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

Re: [{TBD} Conformance] Minutes for 19 November

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:58:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJi9Cqq3WW_O8O9BG7L50XhkgQKBW5Ehai-M1FNT-+wYyCsYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Cc: Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com>, Raph de Rooij <post@raph.nl>, Frederick Boland <replymehere447@gmail.com>, Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Perhaps "Statement of Qualified Conformance"  is an alternative, like,
"Subject to the issues listed under the heading "Exceptions", the
application conforms to WCAG XX> as of <date>". (This form has been in
use for sometime at Deque without the word "qualified").
The VPAT-based conformance report has used  "partially supported" for
a long time.
All these fall  in the same bucket as "partial conformance" for third
party content, so W3C guidance , "It is important to recognize that
this is a statement of non-conformance", still applies IMO.

And when it is less than conformant, which user-group's accessibility
needs can be compromised? And how badly / to what extent? And who gets
to decide?
That's why issue 219 refers to this as a slippery slope.
Ref: https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/219
Thanks,
Sailesh

On 11/20/20, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Raph, Sheri,
>
> Bear in mind that these are the kinds of terms used within policy
> settings to frame how technical standards are applied. Within a policy
> setting, there is a role for having language that addresses the scope of
> how something is applied.
>
> What gets odd from my perspective is when one brings that kind of
> scoping directly into a technical standard/guideline etc., and tries to
> merge how accessibility is defined and tested, with how it may or may
> not be interpreted and applied in policy settings. I say this with the
> understanding that I know that there has been a lot of work already done
> to define and propose a new conformance model, but lots more work still
> to do on the model, but recent improvements in the conformance model may
> mean that this is a good time to do more work on the naming.
>
> In the meantime, I encourage caution on conformance model naming
> possibilities that may blur the lines between AGWG work in W3C WAI, and
> how WCAG may or may not be taken up in different policy settings around
> the world. From my perspective, the term "substantial conformance" may
> blur these two things, and probably terms including words such as
> "reasonable" would as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Judy
>
> On 11/20/2020 11:06 AM, Sheri Byrne Haber wrote:
>>
>> “Reasonable” is definitely a loaded legal term in the US, our entire
>> court system is based on reasonable doubt, reasonable efforts, and
>> commercially reasonable.
>>
>> Not saying it isn’t an OK choice, just saying if that is the choice it
>> needs to be with that understanding.
>>
>> Sheri
>>
>> *From:* Raph de Rooij <post@raph.nl>
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2020 4:52 AM
>> *To:* Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
>> *Cc:* Frederick Boland <replymehere447@gmail.com>; Silver Task Force
>> <public-silver@w3.org>; Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [{TBD} Conformance] Minutes for 19 November
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> May I suggest an alternative? The term "reasonable assurance" is well
>> defined and commonly used in (financial and risk-based) auditing, in
>> situations where absolute certainty cannot be provided.
>>
>> It may be suitable input in the search of an alternative for the term
>> "substantial conformance". Reasonable assurance means that all
>> prescribed auditing procedures in a system of quality control were
>> followed */and/* that no deviations from the generally accepted
>> accounting principles (GAAP) were found.
>>
>> A document about the subject that I collected eight years ago during a
>> compliance management study appeared to be still available online [1].
>>
>> When checking the current relevance of reasonable assurance, I found a
>> document from March 2020 [2] in which reasonable assurance was
>> regarded as 'a core principle', which was 'strongly supported' 'in
>> order to meet cost-benefit considerations'.
>>
>> The European Commission uses "presumption of conformity" in its web
>> accessibility directive 2016/2102 [3].
>>
>> This term may be legally correct, but personally I'm not fond of it.
>> Presumption does simply not provide a lot of certainty to those who
>> are not familiar with the legal meaning of the term.
>>
>> _______
>>
>> [1] see
>> https://pcaobus.org/News/Events/Documents/10052005_SAGMeeting/Reasonable_Assurance.pdf
>>
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpcaobus.org%2FNews%2FEvents%2FDocuments%2F10052005_SAGMeeting%2FReasonable_Assurance.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181234542%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=GObJ8MDrPEt1afEpetjEJIJup920x9oS2hCdEFVgQkA%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> [2] see https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket046/026_Chamber.pdf
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpcaobus.org%2FRulemaking%2FDocket046%2F026_Chamber.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181244537%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=m0JiD4vE%2BBtP6BYdRWodKC6eNwC2kRywIP%2FZW3aI2tQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> page 2 /(H: Core Principles of Potential Approach)/ and page 4 /(H:
>> Reasonable Assurance)/
>>
>> [3] see
>> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2102/oj?locale=en#d1e846-1-1
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur-lex.europa.eu%2Feli%2Fdir%2F2016%2F2102%2Foj%3Flocale%3Den%23d1e846-1-1&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181244537%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=jN8lLLl1qnEJe%2Be%2Bknq6qywb82YD6%2Ft0N4U3crHFWU4%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>> Raph de Rooij
>> E: post@raph.nl <mailto:post@raph.nl>
>> M: +31 6 45025236
>>
>> Op vr 20 nov. 2020 om 02:32 schreef Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org
>> <mailto:jbrewer@w3.org>>:
>>
>>     Hi Tim,
>>
>>     I'm not sure whether the relevant question here is whether or not
>>     "substantial" is a legal term or not. In seeking a name that best
>>     conveys the work that has been done to define and propose a
>>     conformance model for next generation guidelines, I think we also
>>     need to think about what a proposed term conveys from a messaging
>>     perspective.
>>
>>     With "substantial conformance" I'd be concerned that it gives more
>>     of an impression of additive conformance from a low bar, along the
>>     lines of "you can use a lot of parts of this website," or "you can
>>     use what we think are the important parts of this website," or "a
>>     lot of this site conforms to WCAG." I'd be concerned that it would
>>     be hard to overcome that impression even if backed by strong and
>>     precise testing criteria, and that this would impact people's
>>     expectations of the accessibility conformance model.
>>
>>     It may turn out to be that there is no term that sets a clearer
>>     expectation. Or, it may turn out that the initial impression some
>>     people have that the term sets a low bar for accessibility is not
>>     a common perspective. But I'd like us to explore some other naming
>>     possibilities before confirming a term that might give a
>>     potentially fraught impression.
>>
>>     - Judy
>>
>>     On 11/19/2020 6:38 PM, Frederick Boland wrote:
>>
>>         “Substantial” is a legal term – from FindLaw Legal Dictionary –
>>
>>         1a : of or relating to substance, b : not illusory : having
>>         merit [failed to raise a constitutional claim], c : having
>>         importance or significance : material [a step had not been
>>         taken towards commission of the crime “W.R. LaFave and A.W.
>>         Scott Jr”]
>>
>>         2. : considerable in quantity : significantly great [would be
>>         a abuse of the provisions of this chapter “U.S. Code”] compare
>>         de minimis
>>
>>         Source:  Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996
>>
>>         Also, I found an interesting article about measuring
>>         “substantially similar”:
>>
>>
>> https://www.novoco.com/notes-from-novogradac/close-enough-how-measure-substantially-similar-under-fasbs-new-lihtc-investment-guidance
>>
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.novoco.com%2Fnotes-from-novogradac%2Fclose-enough-how-measure-substantially-similar-under-fasbs-new-lihtc-investment-guidance&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181254530%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2Bo1zYqK00fO1IDlaqPeKAmZ7CKSmRwoiWNbocFJbh1g%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>         Although in a different subject area, might provide some
>>         insight, even if the term “substantial” is not kept..
>>
>>         On Thursday, November 19, 2020, 1:09:54 PM EST, Wilco Fiers
>>         <wilco.fiers@deque.com> <mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:
>>
>>         Minutes from the [TBD] Conformance Silver subgroup
>> teleconference:
>>
>>         https://www.w3.org/2020/11/19-silver-conf-minutes.html
>>
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2020%2F11%2F19-silver-conf-minutes.html&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181254530%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=pAmKVk4XR3rV0Jrnf8YzUhx2nOD5Q3taoL9bLJryvWE%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>         Summary:
>>
>>         - Discussed where/how to remove the phrase "substantial
>>         conformance"
>>
>>         - Discussed principle 6, on numbers of bugs per website
>>
>>         --
>>
>>         *Wilco Fiers*
>>
>>         Axe-core product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>>
>>         Join me at axe-con
>>
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeque.com%2Faxe-con&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181264524%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=WcZNjbA4MGAo4V6T2AnKtkjC7%2BxyM3JcxBbJHRdd%2FWk%3D&reserved=0>2021:
>>         a free digital accessibility conference.
>>
>>     --
>>
>>     Judy Brewer
>>
>>     Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
>>
>>     at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>
>>     105 Broadway, Room 7-128, MIT/CSAIL
>>
>>     Cambridge MA 02142 USA
>>
>>     www.w3.org/WAI/
>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181264524%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=66lTjR7yFMDgTPXbzJdyhzXlMBkcriYtC9Wb3XWKdSY%3D&reserved=0>
>>
> --
> Judy Brewer
> Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
> at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> 105 Broadway, Room 7-128, MIT/CSAIL
> Cambridge MA 02142 USA
> www.w3.org/WAI/
>
>


-- 
Join me at axe-con  2021: a free digital accessibility conference. Read more at
https://www.deque.com/axe-con/
Feel free to contact Deque marketing if you have any questions. Thanks!

Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon, VA 20170
Mobile: 571-344-1765
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2020 11:58:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 24 November 2020 11:58:28 UTC