– DRAFT –
Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

Agenda Review & Administrative Items

Janina: one agenda item today
… getting consensus on use cases

Janina: splitting into subgroups
… small tasks and shorter timelines
… being announced soon
… sign up as soon as you can

<jeanne> SubGroup Handbook

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki#subgroups

Our Use Cases

Janina: proposed edits from Gregg
… Jeanne and I went through these
… made some editorial changes
… have other questions for the group

<jeanne> Edits in Github branch

Jeanne: went through Gregg's Word doc
… implemented all the editorial changes
… want to discuss issues before making more substantial change

Approach and Structure

<jeanne> The working group does agree (there is consensus) that all of these are real issues that cannot just be ignored. Some solution has to be found to address them either by a) clarifying that accessibility should still be required, more often, b) by finding some way to provide realistic outcomes for organizations or individuals experiencing them either through changes in the technical

<jeanne> guidelines or through policy decisions by those using the technical guidelines.

Jeanne: Gregg proposed that note, do we agree to add it to the use cases?

Janina: do we need point (a)?

Gregg: I think we do

shadi: Agrees b is implicit, but see no harm in keeping it explicit

shadi: don't think it hurts to have it

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say this project is to close the exception loophole

Jeanne: this group is the opposite of exception
… but it is a persistent misunderstanding in AGWG
… partial conformance is a gigantic loophole

<DarrylLehmann> +1

Jeanne: we want to close it, so not adding exceptions

Gregg: partial conformance is not an exception
… not a loophole either
… it's an admission that it does not conform
… saying "at least do this" sounds like an exception
… in almost all cases conformance is unrealistic

shadi: partial conformance is an admision of non conformance -- true

shadi: proposal is don't stop there; there are still things we can do

shadi: so it becomes what can still be done

shadi: we should do more than just add a note

Janina: if conformance means everyone doing everything
… and all-or-nothing approach
… then nobody will conform

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about partial conformance and loopholes - PeaPod's undue burden

Janina: and that doesn't help the cause

Jeanne: difference between good intentions of the Partial Conformance
… and the actual situation that some use as a loophole
… Laura Carlos provided some examples of these
… that is the loophole that we want to close

Janina: need to timebox this discussion
… understand that it is important but we need to move forward
… not sure need to reflect this discussion into the use cases document

<jeanne> +1 to Janina

Gregg: disagree with some of the examples
… need to be more explanatory that this is not about exceptions

+1 to being pro-active/vocal about not-exceptions

Gregg: useful to also say what we don't have consensus on

<maryjom> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<DarrylLehmann> +1

<jeanne> Propose: The working group does agree (there is consensus) that all of these are real issues that cannot just be ignored. Some solution has to be found to address them.

+1

<Azlan> +1

<jeanne> Propose: The working group does agree (there is consensus) that all of these are real issues that cannot just be ignored. Some solution has to be found to address them.

<jeanne> +1

<Wilco> +1

<ToddL> +1

<jeanne> Propose: The group does agree (there is consensus) that all of these are real issues that cannot just be ignored. Some solution has to be found to address them.

<GreggVan> Propose: The group does agree (there is consensus) that all of these are real issues that cannot just be ignored. Some solution has to be found to address them. We just aren't sure how to address them.

+1

<jeanne> +1

Example 2.1 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-jul-22/use-cases/index.html#example-2-1

<jeanne> Gregg proposes moving Example 2.1 to 4.3

<maryjom> +1

Gregg: think should move situation 4

<DarrylLehmann> +1

<Azlan> +1

<GreggVan> +1

shadi: UGC is to show other gradiants of control; not full control;

shadi: point was to break down third party--to think of it at different levels of control

<Wilco> +1 to Shadi

shadi: We could add 4.3; but I'd still like to keep 2.1 because there are entire large businesses based on UGC

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say the YouTube example of adding more content faster than 1M captioners

Jeanne: need large volume example of user generated content

<Azlan> Same as Jeanne. I will change my +1 to now agree with Shadi

Gregg: then remove "user"

shadi: IRC is UGC; but pretty hard to create a problem in IRC

shadi: more about the complexity than volume; so a different additional example

Example 5.1 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-jul-22/use-cases/index.html#example-5-1

shadi: not about acquiring but about selecting, and none I can find are a11y;

Gregg: conflating several aspects

Renaming Situations

Jeanne: suggest renaming

<jeanne> Comparison of old titles and new proposed titles

<GreggVan> Example 5.1 procuring a payment service but no accessible ones available

<Azlan> Old: Situation 3: When making large volumes of content fully conform is not achievable immediately

<jeanne> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/use-cases-jul-22/use-cases/index.html

<GreggVan> 1 Example 3.1 - making content conform after acquisition:

Shadi: think we are changing things back from how they originally were in the initial proposal

Wilco: is going to AGWG next week?

Jeanne: on the agenda for next week

Wilco: we need to confirm
… suggest we do

+1 to move forward

Wilco: suggest Jeanne to send out final message

<GreggVan> +1

Wilco: with the final version, if anyone has objections

<Wilco> +1

+1

<GreggVan> +1

<Azlan> +1

<DarrylLehmann> +1