Meeting minutes
<janina> Date 16 Jun 2022
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
janina: Announcement - we are presenting to AG WG call on Tuesday based on the document in our agenda.
<jeanne> Summary
Adding an impact statement
<jeanne> Summary
jeanne: I showed this document to the AG WG chairs and began exploring the uses of these use cases.
jeanne: They suggested creating an impact statement to show what would happen if we do nothing about this situation.
jeanne: It can be used to evaluate whatever is proposed for conformance.
jeanne: This is an interesting idea that may make it more powerful when addressing solutions.
janina: I think this is a worthy thing to think about and potentially do, especially in case-by-case analysis.
GreggVan: These are useful in thinking about how we want to structure the document, to address policy issues, and a way to bounce conformance model against.
GreggVan: Don't want to put full burden of conformance model analysis on this document, but it can be helpful in that work.
GreggVan: The document has many uses
shadi: What happens if we don't pursue this work. I think we can clarify this more in the problem statement.
shadi: We should take another pass to clarify some more and look at the structure. We are trying to break down this big problem space into smaller questions.
shadi: There have not been similar statements from other groups, but we need to better understand what the chairs want.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to react to shadi to clarify that it is impact of each use case
jeanne: What they are asking for is an impact statement for each use case, not for the whole document.
janina: Yes, we think it's a good idea and will work on that as part of the development of this document.
Tuesday Presentation Prep: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G9q082IFl4Rj4o07qMx8Y_5oFoDN7Lmx-5i3ViROpD8/
jeanne: Walking us through the document...
janina: If we have multiple speakers presenting this, we'd have to practice transitions.
jeanne: Integrated comments from last week and added links. There is a PR approved to the main document so we have a URL, but URLs are not working.
jeanne: Michael Cooper has been notified. Gave him what the URLs should be.
jeanne: Provided alternate URL links in case the links with anchors are still not working.
jeanne: In the main branch of GitHub IO links aren't working, but in the branch they are.
janina: I'll talk to Michael Cooper about fixing the links
GreggVan: Have problems providing links to the main document since there are many concerns with the content.
janina: We have agreed that this is a work in progress and will advertise it as such.
janina: We're putting up the summary document. The summary has links, to the details but we will say those details are preliminary
GreggVan: Want to have a warning in the detailed document that there are members with strong objections to the content in it.
jeanne: We can put a disclaimer at the top.
GreggVan: I will author a disclaimer to put in there.
shadi: This is a work in progress and we have been discussing Gregg's comments but have not had time to address them. There are multiple opinions.
GreggVan: We should have 2 documents. One with use cases and one with ideas of how to deal with them.
GreggVan: If you remove the dispositions you can get acceptance of the document. What we should do about them is another thing and should be separate.
jeanne: Propose to make another version that removes the recommendations.
janina: There is general agreement from the group to do that.
janina: Who will present it to the group?
janina: I will take it on and will be ready to stay within the time limit. How much time do we have?
jeanne: We are on top of the agenda.
Wilco: Implementation of 2.2 is the first topic for the AG WG meeting, but probably not a long agenda item.
je
<Zakim> anne, you wanted to say 30 minutes
jeanne: It's 30 minutes total, including questions/discussion time.
Wilco: Will reach out to the chairs to confirm.
janina: We are down to summary and cases - anything we need to revise at this point?
jeanne: I only made some editorial changes. We've already introduced the use cases before. We should emphasize how these can be used.
jeanne: We also welcome them adding use cases and the document can be used as a central use case repository.
janina: This is probably not complete, but complete enough for now and useful.
<GreggVan> sorry had to leave
jeanne: This will give us most of the summer to develop proposals to discuss at TPAC.
jeanne: Since Gregg had to leave, we can't go over his comments.
janina: At TPAC AG WG is meeting all days Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. APA is meeting Tuesday and Thursday.
jeanne: Technically we're covering WCAG 2.2 for 2 days and Silver for 2 days.
Potential impact statements
Wilco: The impact of not addressing these things are often the same thing. Either exceptions in regulations, or statements of partial conformance in accessibility statements.
janina: Do companies use "partial conformance"?
<jeanne> WCAG 2.1 Partial Conformance
maryjom: Yes, VPATs allow a partial conformance to show that work was done but there are known issues.
shadi: Also accessibility statements on websites also document known issues and whether or not there's full conformance with details.
jeanne: Reads WCAG's partial conformance information from link above.
jeanne: Most of the partial conformance has to do with 3rd party content, and also interesting it states "2 days for correction".
shadi: We can state that there is this partial conformance in WCAG that could be improved on.
jeanne: We could do better than just allowing a statement that you don't conform or partially conform. It doesn't imply that you intend to fix anything.
jeanne: For each of the use cases, there could be something that provides methods to make it better. To make the improvements over time.
shadi: There are areas where policy is actually fully exempting things like media. There could be a better approach.
Wilco: Is there a way to come up with the policy exceptions? Maybe we should create a list.
Wilco: Many of us are aware of these things and we could do better than blanket "undue burden" exceptions.
janina: There could be things that can be done to make it more responsive and "smarter" approach.
jeanne: There's also technical things we can require. We can require metadata.
janina: SAUER, Maturity model, COGA, etc. could be things that could be utilized to address some situations.
janina: Authors are having difficulty coming up to speed on all of these specs with their authoring requirements. It's solvable, but an issue right now.
<Wilco> https://
janina: We should judiciously provide different avenues to address - through the requirements, guidance for regulators, etc.
maryjom: Canada actually excepts certain multimedia criteria altogether.
jeanne: I'm working on creating a document where we can list these.
<jeanne> DOcument for capturing policy