Meeting minutes
<hdv> wendy++
Adam: Let's get started...
Adam: Introductions/new roles?
Lia: Hi I'm Lia from Google, Sydney is moving to a new role, so I'm covering for her in the meantime
Adam: Welcome!
Announcements
Adam: At least one announcement from Kevin
kevin: Quick update on the charter
… ac review closed on the 2nd, we had support from 27 member orgs and FOs from 6
… within the support there were a few changes
… the next steps in the process are to first start the process of setting up a council on the assumption of the possibility of the FOs need resolution
… we do that because it takes a while to setup a council, better to do and not need it
… in parallel to council setup, team will discuss the FOs with the objectors and look at options for addressing them
… ideally we will address them without council, councils are a challenging place to take things to
… they don't have the full context, and decisions are final
… but it's a possibility
… this doesn't stop the work, we're still progressing with the development of core materials, we may need an extension while we address the objections
… if there are issues that come up during the process, we'll bring them back to the work
… if there are any questions, let us know!
WCAG 2 proposed changes — https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026AprJun/0048.html
Adam: Patrick, WCAG 2 proposed changes?
Patrick_H_Lauke: My usual, we're one week in, we have another week to go, sent an email to the list with 5 issues to review
… less meaty than previous rounds, fairly straightforward non-normative changes
… please take time this week to review if you haven't yet
… would be good to get feedback
Adam: There is a URL in the email linked above
WCAG 3 document breakdown
Adam: Big topic today, discuss the document breakdown of WCAG3, what are the locations where we can put aspects of WCAG and conformance
<SydneyColeman> deck please
<SydneyColeman> link
<Adam> https://
<SydneyColeman> thx
alastairc: For this, we're introducing a topic, where should parts of conformance sit in documents
Slideset: https://
alastairc: we'll discuss options and locations
alastairc: For WCAG 2 we had the provisions, understanding documents, and techniques
… we had the conformance model, levels of conformance, and recommendations
… in 2014 we added the Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM)
… guidance for people doing scoping, testing, evaluations
alastairc: good aspects to maintain or improve are suitability of a default standard, application
alastairc: problems to solve, improving support for disability needs, emerging technologies, clarity of provisions, support for less testable user needs, maintenance over time
… on ramp for beginners
… recognition of sites are partially conformant
… the binary nature of the conformance results of WCAG2
alastairc: conformance is about satisfying all the requirements listed, 100% against technical requirements
… conformance =/= accessibility
… compliance is something to be careful about, how well something meets law, regulation, etc
… it is useful for us to provide hooks to compliance in our documentation
… lawmakers can add exceptions, or reasonable efforts, all around the world
… and additional requirements added
alastairc: our remit is conformance
… possible locations/structure
alastairc: WCAG 3 proposed, we intend to have policy and evaluation methodology included in conformance
… informative materials, and additional modules like assertions or color contrast
… wcag 2 to 3 mapping
… in the setup of the survey we are putting together, the questions are where can we put these features and guidance
alastairc: two categories of location, normative and informative
… normative is the thing regulators and people look at to meet
… informative is how-to materials, guidance, methodologies, process standards (i.e. design for all)
… outside of the normative area
alastairc: anything normative is required for every entity claiming conformance
… anything informative can be ignored
… informative documents could be used by regulators, their uptake depends on an org's motivations or incentives
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that since conformance is binary that this would be more accurate as "noncomformant"
AWK: Wanted to clarify, back on slide 2, new issue is vast majority of sites are partially conformant, I think this softens the concern
… pretty much every site is partially conformant without doing anything, the vast majority are non-conformant, which we're trying to address
alastairc: depends on framing, sites that do nothing, or have major issues, the issue is that its not granular
… we didn't have ways to add nuance
AWK: In WCAG 2 partial conformance was mostly related to outside content, we think about it more now because of the VPAT template, not WCAG itself
alastairc: Showing a need for it
AWK: Yes
hdv: The framing made sense to me, in NL, we see sites who are conformant and partially so, there are people making sites that actually conform, the framing was good
<AWK> Can you share an example Hidde?
<kirkwood> I am concerned about the word economy issue. in professional or technical writing, be careful with this specific omission. When you drop "with the guidelines", we run into a grammatical issue: the standalone noun "conformance" (or "conformity") requires a preposition like with or to to act as a proper target.If removing words accidentally breaks your syntax or muddies the meaning, the removed phrase is considered a necessary component. It should[CUT]
<kirkwood> clear here.
GlendaSims: I wanted to report that it's so rare for me to see a trustworthy VPAT with supports all the way down, I have run across it in course management systems
<bbailey> To AWK point about "partial conformance" and WCAG 2.x: https://
GlendaSims: as much as I think perfect is impossible, there is movement, though I still think it's impossible
GreggVan: I think we need to refocus our thinking, if we think of traffic laws
… rarely do people follow all laws perfectly
… we don't say you only need to conform to 80% of laws
<AWK> @jeroenh yes
GreggVan: the question is whether you're "off" enough to take to task for it
… is there a point of comparison between you and another produc
… progress to conformance offers comparison
<GlendaSims> Here is the link to the ACR/VPAT for the Canvas LMS that Conforms with WCAG (and was done by WebAim) https://
GreggVan: "if I don't conform something bad will happen" what will happen?
… the fact that things can't be 100% done, so what, there are people that follow all the laws, the rest of us do what we can
<Patrick_H_Lauke> normatively define "egregious"
GreggVan: I think we ought to be not getting too wound up, but we need comparisons
shadi: Wanted to speak to the framing, the binary nature of WCAG is well documented
… the lack of granularity, it's a long-standing issue
… partially-conformant comes from the WAD, no idea yet how much it moves to EAA, it's evidence that people need something between nothing and everything
alastairc: This is a bit of a tangent
kirkwood: Just want to make sure we're using the right language, when we say conformance we mean specifically with the guidelines
<Rachael> +1 that conformance is conformance with the guidelines
kirkwood: need to be specific
<Patrick_H_Lauke> +1 rather thanconformance with laws
alastairc: Two themes, from standards POV, conformance has a meaning, but we also need nuance and granularity
kirkwood: Conformance with "what"
alastairc: We need something under conformance
<Charles> silver research also showed the need for something between 0 and 100. but that requires something outside of conformance versus partial conformance.
<SydneyColeman> conformance with xyz ; compliance with law
<giacomo-petri> +1 to Glenda
GlendaSims: Wanted to add, it's really important for W3C to have a document that is non-normative that explains what we know to be true, demands of perfect conformance when we all know that's impossible, we need to express that nuance to lawmakers
<Makoto_U> +1 to Glenda
<Stephanie> +1 to Glenda
<erinevans> +1 to Glenda
LoriO: Several meetings ago, I brought up the idea of a document to address this, Rachael put this on her list of things to look into, are we doing that or is this a distraction?
alastairc: What was the topic?
LoriO: What Glenda was talking about, an introduction to WCAG for regulators and enforcers of the guidelines
alastairc: The policy guidance?
LoriO: Trying to remember the wording for the policy guidance and coming up blank, my point is to avoid what Glenda describes, something simple for non-accessibility people to understand
Rachael: It is on our list, this is not the moment to discuss
kevin: Just want to be careful, it's not for W3C to tell lawmakers what to do
<GlendaSims> We are not telling lawmakers what to do. We are helping lawmakers understand how to reasonably use the WCAG standard.
kevin: we do have an opportunity to clarify and explain how a standard can be used, and what to consider when creating regulation
… we can't stop them from taking a hard and fast approach though
… we won't encourage it
… we have to recognize the role we play as providers of advice
JeroenH: I agree we should not tell lawmakers what to do
… but if we could provide a framework for harmonization globally
… enhancing harmonization would be good
alastairc: Small tangent, we'll have the work on the policy document
… subgroup or TF
alastairc: coming back to today
alastairc: for the options, consider what we've discussed already, levels and so on
… ask for clarification if needed
… building towards a survey
alastairc: for scoring, progress to conformance score, pros and cons
… the idea was to create a score for sites that are not fully compliant
… wouldn't be a perfect "how accessible is this" score, but a measure of distance from conformance
… we'd need to demonstrate how to work out the score
<LoriO> Kevin +1
alastairc: for each option we have what it would look like in conformance, it would also be in the informative docs
… or what if we put it in the informative docs only
… EM could outline how to show partial conformance with a granular score
… for policy could be a way to differentiate products
… do you understand this, do you think this is reasonable
Charles: I'm not sure I understand what this means
… my understanding of the progress to conformance was about what an org might say in an accessibility statement vs conformance claim
… not making a conformance claim, but a statement of progress towards conformance
… scoring in the context of conformance is how you get from silver to gold
alastairc: You're correct, it was presented recently as an informative addition, but on this topic, we could also put this in the core conformance model
… you're also right, if it's in conformance, it could be x% for bronze, y% for silver, etc
… the question is whether it should be normative or informative
Charles: I understand your confidence in answering my question, but it's not how I read this
… it says "progress towards conformance" not the "score within conformance"
alastairc: Same concept, two uses of it
Rachael: We can edit the slide to make it clear
Matt_King: If I understand this option, it is about the specific progress to conformance proposal that has been made
<kirkwood> This is strange to me as the laws will continue to say it needs to be done. These standards would no longer be useful for regulators to measure as a standard to ensure it is done (accessible). Or am I wrong?
Matt_King: or is it possible to make this more generic such that we could be talking about progress scoring but different from the current proposal
alastairc: I'm hoping we can deal with it at a higher level, not an exact proposal, if we had scoring as a method, would it be normative or informative
Matt_King: If we could make that really clear that we're not taking a survey on the concept not the specific idea
… one of the challenges, if that scoring were conceived in a different way, then it might not have the same regulatory downsides, could even be a positive
… to make WCAG more like other output standards with regulations
… the pros and cons are based on the current concept of scoring but not relevant to all scoring concepts
alastairc: We'd need a proposal to reference
Matt_King: I'm working on something, maybe the survey is too soon and we need more proposals are on the table?
<AshleeF> Thank you @Adam!
Matt_King: or do the survey now, or again later
alastairc: We can come back if there is a new proposal
GreggVan: I think we can make this easier to say "scoring - conformance or separate"
… otherwise reading the body of it is confusing
… clearer there are two options
… getting rid of partial conformance, well...
alastairc: We'll get to that
GreggVan: Partial conformance is also partial non-conformance
… you're trying to confuse people into thinking you're conforming
GreggVan: trying to show comparisons of quality
alastairc: For each of these, we have in conformance, or in informative documents only
… that's the basic premise for each question
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to goal of today
Rachael: Wanted to step back chair hat on, goal of the exercise is with all the discussion, can we agree on what should and should not be in conformance
… the goal is not to discuss these in great detail
… we can discuss them later, what goes in conformance, what is informative
… don't need to discuss each example
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss level of effort to find for those less familiar
Jennie_Delisi: If option 1, it's in a single document, and for 2, including in the conformance section, if they only use one document, that's where the information would be, right?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Jennie
alastairc: I wouldn't characterise it that way
Rachael: We have sections of the document we can use other than conformance, by putting something in that section, we're saying specifically that it is necessary for conformance, putting it elsewhere means something else
… if it's informative but needs to be in the document, we can deal with that editorially
alastairc: There's bigger impacts whether it's normative or informative
LoriO: When we say policy guidance differentiating products, if you have a product that is a number of applications, each could have different conformance
… what was the intent of using products
alastairc: Umbrella term for what people are making claims about
… we've been using it as an umbrella term, it's whatever policy makers require people to do
… or what people making a claim want to include in their scope
… as we discussed earlier, if two things aren't conforming, how do you compare them?
<Rachael> Scope section of the explainer https://
<Heather> what about the term 'digital interface' instead of websites/product?
hdv: Great question regarding products, I don't love the word but it's helpful as shorthand
… to speak to informative or not, NL gov't monitors many sites, one thing we look for is whether people are communicating on status, people want to see their progress, I want to see it too
… what I don't want to see the bar lowered to where their progress is
… I'd love to see a path towards something informative, not part of real conformance
… see it in EM
alastairc: Put these into the survey, this is helpful
hdv: Sorry, thought we were answering here too
alastairc: We're asking about the options to make sure they are clear, before the survey
GreggVan: We have the guidelines and the supplementary documents, within the guidelines we have normative and informative, the concern people will miss things is fair, but we can put informative content in the main document, but only stuff that doesn't change often
… we don't have to stuff things into conformance to get them into the guidelines themselves
Matt_King: I'm wondering if this is a way to simplify the question
… in response to Jennie, is this simply a choice between not requiring or requiring measurement of progress
alastairc: Yes, exactly, you're either required or here is a way to measure yourself
Matt_King: If we want a dictated WCAG-way to present information and transparency, put it in normative, but if not make it informative
alastairc: Need to consider the range of entities needing to calculate scores or apply these methods
Matt_King: Depends on the implementation details of the progress score
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to say i am not see hard conflict between options
Matt_King: if you had to do this, it's just part of the process
bbailey: You could have "use WCAG EM" in normative, or it's just informative
alastairc: The difference is whether you're required to do a score or an optional thing
<Charles> the ‘or’ in the question makes it difficult to respond to – as it omits the option for both or a split.
bbailey: There could be requirement to work out a score, but not mentioning how
Matt_King: It could be a different spec
… if its normative, it can refer to other documents
alastairc: Key difference is normative or not
GreggVan: You can't refer to anything outside the document in a normative fashion unless it's a normative document
<kirkwood> Progress measurement depends on so many factors. LOE, business priorities. Even within a company, it’s very difficult. Different web accessibility businesses do it in different ways
GreggVan: it needs to be referred to at the same date
shadi: I think we're confusing required and optional, normative and informative, things can be informative in a normative document, optional in a normative document
<hdv> +1 shadi
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest an alternative
shadi: you don't have to do everything, required and optional vs normative and informative, need to keep language clear
Rachael: Would it be clearer if we used more specific language on the areas we're discussing?
<kirkwood> seems clearer
<kirkwood> seemed clearer to me actually
alastairc: not sure it would make it clearer. Let's keep conformant section normative.
GreggVan: Using informative in two different ways is confusing. Suggests distinct normative and informative, and then having 'Notes'
… let's be careful because we may have confusion.
… When required, you need to say what you mean by 'required' everything that's normative is 'required'
… policies and regulations define 'requirements.'
<kirkwood> required to meet specific guideline
GreggVan: standards are standards; requirements of standards are a different definition.
… this document needs to be full of requirements, best practices, and things people should do, but not necessarily required for conformance.
Matt_King: understanding is that requirements are 'must' statements. Requirement for conformance is not the only thing we're talking about in a compliance sense.
<GreggVan> -
alastairc: Redirect back on topic
Ben_Tillyer: Does it need to be an either/or? If different levels of conformance, is there a chance you'd be required to do scoring for a higher level of conformance but no in lower levels?
alastairc: If something was in conformance section, we would describe how to do that in the evaluation methodology and giving recommendations in policy guidance.
… Need to decide if something is in normative conformance - this is the primary question.
… comes down to what we think we would recommend at the regulatory level, and whether scoring would go towards that.
@shadi: I think we're strictly speaking about requirements for conformance, nothing else.
GreggVan: Things that are normative are required for conformance. Things that are should or recommendations are never normative.
stevef: Disagrees with Gregg. Something that has normative requirements... is it the RFC that outlines these things?
… Things like must, should, may, may not are all normative keywords.
alastairc: Moving onto levels. [reading slide]
… question here is around whether we think we could or should include levels in conformance.
… people could claim at a particular level.
… or leave it as one group
… benefits is to be able to show progress on an on-ramp, or even being above regulatory levels.
… al provisions could be put into levels, could be something in the informative documents.
… Question is does it go into normative conformance, or is it an informative thing.
LoriO: How would all of this apply to ACRs? Would this require companies to do two different documents?
<stevef> GreggVan here is the RFC that is normatively referenced by many specs https://
alastairc: If fast-forwarding to 2030, we assume we have released WCAG 3, your ACRs would be in WCAG 2 format. If we changed how things work, it would need to take on a different format.
alastairc: Provisions would already be different, so the document would also be different.
GreggVan: Lori just asked about documentation. In WCAG 2, we don't require any documentation to make a conformance claim to conform.
… we aren't requiring any type of document to conform - is that correct?
alastairc: I took Lori's question because WCAG doesn't produce ACRs.
… we have optional conformance claims, there are other organizations that do require ACRs and they would probably need to update their format if everything is different in WCAG 3.
Kevin: ACR is not a product or a requirement from any W3C specification. It's completely external
stevef: Remembered a former point. From my experience dealing with customers, some form of documentation is ACRs cover WCAG, and it seems to be a conformance document
… separate to W3C it's a document that says how a product supports standards. I don't see why we aren't looking toward that methodology.
alastairc: The question would be which option.
… we put all this stuff into conformance, an ACR based on WCAG would have to change to adapt to that
… we don't do anything
… you don't put it in conformance, you have scoring into informative documents, and it influences people create ACRs.
stevef: It doesn't seem to be a big thing from most customers.
alastairc: Things like VPATs and EAA accessibility statements are drawn from WCAG; based on it.
stevef: How can we make things as simple as possible as far as the scoring is concerned.
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to give +1 to use "partial non-conformance" versus "partial conformance"
stevef: Another thing. This third policy guidance could be recommended to as a way of doing things.
<bbailey> ...for sites claiming partial non-conformance
bbailey: +1 to Andrew's point that partial conformance statements were different with WCAG 2.
… I'd like to encourage us to try to normalize that language, that partial non-conformance is really what we're talking about.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to respomd to Steve
<kirkwood> agree with Bruce
alastairc: Non-partial conformance versus partial conformance seems to be the same thing.
bbailey; Because those two points avoid confusion with what partial conformance meant with WCAG 2, and to reinforce the idea that it's non-conforming.
Kevin: Thinking about Steve's comment, things like VPAT/ACRs - they deviate from record of conformance to WCAG is that they are more of a record.
<Charles> the V in vpat is voluntary.
<Zakim> AshleeF, you wanted to say In the future survey will there be a way to write general objections to these topics
Kevin: A record of compliance to a regulation. Those are two different things. In actual fact, what's more important as far as the regulator is concerned is what's actual required for compiance
… How people report against that, maybe it's a source of why people are not asking for conformance reports, or WCAG conformance reports.
AshleeF: In general in the future survey, will there be a way to write general objections to these topics, or do we assume that these things are all going to be included?
alastairc: Good question. We'll have a comment for each one I suspect. The rationale is more important than the objection itself.
alastairc: Partial conformance [reads slide]
<kirkwood> regulation example: Partially conformant means that some parts of the content do not fully conform to this accessibility standard. https://
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say levels or partial conformance are = levels of conformance
GreggVan: If you have defined levels of partial conformance, they are levels of conformance
… If you meet everything in that level, then you conform to that level. I don't understand what you mean by levels of partial conformance.
alastairc: Good point. The thinking is that if a regulator is asking for WCAG 2 AA and you were meeting A, that's not full compliance?
… Is that a better way of terming it? You might have a conformance level on the way to full compliance. This one is harder to define.
kirkwood: Link put in above as a reference point.
alastairc: (references wording in link)
Matt_King: wondering if this should be in the same survey as the first two questions, because it seems redundant with the idea towards conformance
… seems like another way to say the same thing, and I'm confused about that.
alastairc: might remove this one unless we think of a way to differentiate it better.
alastairc: Moving on to Severity
alastairc: requires some work, we haven't had success yet. It's very complicated to do.
… it's hard to think of clear cases, and hard to know what to do with the gray areas in-between those clear cases.
… [modifies slide content]
… case of something if this is something we want to bake into conformance or better deal with it in the informative section?
… if you do audits, you probably already do this. Is this something you want baked into the WCAG conformance model. Any questions?
alastairc: Moving onto Reporting requirements [reads slide]
… What information could be included in the reports. Various levels of asks based on the type of doc.
GreggVan: In WCAG 2, we don't require that you report, but if you report, there are requirements.
… In your document, you said it would increase the information required for a conformance claim.
alastairc: We're not trying to suddenly require conformance claims. We would add more to what you would have to put into it, if we built in reporting requirements into conformance
alastairc: Moving to Exceptions [reads slide]
… [modifies slide text]
… think of it as EAA excluded large archives of PDF content before a certain date.
Matt_King: Is this the purview of WCAG or of regulatory compliance. The regulators may provide exceptions; what kind of exceptions would WCAG conformance care about?
alastairc: That's the question we're trying to get feedback on. Trying to think of any previous examples - can anyone else think of those as well from previous conversations?
… For example, you have more than one product team and need a design system. It's not something we've traditionally done.
Matt_King: It doesn't feel any different. there are "Ifs" everywhere
alastairc: those "ifs" are based on what is there in the content. For example, if there's a human language available. The question is whether we should also include external factors that wouldn't be apparent form the content.
<bbailey> Just for comparison, exceptions from recent U.S. ADA web rule 28 CFR § 35.201 https://
<julierawe> +1 to Matt_King comment about working out exceptions provision by provision
Matt_King: Should we litigate that within the context of that specific provision?
alastairc: I think this one does, I hope it's answered consistently by provision authors.
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to ask to include the example in the survey
Jennie_Delisi: For those who might not remember those examples when we go to complete the survey, would it be possible to link where it was discussed, or a brief example to hep us understand it in context?
alastairc: Added note
alastairc: Moving onto Sampling methodology [reads slide]
alastairc: Moving to 3rd part content (procured) [reading slide]
bbailey: This isn't the way I think of third party content. You're deliberately contracting out or deciding to use some open source stuff.
alastairc: is that user-generated content?
bbailey: Yes, thanks.
GlendaSims: For clarification, perhaps put 'third-party vendor content'?
@gergg
GreggVan: I don't understand the statement "Allow for a specific statement"
alastairc: You probably read the original. In WCAG 2, you're making a conformance claim, and you've got third party content. You have the option to either work it out or just make a statement of partial conformance.
GreggVan: I have a problem with the term for partial conformance.
alastairc: What would be a good term for the fact of products are not totally conformant, but are working toward it?
<kirkwood> Partial non-conformance is correct
GreggVan: It's 'progress toward conformance.' There should be statements of statement of partial non-conformance, because partial conformance doesn't make any sense.
<Matt_King> q_
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest that we keep partially conform and discuss this later
<kirkwood> +1 to Gregg
Rachael: Suggests that we keep partial conformance, acknowledging that it's an imperfect erm, and added it for discussion. we can review the list of to discuss next week. Tabling it for now.
<Charles> opinion: conformance statement and accessibility statement are different. progress toward conformance is not part of a conformance claim or statement. they can be part of an accessibility statement.
giacomo-petri: Question about third party vendor content, relevant to align on the meeting. You may have a third-party vendor content that was commissioned to a development agency to build my website.
… Think of Shopify, they may provide a template for checkout, where you have limited ability to edit the content, depending on the business model. How would that be classified?
<kirkwood> 3rd party implies different or divided ownership and control
Kevin: The Web Accessibility Directive talked about content that you have no control over. One could argue that you have control over the choice of using a third party vendor.
<kirkwood> it is a legal distinction
Kevin: Whereas if content that you do not control (example is a counsel received an inaccessible PDF of plans from an architect). This is an example of the distinction.
<bbailey> (c) Content posted by a third party. Content posted by a third party, unless the third party is posting due to contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the public entity.
GlendaSims: Digging up the third-party vendor content definition from ADA Title II. It's both third-party software that you buy and any one that you hire to build software for you.
<kirkwood> build/write/design/host
<bbailey> 28 28 CFR § 35.201 (c)
LoriO: Question: When we're talking about third party content, are we also including Open Source material? There's no vendor involved, and you can either use it or not use it.
<kirkwood> open sorce isn’t owned
<Charles> +1 to LoriO vendor means sold
alastairc: The distinction Kevin raised around control is more apt, because it's less about paying, it's whether you can change the accessibility of it.
… we'll try to more closely define that better.
Matt_King: Clarification on Kevin's comment. Trying to think of a situation where the product owner doesn't have some level of control.
<GlendaSims> Here is the reference for User Generated content...which gives you a definition of 3rd Party Vendor/Paid content that IS NOT an EXCEPTION https://
Matt_King: services, APIs, doesn't seem like control is not the defining factor. Don't want to get into litigating how we answer in the survey.
<GlendaSims> And even better: https://
alastairc: We anticipated it would be things that are embedded into your site. There will be certain parts that are imported. We'll try to define that.
<Charles> a youtube video would be both. third party player. user generated video.
alastairc: Moving onto User generated content [reads slide]
GreggVan: I think we should drop 'partial' and say if you make it 'possible for users to generate conforming content.'
… whatever they produce, then your site conforms. it has nothing to do with you.
Ben_Tillyer: Responding to Gregg's point, we need to careful with this. Take SharePoint for example, you should be able to ask for documentation on how to make content conformant.
Heather: +1 to Ben_Tillyer
… adding to that, when you think about documentation, “is it possible to do it” or another option could be “is it _required_ to do it”
wendyreid: Looks like the survey size is quite large.
<Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to make an overall comment
alastairc: We only have a few left. It should be straight forward we hope.
<Ben_Tillyer> more straightforward for the people that attended the call only...
alastairc: Moving onto Other standards alongside WCAG [reads slide]
alastairc: Moving onto Functional needs slides [reads slide]
alastairc: Moved onto Task flows [reads slide]
alastairc: Moved onto Other topics for consideration [summarizes slide]
alastairc: The topics on this slide will not be included on the survey
<Ben_Tillyer> Thanks all
Thanks all
<CClaire> Thanks all