[Conformance Options Subgroup] Minutes from 3 December

Minutes from the Conformance Options Silver subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 3 December are provided here.

*            We're awaiting scheduling of a call with Shawn Henry and Judy Brewer
              regarding naming options
*            We discussed Principles #6 and #7 and added a question for further
              discussion to our growing list of questions.

Hypertext minutes available at:


                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                                  Conformance Options Subgroup

03 Dec 2020


          sajkaj, Bryan, jeanne, sarahhorton, bruce_bailey

          Wilco, John




     * Topics
         1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items (Intros; Email; Group Name; Call with Shawn)
         2. Scoping Discussion
         3. Principles 1-5 Redux
         4. Principles Discussion; Items #6 and Following
         5. December work calendar
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions

   <sajkaj> date 03 dec 2020

   <PeterKorn> https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/creating-a-more-accessible-world

   <bruce_bailey> very nice peter, congrats

   <PeterKorn> Thanks!

Agenda Review & Administrative Items (Intros; Email; Group Name; Call with Shawn)

   <scribe> scribe: sarahhorton

   Janina: Goal to send meeting announcements, etc through Silver mailing list
   ... In last meeting, Judy suggested we take naming issue to Shawn, looking for good time to meet to discuss, might not happen in Dec

   Peter: No consensus that there will necessarily be multiple models, but still good to work on name

   Janina: Possible there will be more, we don't know, good to have appropriate name in the meantime

Scoping Discussion

   Janina: Related request from management, subgroups scope their purpose

   <PeterKorn> I see Melina just joined!

   Jeanne: In W3C every organized group has scope or work statement
   ... Groups are broadening how they are looking at things, chairs thought would be helpful to have scope statement
   ... List or statement of what group intends to do, to share with group, chairs, get guidance, to help focus work

   <PeterKorn> “Purpose: To explore solutions to conformance challenges in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content.”

   Janina: Purpose statement in Google doc

   Jeanne: Doesn't say we are going to write proposals, might want to include that if that's our intent
   ... Good to say we're going to write proposals
   ... And bring them to Silver and AGWG

   <PeterKorn> “Purpose: To explore solutions to conformance challenges in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content; and bring
   proposals to the Silver Task Force and Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.”

   Janina: Go around the table and introduce yourselves

Principles 1-5 Redux

   Janina: Work through Google doc


   <PeterKorn> Rachael - note that we added another clause to the purpose text, to have it be what we track publicly.

   Janina: Only first pass, will take multiple passes

Principles Discussion; Items #6 and Following

   <PeterKorn> a+

   Peter: "All software – and likewise all dynamic websites – of large enough size or complexity has bugs; this is unfortunately unavoidable."
   ... "Websites that meet the solution should have no greater acceptance of accessibility bugs as the site has for bugs generally, nor should accessibility bugs be disproportionately represented among the number or
   severity of bugs found."

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to broaden from website

   Jeanne: Request that we make it broader than websites, could be websites and applications

   Bruce: What is "it" in the comment from Jeanne?

   <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say we have used "web content" in the current draft of WCAG 3

   Jeanne: An interesting way to measure

   <Rachael> These guidelines address accessibility of web content on desktops, laptops, tablets, mobile devices, wearable devices, and other web of things devices. They address various types of web content including
   static content, interactive content, visual and auditory media, and virtual and augmented reality. The guidelines also address related web tools such as user agents (browsers and assistive technologies), content
   management systems,

   <Rachael> authoring tools, and testing tools.

   Rachael: In WCAG 3 defining scope as web content, consistency might be useful moving forward

   Janina: Equity in bugs that are acceptable is the intent

   Peter: Have captured key questions rather than polish principle, note to revisit to define bug equity as a measure

   Bryan: Curious about how we talk about 3rd party content, does principle 6 also apply to that?

   Peter: What do we think is the correct way to scope 3rd party content? We shouldn't leave it as it was left in WCAG 2.

   Bryan: Gets closer to understand what section 6 encompasses, total number of defects in 3rd party, too?

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about how 6 in included in WCAG3

   Jeanne: Principle 6 in WCAG 3, editors draft to be FPWD, for each guideline giving way to measure, giving possibility of having critical errors
   ... Full points for good alternative text if you have 95%, but no critical errors, e.g., missing alt text that prevents task completion
   ... Needs vary, address at guideline, e.g., move flashing WCAG 2.x, would be black/white, no percentage. Others setting a percentage
   ... Yes, you can have errors as long as not critical error (blocker) and others where no, can't have it at all

   Bryan: Does that inform process of looking at 3rd party content, their conformance informs overall conformance?

   Jeanne: Haven't addressed. Some want exceptions, others want no exceptions

   Bryan: Do we can principle 6 to reflect that?

   Jeanne: Innovative idea, should be brought to broader group, share with groups working on guidelines, as a way of measuring whether guideline is met

   Peter: Capturing principles before trying to develop them to be sure we don't miss anything, hold specifics of how they interact, then draft proposals

   Bryan: Yes, look at it further along

   Peter: Imagine catalog of movies, 3rd party movie has flash with warning, example of 3rd party content and critical failures

   <Bryan> Thanks all, I need to jump onto another meeting.

   Peter 7: Principle 7: Beyond what may arise naturally from a greater emphasis on programmatic testing vs. human evaluation, the solution [to these conformance challenges] shouldn’t give preferential treatment…"

   Peter: "…to the needs of one disability over that of another (e.g. a site shouldn’t be great for blind folks but horrible for folks with motor impairments)."

   Bruce: Subject of discussion is solution to these conformance challenges, just double checking that that is what we're talking about

   Rachael: Add sentence that also address intersectional disabilities

   Peter: Gets wordy and have meeting with Shawn to come up with term, can we handle by putting it in header and leaving as the solution in 1–8

   Bruce: Good edit, just need to be careful about language

   <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about "the solution"

   Bruce: Come back and take fresh look

   Peter: Review Rachael's suggestion, too

   Janina: Start there next week

December work calendar

   <bruce_bailey> +1 to proposed work calendar

   Janina: December work calendar, not meet on Dec 24 or 31, resume in Jan

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

Present: sajkaj Bryan jeanne sarahhorton bruce_bailey
Regrets: Wilco John
Found Scribe: sarahhorton


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant

Received on Thursday, 3 December 2020 18:35:18 UTC