[Conformance] Minutes from 8 July

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

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            Edited the new explanatory sections that now introduce the Third Party
              Proposal;
*            Edited outcomes guidance for User Generated text alternatives;
              discussed when/how to add guidance on other guidelines.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/07/08-silver-conf-minutes.html

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

   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

08 Jul 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Azlan, bruce_bailey, JF, KimD, PeterKorn, sajkaj, ToddLibby

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          ToddLibby

Contents

    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. Third Party Proposal https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

Meeting minutes

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   sajkaj: Quite a bit of review on the proposal

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

   sajkaj: Believe were on agenda for next week. Another WBS starting soon.

   sajkaj: questions forwarded to chairs

   jeanne: Will be talking about this tomorrow at 10 Eastern

   10 US Eastern

   PeterKorn: High level summary of what's changed suggested to walkthrough

  Third Party Proposal https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

   PeterKorn: Added a new section of paragraphs. What is 3rd party content?

   PeterKorn: Definitons have been updated. Sajkaj created alternate to discuss.

   PeterKorn: Lack of specificity was issue to be dealt with

   PeterKorn: Use cases are unchanged.

   PeterKorn: Reading through proposal.

   <bruce_bailey> +1 just to say i really likese new pieces

   <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest sub heading not use word not

   <bruce_bailey> Suggest: Third Party Content is Covered

   bruce_bailey: Suggest subheading change

   jeanne: We should make it really clear, that we are not proposing an exemption

   <sajkaj> ack

   <JF> +1 to Jeanne

   jeanne: Sentence potantially not true. "Today there is no guidance in WCAG 2 for web site owners or authors describing what they can do to encourage third parties to make their content accessible."

   sajkaj: What if we add the word "explicit" (for 3rd parties)?

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say there is no guidance for encouraging

   JF: Worried about what we are saying here. This is not telling people how to make it accessible.

   JF: Need to make disctinction.

   distinction...

   jeanne: Strike the word "challenges". Need to take it out.

   <JF> Agree with removing "challenges" - what about: "This proposal encourages adoption of accessible Third Party content wherever possible. However, when accessibility issues arise this proposal specifies strategies
   for content owners and authors to make third party content more accessible."

   PeterKorn: We expect site owner not to throw their hands up at the first sign of site friction.

   PeterKorn: Suggested language for further improvement

   PeterKorn: Is it possible rto conform to level while not doing XYZ

   <jeanne> Jeanne proposes: This proposal is intended to improve the accessibility of third party content. Today under WCAG2, third party content is considered <q>partial conformance</q> which is then outside of
   conformance. There is no guidance and little motivation for web site owners or authors to do more to improve the accessibility of third party content if they can't make it fully accessible

   <jeanne> . This proposal is how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.

   Apologies (bouncing all about with work issues) trying to keep up best I can.

   PeterKorn: Challenge with that text is second sentence. Doesn't believe that is true. Content is content.

   PeterKorn: Doesn't think there is an equality.

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#x5-4-statement-of-partial-conformance-third-party-content

   PeterKorn: Equality is causing discomfort.

   bruce_bailey: phrasing is not quite right

   bruce_bailey: some motivation/guidance if you can make it partially accessible

   bruce_bailey: agree with intent.

   bruce_bailey: agrees with fact statement. WCAG 2.x document doesn't say anything about directing site owners

   <JF> +1 Peter, I was going to point that out as well

   PeterKorn: Some page created will have content created later.

   PeterKorn: Framing of 3rd party conetnt is much narrower

   content...

   <jeanne> This proposal is intended to improve the accessibility of third party content. Today under WCAG2.x, site owners are permitted to declare inaccessible third party content as <q>partial conformance</q> which
   is then outside of conformance statement. WCAG 2.x does not give direction to site owners or authors to do more to improve the accessibility of third party content if they can't make

   <jeanne> it fully accessible. This proposal is how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.

   sajkaj: stop trying to characterize WCAG 2.x?

   <JF> "To date site owners are..." (?)

   <bruce_bailey> +1 +1 +1

   +1

   <Azlan> +1

   <jeanne> This proposal is intended to improve the accessibility of third party content. To date, site owners are permitted to declare inaccessible third party content as <q>partial conformance</q> which is then
   outside of their conformance statement. WCAG 2.x does not give direction to site owners or authors to do more to improve the accessibility of third party content if they can't make it

   <jeanne> fully accessible. This proposal is how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.

   PeterKorn: Don't think we gain enough by eliminating 2.x

   sajkaj: We okay doing wordsmithing?

   <jeanne> This proposal is intended to improve the accessibility of third party content. Under WCAG 2.x, site owners are permitted to declare inaccessible third party content as <q>partial conformance</q> which is
   then outside of their conformance statement. WCAG 2.x does not give direction to site owners or authors to do more to improve the accessibility of third party content if they can't make

   <jeanne> it fully accessible. This proposal is how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.

   <JF> @Jeanne, "...This proposal >>outlines<< how they can do more to make third party content more accessible, noting that it may not be possible to make third party content 100% accessible.

   Last change in Conformance of Third Party Content was last sentence and note.

   <JF> +1 to positive statements

   sajkaj: Too many "n't's"

   <JF> +1 to second (alternative) version

   +1 to second version as well

   sajkaj: remove old paragraph and new alternative heading and we're done

   PeterKorn: Validate and sign off on rest of text that is there?

   <JF> @Janina - what about https://siarchives.si.edu/press/photos-videos

   sajkaj: Drop museum notes and reference to legacy. The rest should stay

   PeterKorn: Any examples outside of social media? Think we do.

   Google Guides does the same thing as well as JF's example.

   JF: Images need to meet contrast reqs

   PeterKorn: Not yet speaking to guidelines but should.

   sajkaj: Suggest how many we throw in

   jeanne: we would not have recomemndation for iframe in the example

   PeterKorn: We shouldn't offer one.

   sajkaj: Not to get ahead of Makoto and his group

   sajkaj: stick with three bullets and add 'more to follow"

   jeanne: take out other examples of guidelines

   no objection from me

   <KimD> slight aside - here's a link to a collection of handwritten pages. I'm not sure if there's a text alternative. https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss26526.002_0866_0888/?st=gallery

   <Azlan> No objection from me either

   PeterKorn: still wants to add "user generated"


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



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

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