q+ a policy standard (also no 5 days) 16:50:31 q? 16:51:06 q? 16:51:13 ack ja 16:51:16 ack gr 16:51:17 GreggVan, you wanted to ask "what do people think of the idea of a 16:52:33 shadi: are there hooks we can build into the technical standards to fit with the policy recommendations we want to write 16:52:40 GreggVan: Shadi, there is no place in wcag 2.2 where they talk about terms to still be conformant. 2nd point: What do people think of the idea of a policy standard. 16:52:50 ack ma 16:52:59 [Section 5.4 in WCAG 2.2] 16:53:39 q+ 16:53:46 q+ 16:53:54 +1 MJM 16:54:20 maryjom: policy is adopting accessibility standards and that is the problem I see. It has to be in the standard as well some of the conformance part as people in policy doesn't know how subjective WCAG is, and the discussions on considering something accessible or not. 16:55:51 GreggVan: Accessibility is more equiparable to safety than to usability. It is not just a recommendation or a nice thing to do. 16:57:16 zakim, bye 16:57:16 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been SusanaPallero, maryjom, janina, jeanne, Wilco, shadi 16:57:16 Zakim has left #silver-conf 16:58:11 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:58:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/02-silver-conf-minutes.html SusanaPallero 17:03:17 kirkwood has joined #silver-conf 17:04:02 janina has left #silver-conf