W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > November 2020

[{TBD} Conformance] Minutes for 12 November

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:27:55 +0000
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <11707f934b5242f682207c41cdc3120c@EX13D28UWC003.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the [TBD] Conformance Silver subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 12 November are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            Extensive discussion of how we understand our scope vis a vis
              conformance
*            Edits adopted to Principle #1 and proposed for Principle #5
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/11/12-silver-conf-minutes.html

===========================================================
   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -

                                                                                             Substantial Conformance Silver Subgroup

12 Nov 2020

Attendees

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

   Regrets

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          sarah

Contents

     * Topics
         1. Agenda Review and Procedures Refresh
         2. Principles 1-4 Redux
         3. Other Business
     * Summary of Action Items
     * Summary of Resolutions
     ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   <sajkaj> date 12 nov 2020

   <sajkaj> scribe: sarah

Agenda Review and Procedures Refresh

   JS: Working through principles, marking wording concerns but trying not to resolve them
   ... Concern about group label

   Jeanne: Request from W3C managers not to use term "substantial conformance"
   ... They do not want term to gain stickiness
   ... Change name on wiki to "Conformance Subgroup" on wiki

   PK: What about note in section 5 of FPWD draft?

   Jeanne: Good to follow up on that

   PK: Troubled given that term came from research, brought it to FPWD, caused sub-group
   ... Term is in use, we could get a handle on it

   JS: Concerned about calling "Conformance" because could be seen to conflict with Bronze, Silver, Gold model

   Jeanne: Call it "Conformance Issues", smaller, continue to address issues as we identify them

   PK: Suggests another iteration of conformance challenges note, not solutions
   ... Dropping Friday meetings, two poles that talk about conformance, not efficient

   BB: Need conformance WG, ongoing, this group's focus in on the phrase "substantial conformance", used in agreements, settlements

   Jeanne: No objection to the work and focus of the group

   WF: AG approved term to be used in draft, labels work that needs to be done

   <PeterKorn> sarah: Think we should call ourselves whatever will allow us to do the work, and then do the work that needs doing. If this is a speed bump, we should respect that there are issues larger then our ken

   <PeterKorn> sarah: and we can accommodate them, and do our work. So votes we suggest our name. "Conformance Issues" is fine.

   <PeterKorn> q

   PK: Can make change to placeholder, would like term to reflect solutions focus of group

   <bruce_bailey> addressing challenges w conformance ?

   PK: Continue work, put placeholder subgroup name

   Sarah: Call us "Conformance Solutions" now and keep working

   <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask how to make it clear we are not working on 3x scoring

  Bruce: A general name seems to include bronze/silver/gold

   Sarah: Thought we were looking at conformance more broadly

   JS: Intent is to look at other conformance models
   ... Common to have more than one way to satisfy, this group is exploring other options

   PK: Not suggesting there is alternate model, if we find ways of bringing what we are exploring into B/S/G
   ... Looking at lens of history, WCAG 2 conformance starts with page and moves to site, WCAG 3 trying to think more site wide
   ... What you can tolerate looking at a page, what you are prepared to tolerate in a large site
   ... Would rather not predispose but rather look at what are solutions to challenges, then say what the answer is

   Sarah: Don't see what keeps us from including B/S/G in discussions

   WF: Are we looking at alternative approaches?

   PK: Alternate suggests there should be two
   ... Try to get through principles?

   JS: We will stop using "substantial" and use "TBD"

Principles 1-4 Redux

   https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit

   PK: Use comments to suggest edits

   <PeterKorn> Substantial Conformance should set a high, but achievable, accessibility bar. Substantial Conformance must not be SO WEEK that IT excuses or blesses fundamentally inaccessible websites.

   Group reviewed and made edits

Other Business

   BT: What is the level of conformance if 1st party and 3rd party have different B/S/G levels

   PK: Wants broad agreement on principles rather than jumping into solutions
   ... Current thinking model, page doesn't conform regardless of where content comes from
   ... Need something better than partial conformance idea

   <sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/TR/accessibility-conformance-challenges/#Challenge-3

   PK: Solution might be that site conforms, 3rd party content may/may not conform, here's the owner of that content

   Peter shared several examples

   <bruce_bailey> As an FYI, here is a link to WCAG 2x statement of partial conformance

   <bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-partial

   <bruce_bailey> +1 to not combining "partial" with TBD conformance

   WF: 3rd party is vague term, needs clarification; likes principle
   ... What does "partial substantial conformance" mean?

   PK: Core issue is places 3rd party content out of scope, trying to say it has to be dealt with directly

   JS: Reaction to WCAG 2

   Jeanne: Didn't address in WCAG 3, want to see it discussed

   <PeterKorn> Substantial Conformance should be designed with 3rd party content in mind; it shouldn't simply be exempted through a mechanism like "partial conformance" from WCAG 2. The language of a Substantial
   Conformance assessment might nonetheless call out any 3rd party distinctions.

   JS: Will cancel two weeks from today

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Present: PeterKorn bruce_bailey John_Northup sajkaj Detlev Jeanne sarahhorton Bryan
Found Scribe: sarah



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

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2020 18:32:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 13 November 2020 14:52:07 UTC