[Conformance] Minutes from 8 April

Minutes from the Silver Conformance Options subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 8 April are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
We discuss third party content and agree there are at least three types of
third party content we should provide guidance on. Sometimes safety or legal
constraints may prevent the hosting site from adapting content to meet
accessibility requirements, but we agree the capability to do so should be
supported. Our discussions were based on our github issue #450 and on our use
cases 5b and 5c.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/04/08-silver-conf-minutes.html

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

   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

8 Apr 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Bryan, JF, KimD, sajkaj

   Regrets
          Azlan_Cuttilan, John_Northup, Peter_Korn, Rachael, Todd_Libby, Wilco_Fiers

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          JF, Kim

Contents

    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. Assigned github issues https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options
    3. Use Cases Discussion (Continued)
    4. Summary of action items

Meeting minutes


   sgenda?

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   JS: pretty standard - remind that we need to create an April report

   propose we will deliver that on the 30th, but also note that the 29th is a full-day workshop

   Jeanne: p[erhaps have the report ready for the 29th then?

   JS: OK, we can add that to the list

   there is a list with items that we should look at, and there are also some github comments

  Assigned github issues https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options

   <sajkaj> https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/Subgroup%3A%20Conformance%20Options

   JS: there are two issues we need to review

   Kim: looks like comment from an email

   [reads comment aloud]

   JS: Kim read issue 450

   believe this mirrors one of our existing points in our google doc - principle 5 (thrid usecase)

   Blog posts, tec.

   JS: summarizes that if we are too strict it will be ignored or will drive people away

   Jeanne: notice that it splits 3rd party content into 2 categories: contractual or copyright implications, and then 3rd party 'user-generated' content

   were forcing that kind of content into accessiblity may be difficult

   so found the split useful

   to think about'

   JS: agrees - two very different scenarios, and thinks we've already started down that path

   example - travel site

   so that things that are contracted have a higher bar. But then there are items like payment processing where you can demand minimums in the contract

   other services like google, facebook, AWS, etc. - all have sign-in services (federated authentication)

   those could likely have higher bars

   but being overly strict may introduce problems

   Jeanne: thinks there are 3 categories: personal users - low burden, contracted material - higher bar, and then copyrighted material (eg Library of Congress)

   JS: interesting use-case, but believes there are exemptions in place to address the needs of a11y

   BB: +1 - have seen that before and it is quite specific

   JS: relays an experience of encountering copyright barriers

   JF: asks about how to integrate copyrighted content into a conformance model

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask where this will be leading us to?

   JS: think we can't just throw our hands up

   BT: usecase: If I go to a restaurant and posts a photo of a menu item and post it on social media, is it the same as, say, the restaurant owner?

   Jeanne: maybe they need different rules, but thinks the owner is responsible for text alternatives for their menu. But if it's a patron, then the responsability falls to the poster

   so we may need seperate rules to cover scenarios like that

   not sure where the line is however

   BT: and that's what I am trying to understand - is it based on role, or on something else?

   where does the decision take place

   JF: how do you annotate that?

   JS: concerned that we are getting outside of what W3C can normatively say

   believes this is Best Practice guidance, but worried that we are crossing a line

   this discussion is already fairly US-centric, need to think about i18n

   Jeanne: at this point, just trying to think about use-cases.

   Kim: wanted to ask if this is a use-case. Have struggled with this and am unsure

   we have a product that courts use, where people can upload evidence for 'sharing'

   here there are very complex 'images' or (content) - and how do we provide text alternatives there?

   JS: This is a very interesting question

   JS: describes experience of being on a jury and dealing with visual evidence

   Iim: what I've recommended that the system must *allow* the addition of alt text, but not 'required' (enforced)

   <JF> s/Tim/Kim

   JF: Plus 1 to Kim

   JS: we have a second issue

   Next issue is #362. Like that #450 has surfaced 3 different scenarios

   [Kim reads out comment]

   Jeanne: I think this item is mis-filed - not relevant to this group

   Jeanne will re-assign this to somebody else

   Action: Jeanne to re-asing Issue #450 to another group

   <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

  Use Cases Discussion (Continued)

   JS: there are others we've not touched on yet

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

   [looking at other issues on the google doc]

   Looking at Principle 5 Use cases (B & C)

   JS: notes similarities to Issue #450 - but bullet list is more expansive

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to comment on "highly technical"

   defining "highly technical" will be problematic

   Jeanne: last bullet sounded like if yo don't make your software, you're not responsible

   JS: Agree, can't use that as an excuse

   BT: what were the 3 initial buckets?

   Jeanne: personally generated 3rd party, copyrighted material, contracted third-party (login services, news feeds, etc.)

   JS: attempting "highly technical" - consider EDU content (advanced math) - but we already are starting to see how to address this (ref: content Usable)

   question around submitting work by student

   BT: likes seeing the split between University and student - whatever technology supplied by EDU owns the responsibility

   JS: takes us back to Kim's comment

   KD: this may not be the right spot - what about patent applications? Does that fit into the same or similar use-case

   +1 Kim

   Kim: does this mean we might need an excemption category?

   JS: we could likely draw a line of what can and cannot be achieved - where we know how to implement and can advise that

   Kim: continues to trip up over plain language

   Jeanne: what plain language talks about is giving orgs the ability to write plain language summaries

   JS: Kim is suggesting that they can't - the judge can come back and say you've mis-represented what i meant

   it's a legal thing - but can be applied to medical or other fields as well

   Jeanne: would be curious to hear from Bruce about how the US Fed deals with this

   they have statutes, etc, already

   Jeanne: this is something that the plain language folks need to work out

   JS: thin this may still fall to us - this is going to require a negociation

   Jeanne: think we need to figure out what/where this will apply

   JS: We have the responsibility of defining what 'success' looks like, not who is responsible for implementing

   <KimD> JS: where summary provides a danger or legal interpretation, perhaps an exemption

   <KimD> Kim: perhaps different levels of plain language summaries? One that doesn't involve interpretation as much

   <KimD> i.e., more summarizing content than interpretation

Summary of action items

    1. Jeanne to re-asing Issue #450 to another group


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).



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

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