W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > April 2021

[Conformance] Minutes from 15 April

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:32:40 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7e860ee52c114455a56c51f8e83aef66@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the Silver Conformance Options subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 15 April are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            Discussion on our report to the TF on the F2F of 29 April;
*            Discussion of types of 3rd party content we need to comprehend;
*            One more telecon to discuss before the 29th!
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/04/15-silver-conf-minutes.html

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

   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

15 Apr 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Azlan, Bryan, JF, sajkaj, sarahhorton, ToddLibby, Wilco

   Regrets
          Bruce_Bailey

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          Wilco

Contents

    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. April Report Draft https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF

Meeting minutes

   <Azlan> For some reason I cannot access the link to where the zoom call details are. I keep getting a message of insufficient privileges

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   Janina: April report, there is a draft in the wiki.
   ... Tried to capture what we did last week. Have additional use cases to talk about. As a target we have the day-long meeting on the 29th
   ... Presume we won't meet on the 29th

   Peter: Is there anything we should re-orient ourselves around to be effective on the 29th meeting?

   Jeanne: We're going to start with testing, then look at scoring, and from there look at what are the requirements of BSG.
   ... And how would we evaluate which option would be best.
   ... See this group in the last category. What are the use cases to test the conformance options against.

   Peter: There has been discussion on Gregg's feedback about a level that is automated testing only. Is that a topic for the 29th?

   Jeanne: It is, but might be a black hole, lot of negative feedback from people in the disability community who does not want to see a race to the bottom.
   ... There are options to talk about.

   Janina: Option would be to make it part of the testing protocol, but not build a conformance level around it.

   Jeanne: Something we want to do more with with ACT.

   Janina: With conversations we've had, we want that level of testing. We'll see how that comes out.

   John: We're starting to see tools that are "automated" but have a walk-through construction.

   Janina: Part of the reason not to make it a conformance model, would be a moving target.
   ... Think we need to have this, trying to figure out how to have this.

   Jeanne: Having a conformance level raises some problems, doing it at testing level will work.

   Janina: Proposed a level called "threshold", insufficient for accessibility, but necessary before bronze.
   ... One of the Silver goals is to be flexible where we can, but not force flexibility where it is harder to achieve.
   ... Changing conformance normative is tough, updating supporting docs is relatively easy.

   <JF> it's auto-detecting in my browser today

   Janina: If anyone uses the browser for IRC, W3C will require HTTPS on Monday. HTTP will be redirected.

  April Report Draft https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/April_Report_to_the_Silver_TF

   Janina: First report draft is in the wiki. There is a skeleton in there, and I've tried to capture our conversation on third-party content.
   ... We reported in March on use cases that could be covered by Silver.
   ... We discussed last week on third-party content, we also still have "all software has bugs".

   Peter: I'll add a use case on accessibility support to the doc. We can discuss next week.

   Janina: Next week is the last week before we have to report. Have to close on it next week.

   Peter: We promised for April to propose directions on how to address the items.
   ... For third-party, the big change is to go from what is in WCAG 2, to elevate to making a statement of conformance, calling out exceptions. It is a difference in phrasing. The question is around how to communicate
   this to users, and how to invite scrutiny where it belongs.
   ... 5b is some embedded web payment system. If there are not too many alternative, we want to say that the payment system the responsibility of that organisation.
   ... Suggestions are independent of the mitigation strategies, and it may be part of what someone need to do to meet the excepted conformance level.
   ... Provide tools and guidance what we're doing to have third-party user generated content be as accessible as possible.

   John: Agree with the general direction, but am concerned with the criticality.

   Janina: We have a use case where it lays out some stuff is contracted, and other stuff is third-party provided. Have to discuss how to make that distinction, but we know we have that need.

   John: The impact of not completing a purchase if by its nature is more severe is not being able to understand everything in a video.

   Jeanne: I think we addressed that with critical errors.

   <JF> @janina, making the distinction between an EDU site and a non-EDU site will be extremely complex to document

   <JF> with regard to conformance reporting

   Peter: There is a small number of payment processors out there, if one of them is inaccessible, it is not something I can fix.
   ... "best meets" may still have failures.

   John: I think it needs to be factored in.

   Janina: We agreed on that in March. Trying to find new issues.

   Peter: Having ideas for all of them will be more helpful than having one worked out in depth

   Jeanne: On an individual example level we have the structure for critical errors to identify individual examples.
   ... What Peter raises is more of a macro issue; how does a small business have a responsibility for the accessibility of the third-party service they contract with.

   <PeterKorn> Potential solution/direction to address: "Conforms, with the exception of the embeddable web payment system which can be found within our site at these locations/flows, and these are the actions we've
   taken to address that: x, y, z"

   Janina: It's a use case we should capture. There are variations in third-party contract, and we should tease that out.

   Peter: This is an idea for Silver on how it could allow an achievement that is explicit about what they've done to address.

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask how that would integrate into Bronze, Silver, Gold?

   John: Something like what we'd have in a VPAT. We've heard discussions on badges. I wonder how such a proposal would be integrated with a bedge.

   Peter: The fundamental shift is from WCAG 2, any third-party content with a problem means you can not conform. Partial conformance is non-conformance. This is trying to flip the direction. A site conforms with some
   exceptions.
   ... So that a site can conform for something they have control over.
   ... I think this gives a signal to regulators on where to point the focus.

   Bryan: Are we talking about defining who is responsible for the accessibility of the experience?

   Peter: Not just define who's responsible, but surface. Another example is copyright, some sight may have a film owned by someone else. Audio descriptions may need permission from the copyright holder.

   Janina: We have use cases for those.

   John: What I'm hearing is a conformance statement, instead of defining conformance.
   ... This is more about making a statement. Are we defining conformance, or conformance statements?

   Janina: Neither, trying to capture ideas of things to consider.

   Bryan: The challenge is to understand what is in scope and what is not. I think we've made progress. I think defining what is in scope is key.

   <JF> +1 Sarah

   Sarah: Seems like we've moved away from talking about conformance and moved towards something else.

   +1

   Janina: I heard the notion that someone is contracting with a third party, and their ability may be limited to effect the remedy. Should not give them full points, but not zero points like in WCAG 2.

   Sarah: Surprised we're talking about solutions

   Peter: Our timeline says we'd deliver proposals. Suggest possible solutions to our use cases.

   Jeanne: Could see us having a section in normative conformance part discussing third-party content.

   Wilco: Sounds like what we're talking about is leaving third-party content out of conformance in some cases. Reporting seems beyond that.

   Jeanne: Agree. What we should say is it can conform with some exceptions. Think that is a fair topic.

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to go back to critical failures and the impact of those on Bronze, Silver, Gold

   John: WCAG 3 was going to be outcome based. If I can't pay, it is a critical fail. Documenting who is responsible is what we can do, but from a user's perspective they hit a brick wall. If something is a critical
   fail, it doesn't matter what else you've done.

   Janina: WCAG can not deliver the end-to-end experience, it can only describe and define that well enough so that others can do something with that.
   ... Trying to build a tool of what success looks like. User that bumps into a critical failure, WCAG can not deliver a fully accessible experience. It is beyond the ability.

   John: What's the difference with a third-party bit that has flashing content?

   Janina: The courts can argue who's responsible. It won't be the W3C that decides who's responsible.

   Wilco: Might be worth exploring third-party content not allowing critical issues

   <JF> The W3C has NEVER argued who's responsible - we've defined what "accessible" is

   <PeterKorn> This potential solution/direction itself has challenges, as the embedded web payment system may be critical to the use of the site - in which case we could have a "conforming site" whose primary purse
   isn't accessible. Similarly, if the web payment system has a critical error (e.g. strobing which may trigger a photosensitive seizure), we again could have a "conforming site" that contains a horrible problem.

   Peter: Added this to the document.

   <sajkaj> JF, that's correct. And someone surfacing flashes on a Tuesday wqould not be the result of a W3C spec.

   <jeanne> +1 to Wilco's idea of 3rd party content not generating critical errors. Of course, when the product is the first party, they are responsible.

   <JF> Thank you Peter, I think that captures my concern (mostly)

   <JF> and +1 to Wilco - 3rd Party cannot contain any critical errors

   Peter: Tried to say there is a direction, but there are some challenges to it too.

   Peter: Suggest that maybe 5c could look similar.

   Janina: Yes, and so could copyrighted content.
   ... Third-party can provide audio description without permission of the copyright author.

   <jeanne> I want to clarify what I thought I heard Wilco propose that we would not fail an individual company because there was a critical error in a thrid party site.

   <jeanne> s/thrid party site. /third party product or content.

   Janina: Ask people to look at the use cases from last week.

   Peter: I think 3C is fleshed out enough, with the understanding these are ideas, not consensus proposals.


    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>
Received on Friday, 16 April 2021 16:33:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 16 April 2021 16:33:02 UTC