Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

16 June 2022


GreggVan, janina, jeanne, maryjom, shadi, ToddL, Wilco

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.


<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://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32016L2102&from=EN#d1e807-1-1

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

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/je//