[Conformance] Minutes from 26 August

Minutes from the Silver Conformance Options subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 26 August are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:

===========================================================
*            Discussion
about how to present conformance expectation of different types of media, i.e.
very recent vs old and predating accessibility features;
*            How to comprehend media where good AT doesn't exist for some users;
*            Discussion of what next the subgroup might take up
===========================================================
Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/08/26-silver-conf-minutes.html

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

   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

26 Aug 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Jeanne, JF, KimD, MichaelC, pkorn, sajkaj

   Regrets
          Azlan_Cuttilan, Bruce_Bailey, Bryan_Trogdon, Todd_Libby

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          KimD

Contents

    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

Meeting minutes

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   saj: Moving forward with working draft mid-Sept; no alt-text example

   saj: Conformance needs to be a focus - we have work to do

   Jeanne: CFCs coming

   saj: Watch email for CFCs this week or early next week

   saj: User-generated is probably good.

   saj: Agenda review

   Jeanne: for "what's next" - glossary or protocols

   Jeanne: for Protocols - flesh out presentation from JF (people could get points for implementing "other" W3C spec

   Jeanne: such as "content usable" etc. Get "credit" for doing more

   Jeanne: incorporate things that are important to a11y but needs more work to flesh it out.

   JF: another Protocol is plainlanguage.gov which gives us a resource

   JF: gives outcomes & objectives. Entity could adopt.

   JF: helps frame objective decisions

   pkorn: if we look outside web context, would a11y features like reading aid be considered?

   pkorn: would you get points for those?

   JF: TBD

   sajkaj: Asks MC if this would like FPC?

   sajkaj: how deep do we go?

   MC: we are interested on the needs, not how they're met

   sajkaj: Other groups (APA) might have some work

   MC: maybe some items for TPAC

   sajkaj: Maybe a session on FAST?

   Jeanne: maybe, but not really a requirement to understand protcols

   Jeanne: we can review existing protocols first, like Content Usable

   Wilco: Is there something about FAST?

   <MichaelC> Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies

   <Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/

   <MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Functional_Needs_Subgroup

   JF: In presentation, thinking about Moodle testing protocol, etc.

   JF: Entities could publish a "custom" protocol based on publicly accessible protocol

   JF: Gives legal realm something to measure web

   <JF> the "courts of law" example was strawman and illustrative

   Peter: Protocols: focus on courts of law may be outside our remit

   Peter: future conversation ok, let's get back to agenda

   <JF> @Peter: My presentation was produced as a MSFT PowerPoint dck, which I have uploaded to here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAQSPv1bGuUAlhO41rPkkfrlijF2uzmF/view?usp=sharing

  Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

   sajkaj: New content towards bottom.

   Peter: not sure what is new - are we looking at diff flavors of media?

   saj: one type of media is intra-linear media (?)

   Peter: Media types: newly created; library of content (historical too - pre a11y considerations); intermediary for 3d party media

   Peter: look each at each - may need sep reviews

   Peter: CVAA - legal driver, if broadcast after caption date requirement, needs captions.

   Peter: Not true for audio description real

   Peter: So 3d party vendors don't have audio descriptions and 3d party may have modified slightly

   Peter: and audio descriptions don't fully conform

   Peter: bigger issue: what to do about a11y content failures

   Peter: "author arranged media" content conformance - doesn't capture which bucket of media it is.

   Peter: massive variation in costs for remediation

   saj: something under Steps to Conform

   Peter: Do broad media cats make sense?

   1. Newly created (in the era of tech for closed captions exist)

   Peter: 2. Historical content (pre-dates CC or audio descriptions)

   Peter: 3. Distributed by 3d party

   Wilco: seems like same ideas we've been working with

   Wilco: seems to line up

   Peter: historical is a flavor of 3d party

   Peter: historical/archive hasn't been reviewed by us

   Jeanne: Breakdown makes sense

   Wilco: agree

   Peter: We need to flesh out. What's the responsibility when you're a 3d party and have archival content?
   ... requirement to remediate?

   Jeanne: We talked about months ago. Could be addressed by time.
   ... Giving people the ability to make something specific accessible within a certain amount of time.
   ... make it available after request

   Peter: what's a reasonable rate?

   Jeanne: It depends; needs a lot of work

   Peter: Maybe media for which we don't have good access today is its own category.
   ... street view of Google Maps, 3D walkthrough of a house, etc.

   saj: can't make accessible for everyone

   Wilco: It's not a category, we just wouldn't have requirements (yet?)

   Peter: agree

   saj: agree, and may cut across different user groups

   Peter: Do we want to call out in WCAG3?

   saj: Do we need this in the doc - diff headings, etc.

   saj: we can add or reformat

   Peter: Archival and "upon request" - seems right
   ... new should be more accessible
   ... remaining one to discuss is 3d-party

   JF: Protocols: might help this too
   ... example: entity publishing things; we will make things available w/in x number of days, etc.

   Wilco: WCAG2 doesn't always incorporate/update with new tech or spec
   ... If tech didn't exist at time of content, but does now, do we need to address?

   Peter: look backwards and forward

   saj: Methods can continually update

   Jeanne: Let's be thoughtful/careful about adopting protocols.
   ... might be easy to game
   ... need to close lots of loop hole
   ... focus first on things that we know are established standards

   sajkaj: process implications about entity protocols
   ... is it normative? When? How?

   Peter: In plan to look at protcols, can we come back to rest
   ... We worked on 3d-pary and did some work.
   ... Can we develop something more focused that might pass consensus?

   saj: Draft has idea that not everyone has authority to make changes to remediate
   ... have to let users know what's available
   ... would that fly?

   Peter: asks MC

   Peter: looking at where responsibility belongs
   ... author who holds (c) and doesn't remediate is the problem
   ... since laws are relatively new, 3d party who offers old content - what's the responsibility?

   MC: Example: Video if legal, there is a responsibility to add captions, etc.
   ... If (c) owners refuse, then content providers may not be able to use
   ... library of videos might be an issue

   Peter: WCAG removed from section 255.

   saj: More accessible version may exist, but vendor may not make it accessible

   saj: pass-through isn't there

   Peter: Intersection between archive and new
   ... things that were made for broadcast TV could be pre-audio discription laws
   ... none audio-described at the time, 255 not required to be described
   ... should WCAG require description?

  MC: should set out a11y requirements
   ... we don't want to make things unavailable
   ... because they're not accessible

   Peter: We're not saying if something is NOT accessible, we're saying what you have to do
   ... we're setting out requirements

   MC: Makes sense
   ... however, even lowest conformance level is likely to require cc

   saj: if you can't - identify the entity that's blocking

   Peter: every minute 50 hours are uploaded to YouTube; requires a min staff of a million

   MC: this is addressed in requirement
   ... if impossible or nearly, that's harder

   Peter: setting out minimal requirements


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).

Diagnostics

   Maybe present: MC, Peter, saj, Wilco


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

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