[Substantial Conformance] Minutes from 5 November

Minutes from the Substantial Conformance Silver subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 5 November are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            We now have CART support for our calls.
*            We added a disclaimer to our Google doc and removed the problem
              statement draft for now.
*            We will avoid using Google Doc's substitution markup, but use of
              comments is encouraged.
*            We achieved provisional agreement through the 4th draft principle.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/11/05-silver-conf-minutes.html

===========================================================


                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                             Substantial Conformance Silver Subgroup

05 Nov 2020

Attendees

   Present
          PeterKorn, bruce_bailey, John_Northup, sajkaj, Detlev, Jeanne

   Regrets
          Sarah, Wilco

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          Detlev

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Agenda review and meeting setup; scribe for today
         2. Google Doc Process Redux
         3. Continue Principles Discussion
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions
     ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   I can scribe

   <scribe> Scribe: Detlev

   Peter: we can use complete transcripts

   Janina: Yes, useful, scribing can be more succinct
   ... will add those techniwues to the Wiki
   ... to turn transcripts into a file

   Peter: will do that after the call

Agenda review and meeting setup; scribe for today

   Janina: We have CART since someone will benefit from it
   ... will be available on next calls too
   ... will talk about Google docs for SR users
   ... had a call with Jeann about that befor the call
   ... for developing principles it is useful to develop questions

Google Doc Process Redux

   Janina: Spent some time trying - in some sites it was difficult to work out substitution suggestions, difficult, not very usable on the character level
   ... also difficult with Braille displays
   ... also tried other approaches, one from AppleVis about dealing with Google docs
   ... we should insert comments but avoid substitution/delete markeup since it's difficult for SR users

   Peter: process for comments instead of edits to ensure they are processed

  Janina: propose comments as we work through principles

   Peter: People who missed some work and want to comment they can do that commenting in the Google Doc, so we can have a second pass and address their comments.

   Jeanne: We should change the place that WCAG 3.0 does nit address any principles, since it's not true

   Peter: can't see anything in draft problem statement saying that the conformance model cannot address principles

   Jeanne: Where it say "difficult, if not impossible" - we have addressed all but 2

   Rachael: its the edit in the problem statement crossed out

   Peter: I see that - but it does not say that the key principles are not upheld by the new conformance model

   <bruce_bailey> Problem statement doc:

   <bruce_bailey> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw

   Peter: we can address that, or first work through the principles first
   ... we can indicate the problem stetement later, making sure it is not a WG view (yet)

   Jeanne: We are going to publish Silver FPWD soon, a lot of attention will go towards that - so should be addressed now

   Peter: that is not what the text say - ist just says it may be difficult for large sites to fully conform

   Janina: We are for now removing the problem statement for now (return to it later)

   Peter: We can remove the link to the Google do from the Substantial Conformance Wiki page
   ... There si no intent to share this until we are happy
   ... if public scrutiny is a concern, we can keep it private to the 'anyone can joinÄ Task Force

   jeanne: Thats tricky ethically - we try to keep everything public

   Janina: Maybe add a disclaimer - this is draft, just taken as proposals for discussion (to be put on principles)

  Peter: Add perhaps: "Note: this is a discussion draft that does not reflect the consensus of the SILVER TF"

   Janina: Fine

Continue Principles Discussion

   Janina: We agreed on principle 1 but some where not around

   Peter: IMportant to realise the key principle for Substantial Conformance may become a key principle of WCAG 3 conformance

   Janina: SHould be added as note to top of the document

   Any objections?

   Peter: (reads new note)

   Janina: Not hearing objections
   ... let's review 1. Principle

   Peter: (reads 1. principle)
   ... should also be a key principle of WCAG 3

   Janina: Any concerns, may not be the final term

   Peter: At bottom of doc the questions (reads the questions)

   Janina: Is there agreement on principle 1? Any objections?
   ... none so far . read on, Peter

   Peter: (reads principle 2)
   ... suggested edit by Bruce to replace website visitors with 'users'

   Bruce: no strong feelings either way

   Peter: Si let's discuss 2. Principle

   Jeanne: Likes subsituting web site visitors - WCAG 3 iis much broader

   Rachael: agrees with Jeanne, need to decide on terms (content users or similar)

   Janina: intent is to describe the end user in a broad sense
   ... any agreement on terms

   Bryan: align with WCAG 3 abstract - there you have 'users'

   <Rachael> In WCAG 3 it looks like we use "web content and applications"

   Peter: broader term for website, broader term for web site users needed - go n that now?

   Jeanne: Let's park it for now

   Peter: anything els on principle 2?

   Rachael: like "lived experience" language, but may need definition, so may not be that useful

   Peter: I think the key principles might not be long-lived - they help us being aligned in solving things

   Rachael: If P2 is shortened, do we loose anything?

   <Rachael> Substantial Conformance should enable website visitors with disabilities to accomplish what they want on the site with a minimum of difficulty.

   Peter: Probably not

   <PeterKorn> Detlev: it feels alright (principle 2), but vague ("be reflective of lived experience"). How to make that phrase actionable? Does it really help?

   Rachael: It is a basic principle but important - we must not allow may errors that get in the way of users

   Janina: It is intended to be a bit fuzzy - applying approximations rather than precision
   ... that's what the substantive conformance is getting at
   ... Peter will edit, will come up and be discussed again

   Peter: (reads Principles 3)

   Janina: Some jargon P0, P1 - should we clear that up

   Should be simplified

   Peter: Should we highlight for wordsmithing?

   Janina: Should we continue? Details? Or general review first?

   Bryan: Let's carry on

   Agree

   Janina: Any other comments on P3?
   ... Lets move on to 4

   Peter (reads principle 4)

   Bryan: We talked about the atomic tests in WCAG 3 - is that good to include here?

   Peter: Many WCAG 2 criteria need human evaluation and will not scale - so if programmatic can be considered sufficient is contentious, but they should at least be the floor

   Jeanne: We should say 'errors', not 'bugs'

   Bryan: makes sense

   Janina: WCAG thiks in terms of errors niot (software) bugs

   Peter: furthe rthoughs? So I edit...

   Peter (reads edited version of P3)

   Jeanne: add that this is the baseline, the bare minimum - add that?

   Peter: questions if when getting to scale looking at entire site and see a minimum of difficulty appears, how does it relate to checks that will not run all the time but allow for issues that later need to be fixed

   Peter (has added a question 4 about the role of issues that a programmatic test could have found)

   Peter: Add as thing for a definition?

   Janina: The only option is atomic (?)=

   Bryan: Plain language is a focus of WCAG 3, so would that be helped

   jeanne: Replace with automated test

   Bruce: agrees

   Peter: Hilights as a term to return to

   Peter (rereading amended Principle 4)

   Peter (reading new question 4)

   janina: any objections?
   ... We have provisional agreement for Principle 4

   Peter: Will mark that Key Principles 1-4 have been reviewed by the Task Force
   ... encourage to comment text
   ... will vie wthe full transcript and share for merging into Wiki

   Janina: Will discuss how to make that part of the regular procedure

   Bruce: Anyone can do it, it seems - very slick

   Peter: Is any other meetings getting CART service?

   janina: not that I know of

   Jeanne: We have to request it, not sure what W3C has arranged
   ... If someone needs it, we will provide it - but a bit of chicken-and-egg situation

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Present: PeterKorn bruce_bailey John_Northup sajkaj Detlev Jeanne
Regrets: Sarah Wilco
Found Scribe: Detlev




----------------------------------

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>