W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > February 2019

Minutes of Silver meeting of 22 February 2019

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 15:18:32 -0500
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <832da6ab-f57c-f4ec-1f92-45675e51f417@spellmanconsulting.com>
Formatted version of minutes:
https://www.w3.org/2019/02/22-silver-minutes.html


Text of minutes:

    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                  Silver Community Group Teleconference

22 Feb 2019

Attendees

    Present
           AngelaAccessForAll, Charles, Cyborg, JF, Jennison, KimD,
           Lauriat, LuisG, Shawn, bruce_bailey, jeanne,
           johnkirkwood, kirkwood

    Regrets

    Chair
           jeanne, Shawn

    Scribe
           LuisG

Contents

      * [2]Topics
          1. [3]Review and finalize 3.4
          2. [4]Rachael proposal for 3.6
          3. [5]New proposal
      * [6]Summary of Action Items
      * [7]Summary of Resolutions
      __________________________________________________________

    <jeanne> present?

    Jeanne: we had a busy meeting on Tuesday and worked through
    some difficult things
    ... wanted to review 3.4 since we were in the middle of that
    when the meeting ended

    <Lauriat> Link to that part of the Requirements draft:
    [8]https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#technol
    ogy-neutral

       [8] https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#technology-neutral

    <Cyborg> can we please put the link up again?

    <jeanne> 3.4 "Guidelines are worded to apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of
    technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to
    apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if
    the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are
    discoverable in the document structure but are not required to
    understand guidelines."

    <JF> +1 - I think that's right

    Jeanne: are we still good with this? are there any comments?

    <bruce_bailey> +1, that is what I remember

    <Cyborg> +1

    <Lauriat> +1, that looks great to me!

    <jeanne> +1

    Jeanne: the discussion was about how do we talk about
    technology specific and technology neutral

    +1

    Jennison +1

    jeanne: anyone opposed?

    <Cyborg> reposting for Charles: 3.4 "Guidelines are worded to
    apply across varied technologies and avoid being
    technology-specific. The intent of technology-neutral wording
    is to provide the opportunity to apply guidelines to current
    and emerging technology, even if the technical advice doesn't
    yet exist. Technical details are discoverable in the document
    structure but are not required to understand guidelines."

    shawn: shall I drop that into GitHub?

    jeanne: yes, and I have other changes...will email them to you

    <Charles> +1 on 3.4

    jeanne: let's move onto the proposal that John started and that
    Raquel was working on about being able to use Silver in a
    regulatory environment

    <jeanne> 3.6 REgulatory Environment

    <jeanne> "Guidelines are worded to apply across varied
    technologies and avoid being technology-specific. The intent of
    technology-neutral wording is to provide the opportunity to
    apply guidelines to current and emerging technology, even if
    the technical advice doesn't yet exist. Technical details are
    discoverable in the document structure but are not required to
    understand guidelines."

    <KimD> +1 to 3.4

Review and finalize 3.4

    <scribe> scribe: LuisG

Rachael proposal for 3.6

    <Cyborg> what is 3.6?

    jeanne: this came up out of discussion on Tuesday

    <jeanne> "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment"
    or "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment"

    jeanne: we tabled it to today

    JF: one of the concerns is that process by which we're
    measuring conformance needs to be repeatable to work in
    regulatory environments
    ... everything needs to be a testable statement and everyone
    could run the same test and get to the same conclusion
    ... our guidance being adopted in regulatory environments...we
    need to capture some of the... ???
    ... if we don't make our next generation guidelines work,
    they'll stick with WCAG
    ... if they don't continue to work on WCAG if they're working
    on Silver, there will be a divergence

    lauriat: if someone makes a mobile app, people follow
    guidelines from the platform instead of WCAG

    JF: I don't disagree...they're going to look at the best
    technical guidance they can find. right now the U.S. doesn't
    say we need to follow WCAG, just judgments from the DOJ
    ... in the UK, they're saying the most current guidance
    ... the WC3 has spent a lot fo time and effort to get various
    governments to get us using the same accessibility standard so
    we don't have fractured standards
    ... whether we like it or not, the regulatory problem is for us

    jeanne: I think the only issue is how. I wouldn't want to put a
    testable statement in a requirement of how we do that since
    there are a variety of ways to approach it.

    <Cyborg> can we address how regulation is incompatible or in
    conflict with Silver goals? Are those in conflict? If so, how?

    <Cyborg> I agree with what Jeanne just said.

    <Cyborg> I like what Kim just said too.

    Kim: speaking as a non-practicing attorney. the most important
    information to give legislatures is transparency. it's not our
    job to tell them what they need to do; just give them
    information so they know how to use it

    <Lauriat> +1

    Kim: we need to empower legislative bodies on how to interpret
    the guidelines we generate

    Lauriat: like Jeanne said, we're in agreement in wanting to
    support regulatory environments
    ... it sounds like on Tuesday we wanted to express that as a
    requirement in Silver so it's clear to others

    jeanne: that was my understanding

    <Cyborg> what about adding language from what Jeanne and Kim
    said into 3.6

    JF: I can agree on principle, but it gets back to "he says; she
    says"
    ... we need a way to break that stalemate somehow

    Lauriat: we have that now...it can all come down to opinions
    for each WCAG Success Criterion

    Cyborg: How can we deal with this in 3.6 so that others join in
    this process, the answer has been added to the requirements
    because the regulatory environment as a potentail conflict
    feels a little trope-ish
    ... I think Kim's response is really clear. Could we add that
    language to 3.6?

    JF: I think you're right...we need something. One of the
    overarching goals is that we'll support it. If we can agree to
    it as an overall concept, I'm comfortable with that.

    <Cyborg> what about support the regulatory environment with
    clarity and transparency of intent?

    Jennison: sounds like we've landed in a good place.

    <Charles> for later review: in the US regulatory space, there
    is now precedent for the evaluation to be conducted AND
    interpreted by an expert. see Gomez v GNC:
    [9]https://www.adatitleiii.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/121/201
    8/09/GNC-Decision-S.D.-Fla..pdf

       [9] https://www.adatitleiii.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/121/2018/09/GNC-Decision-S.D.-Fla..pdf

    JF: We're in early stages, so we don't need the one true
    answer.

    Lauriat: Can we go with what Jeanne pasted earlier?

    <Lauriat> "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment"
    or "Guidelines support use in a regulatory environment"

    <JF> Guidelines MUST support use in a regulatory environment

    <Charles> +1 for working the availability of intent

    <Cyborg> what about support the regulatory environment with
    clarity and transparency of intent?

    <KimD> How about something like "Silver is mindful of future
    adoption of it's guidelines into law and supports that
    environment."

    <KimD> Actually, like Cyborg's better

    <Cyborg> Suggestion: Silver guidelines will support the
    regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent.

    Jeanne: Apologies, we removed the "must"s and "should"s

    <KimD> +1 to Cyborg

    <bruce_bailey> +1 to present infinitive

    JF: We have clients that come to us and ask "are we in the law
    or are we out of the law?"
    ... we need a black and white line of "this is good" or "this
    is bad"

    Lauriat: This is helping us work through conversations that
    will come up when we bring it to the rest of the working
    group... ??

    <Cyborg> i thought the good/bad was based on methods, rather
    than guidelines

    Lauriat: so I think this is valuable for us to work out a
    requirement that speaks to that need in a way that doesn't make
    us do what WCAG does

    JF: I agree. You're right...I'm stress testing you now because
    we're going to have those questions later on.
    ... I'm all for the guidelines being technology agnostic. At
    some point, engineers want to know what the problem is and how
    to fix it.
    ... so we need at some point to have black and white answers.
    Or is the answer truly gray?

    Cyborg: I thought that came in the methods so they could have
    that clear specificity rather than the guidelines.

    JF: yeah, right now we're writing the guidelines on how to
    write Silver.
    ... so yeah, we need to have a bullet point that says what we
    produce will be useful in the regulatory environment
    ... we don't need to be more specific than that; we're just
    putting together requirements for what silver needs to look
    like

    KimD: I think Cyborg's suggestion covers that

    JF: I can live with that for now

    Laurat: +1

    <AngelaAccessForAll> +1

    <jeanne> The Guidelines support the regulatory environment with
    clarity and transparency of intent.

    <Lauriat> [drafty draft] Regulatory environment: Support the
    regulatory environment with clarity and transparency of intent.

    <bruce_bailey> +1

    <KimD> +1

    <jeanne> +1

    Charles: We have a couple of other requirements that
    state...and we specifically wordsmithed it as "future
    technology" and things that are yet unknown
    ... do we need to do something similar for the regulatory
    environment?

    Lauriat: No idea

    <johnkirkwood> +1 but I have a difficult time with the wording
    of regulatory environment, often regulations are to meet the
    guidelines.

    KimD: If we cover that with the intent and transparency, we
    should be good.

    JF: All we're saying is we recognize that requirement and we'll
    be mindful of it while building Silver
    ... I believe the methods is the testable piece. the regulatory
    environment could say "you need to meet these methods" or "you
    need to get this many points"

    <johnkirkwood> regulations usually say must meet WCAG 2.0 AA I
    find no?

    Lauriat: someone would express if they met a regulation by the
    testability of the method they used

    <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention that regulation
    different than courts

    bruce_bailey: Regulatory environment i think of as being US
    Access Board and then there's lawsuits under the ADA which
    doesn't have a website standard

    <KimD> +1 Bruce, we are confusing terms

    <johnkirkwood> yes. exactly, what Bruce is saying

    <johnkirkwood> agreed

    bruce_bailey: I think agree to what johnkirkwood is saying but
    maybe we should clarify legislation vs regulations, etc.

    <bruce_bailey> legislation vs litigation

    jeanne: and not too US-centric

    <johnkirkwood> yes

    Charles: some regulation comes after the standard

    Cyborg: not being a lawyer, how that plays out is that there
    would be a requirement to do something like WCAG 2.0 AA or
    similarly Silver silver level. But the issue of lawsuits would
    come up and then it would be about meeting a person's needs
    ... and whether or not there was harm
    ... if Silver has that as part of how it's different from WCAG
    2.0...requiring greater effort in customization, etc. for
    meeting individual needs, then it would support that person in
    the human rights based legal complaint as well
    ... that's another reason to not rely on pass/fail testing

    <KimD> +1 to Cybel

    JF: There needs to be some measureability beyond "it works for
    you"
    ... there will always be edge cases.
    ... we recognize it can't be a binary solution. I'm just saying
    this will be an important part of what we produce and if we
    want to see it adopted, we need governments to adopt it. They
    need to be able to rely on it, so it can't be too soft.

    Cyborg: So if we grandfather in WCAG 2.0 AA as Bronze, then
    governments might say you need to meet Bronze and companies
    won't move on..

    Jeanne: We have no control of what governments decide to
    regulate. We want to improve things for PWD as best we can. Be
    as transparent with how we're deciding things as best as we
    can.

    <Charles> totally agree that current legal environment is about
    the barrier found by a human and not about meeting a standard.
    so what happens when an author meets Silver (perfectly) but
    there is still a barrier?

    <KimD> +1 to Jeanne - no ability to know or control what
    governements/states/countries will adopt.

    KimD: Governments are already free to adopt and modify WCAG 2.0
    and they do
    ... and they put their own spin on it

    <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest: Guidelines can be
    used in developing regulation and resolving litigation.

    Lauriat: Getting back to the requirements. Is there something
    we should add related to supporting those that need to do those
    types of things

    bruce_bailey: That's what I was suggesting. I pasted something
    in...

    Jeanne: +1

    <Cyborg> Kim? comments on Bruce's 2nd sentence? +1 for me

    Luis: +1

    <Lauriat> Support the regulatory environment with clarity and
    transparency of intent. Guidelines can be used in developing
    regulation and resolving litigation.

    Charles: is the intent so that we're covering both development
    and enforcement of policy?

    bruce_bailey: yes

    lauriat: I think that helps

    <Cyborg> Kim?

    JF: +1

    <johnkirkwood> +1

    JF: It finds the right balance

    <jeanne> 3.6 The Guidelines support the regulatory environment
    with clarity and transparency of intent. Guidelines can be used
    in developing regulation and resolving litigation.

    <Charles> +1 as long as we don’t lose the “clarity and intent”

    lauriat: and defines thing. I think "regulatory environment"
    didn't really define it. this helps clarify

    KimD: Conceptually, I think that's good

    Jeanne: This is what we currently have...

    <KimD> +1 but will need more editing eventually

    <Cyborg> no it wasn't me - Kim

    bruce_bailey: Could use a little more wordsmithing

    jeanne: what's the rough area to improve? should we work it now
    or take it offline

    KimD: I think it's an offline conversation

    <Cyborg> is it about evidence?

    Jeanne: you willing to have a call with me to work it out for
    Tuesday?

    <Cyborg> wondering about adding the word evidence....to the
    litigation part?

    lauriat: going to put this wording in github for now so we
    don't lose it

    <bruce_bailey> some of it is just being repetitive

    bruce_bailey: some of it is that it's just repetitive

    JF: yeah, we're just documenting the intent of where we are
    today

    Cyborg: Does saying something about "evidentiary use" help?

    KimD: I think our guidelines needs to say that the intent is
    that it'll help when developing regulation and then intent
    during litigation. When there is question about a statute, you
    look for intent for what it's supposed to do.
    ... so we want to say what our intent is and what the guideline
    is supposed to do

    thanks, bruce! :)

    <Cyborg> +1 to moving on

    jeanne: I want to propose a new requirement...anyone else want
    to propose one first?

New proposal

    jeanne: something I thought was important was the idea we've
    been talking about for a year.
    ... we want to incentivize people to do more than the minimum.
    I'm proposing...without any wordsmithing

    Jennison: It's more the "use of the guidelines" than the
    guidelines themselves, correct?"

    <jeanne> The Guidelines incentivize and reward organizations
    for doing more than the minimum.

    <Cyborg> instead of "more than the minimum", can we use "reach
    for a higher bar of inclusion"?

    the guidelines themselves aren't going to incentivize to go
    beyond...if an org uses the guidelines, they would be
    incentivized

    Cyborg: to focus more on the positive, maybe shift to "reach
    for a higher bar of inclusion"

    <Charles> wouldn’t that require naming or quantifying what the
    incentive is?

    jeanne: seems a little slangy

    <jeanne> The use of the Guidelines incentivize and reward
    organizations to reach for a higher bar of inclusion.

    <johnkirkwood> +1 Rewarded for creating an optimal experience.
    ??

    jeanne: that would be the "how"

    <Cyborg> optimal doesn't really exist, it's an ongoing
    process...

    charles: I think the word "incentive" is going to mean
    different things to different places

    lauriat: maybe use "motivate?"

    JF: I'm with you Charles

    <johnkirkwood> agree with positive rather than miinimum bar,
    Rewarded for creating an optimal experience ??

    Cyborg: part of getting to higher place is recognizing where
    you are and the struggles you're having

    <Cyborg> The use of the guidelines incentivize and motivate
    organizations to acknowledge their gaps and reach for a higher
    bar of inclusion.

    <Charles> but what is the reward?

    Lauriat: I think we want something squishier than "optimal" but
    better than "minimum"

    <Cyborg> suggestion: The use of the guidelines incentivize and
    motivate organizations to acknowledge their gaps and reach for
    a higher bar of inclusion.

    Jennison: It needs to be delightful

    JF: Maybe "acknowledge gaps and strive to be more inclusive of
    a larger audience?"

    Jennison: There you go

    KimD: that's good

    <Cyborg> strive to meet the needs of a more inclusive audience

    <Cyborg> is that what you said

    <johnkirkwood> diverse audience

    <Cyborg> strive to be more inclusive.

    <johnkirkwood> more DIVERSE audience

    <AngelaAccessForAll> diverse and inclusive?

    Charles: and the other part about "larger" and "more" is
    comparatively to WCAG

    <Cyborg> inclusive and intersectional audience?

    Charles: I'm stil struggling with the first part of it
    ... if we're saying "incentivize and motivate" what is the
    incentive?

    <AngelaAccessForAll> to guide and encourage?

    JF: it's to do more than motivate..it's to guide

    <Cyborg> motivate and direct?

    bruce_bailey: That's better. The guidelines are promoting doing
    more than the minimum

    <Lauriat> The use of the guidelines motivate and guide
    organizations to acknowledge their gaps and strive…

    <Cyborg> motivate and provide direction?

    <Cyborg> assist?

    Charles: Is the intent to help them do more by providing more
    informative content

    <Cyborg> support?

    <JF> The use of the guidelines motivate and guide organizations
    to acknowledge gaps and strive to be more inclusive of a more
    diverse audience.

    JF: That's where the "guide" comes from

    Lauriat: I think this is closer to where we want to be

    <Cyborg> The use of the guidelines supports and motivates
    organizations to acknowledge gaps and strive to be more
    inclusive.

    Lauriat: as opposed to change what we're trying to say

    <johnkirkwood> Guidelines Encourage the inclusion of the most
    diverse audience.

    Jeanne: maybe call it "Motivation"

    KimD: could it be called "Intent" instead of "Motivation?"

    <Cyborg> that was Cybele not KimD?

    Lauriat: I think the main point is to give orgs a path to do
    more than the minimum

    probably Cyborg instead of KimD...I'm not great at replacing

    <Cyborg> organizations a path toward greater accessibility?

    <jeanne> 3.7 MOtivation: The use of the guidelines supports and
    motivates organizations to acknowledge gaps and strive to be
    more inclusive. Give organizations a path toward greater
    accessibility.

    <bruce_bailey> +1

    <AngelaAccessForAll> +1

    <Lauriat> +1

    <jeanne> +1

    +1

    <Cyborg> +1 for now

    <Cyborg> The intent...

    <Cyborg> The intent is to give organizations a path toward
    greater accessibility

    <jeanne> 3.7 Motivation: The use of the guidelines supports and
    motivates organizations to acknowledge gaps and strive to be
    more inclusive. The intent is to give organizations a path
    toward greater accessibility.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    [End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 22 February 2019 20:18:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:44 UTC