Re: [{TBD} Conformance] Minutes for 12 November

Correction: I was not a participant in the meeting on Nov 12th
Thanks for the minutes.

Am 12.11.2020 um 19:27 schrieb Sajka, Janina:
>
> 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>
>

-- 
Detlev Fischer
DIAS GmbH
(Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH)

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.dias.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites