Silver Conformance Options Sub Group Minutes - better than nothing version

[11:57] * Zakim 1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items [from sajkaj]
[11:57] * Zakim 2. Whoville as Proxy for Views & Processes
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF#Principle_3:_Scoping_for_Primary_Purpose
[from
sajkaj]
[11:57] * Zakim 3. Third Party
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF#Third_Party_Content_.28Continued.29
[from
sajkaj]
[11:57] * Zakim 4. Other Business [from sajkaj]
[11:57] * Zakim 5. Be Done [from sajkaj]
[11:57] <JF> Present+
[11:59] == Azlan [~Azlan@efd4e7dd.public.cloak] has joined #silver-conf
[12:00] <Azlan> present+
[12:00] == jeanne [~jeanne@efd4e7dd.public.cloak] has joined #silver-conf
[12:00] == Wilco [~Wilco@efd4e7dd.public.cloak] has joined #silver-conf
[12:00] == ToddLibby [~ToddLibby@efd4e7dd.public.cloak] has joined
#silver-conf
[12:00] <Wilco> present+
[12:02] <jeanne> present+
[12:02] <ToddLibby> present+
[12:02] <JF> Regrets+ Bruce Bailey
[12:02] <JF> scribe: JF
[12:03] <JF> zakim, take up next item
[12:03] <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken
up [from sajkaj]
[12:03] <JF> JS: two items, on the agenda today
[12:03] <JF> from draft may report - outstanding from last week (Whoville
use case)
[12:03] <JF> also want to return to the draft may report and review 3rd
party content (edits)
[12:04] <JF> JS: there have been additional edits since last week - some
more substantive than others
[12:05] <JF> JS: will we be presenting this June 21st? And can we do a
preview at Silver before then?
[12:06] <JF> Jeanne: yes and yes
[12:06] == PeterKorn [~PeterKorn@efd4e7dd.public.cloak] has joined
#silver-conf
[12:06] <JF> zakim, next item
[12:06] <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Whoville as Proxy for Views & Processes
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF#Principle_3:_Scoping_for_Primary_Purpose
--
taken
[12:06] <Zakim> ... up [from sajkaj]
[12:06] <PeterKorn> Present+
[12:06] <PeterKorn> q+
[12:06] * Zakim sees PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:07] <JF> JS: looking at principle 3 - there are purposes to content and
there may be subsidiary content on the page, that doesn't "count"
[12:07] <JF> PK: they don't count *THE SAME*
[12:07] <JF> it's not that we are ignoring issues, but they are at
different 'weights'
[12:08] <JF> JS: we haven't figure that out completely, but we need to look
at that - there is a note in the Draft as an open action item
[12:08] <JF> examples of Footer content being less important, or an iframe
that is for mechanical (not user) reasons
[12:08] <JF> [Peter Korn reads #3]
[12:10] <JF> Q+ to ask about 'programmatic determination' (aka <aside> or
similar)
[12:10] * Zakim sees PeterKorn, JF on the speaker queue
[12:11] <sajkaj> q?
[12:11] * Zakim sees PeterKorn, JF on the speaker queue
[12:12] <JF> JS: trying to define primary from secondary content
[12:13] <JF> we can postulate that. But what is an acceptable definition of
'view'
[12:13] <sajkaj> q?
[12:13] * Zakim sees PeterKorn, JF on the speaker queue
[12:13] <JF> suspect that this may not work - lead to contiguous concept
[12:13] <JF> ack P
[12:13] * Zakim sees JF on the speaker queue
[12:13] <sajkaj> ack pet
[12:13] * Zakim sees JF on the speaker queue
[12:14] == sajkaj [~Janina@7927d3f6.publics.cloak] has quit [
public-irc.w3.org public-ircs.w3.org]
[12:14] <PeterKorn> q+
[12:14] * Zakim sees JF, PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:15] <Wilco> q+
[12:15] * Zakim sees JF, PeterKorn, Wilco on the speaker queue
[12:15] <JF> ack JF
[12:15] <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about 'programmatic determination'
(aka <aside> or similar)
[12:15] * Zakim sees PeterKorn, Wilco on the speaker queue
[12:16] <JF> JF: determining what is primary and secondary should not be
subjective. Can we use programmatic containers to help define secondary
content?
[12:16] <JF> JS: Wonder if a page like this would be used that way (primary
time conversion tool)
[12:17] <JF> Q+
[12:17] <jeanne> q+ to ask if we should change this use case
[12:17] * Zakim sees PeterKorn, Wilco, jeanne on the speaker queue
[12:17] * Zakim sees PeterKorn, Wilco, jeanne, JF on the speaker queue
[12:17] <JF> ack P
[12:17] * Zakim sees Wilco, jeanne, JF on the speaker queue
[12:17] <JF> PK: like the idea of using a landmark (etc.) but not sure if
it addresses the concern
[12:18] <JF> PK: whether it is via markup or other attestation - it is page
editor who makes the determination.
[12:19] == sajkaj [~Janina@70c529b2.publics.cloak] has joined #silver-conf
[12:19] <jeanne> q+ to say that feedback about subjectivity vs objectivity
is related to interpreting success criteria, not choosing what page to
review.
[12:19] * Zakim sees Wilco, jeanne, JF on the speaker queue
[12:19] <sajkaj> q?
[12:19] * Zakim sees Wilco, jeanne, JF on the speaker queue
[12:21] <Azlan> q+
[12:21] * Zakim sees Wilco, jeanne, JF, Azlan on the speaker queue
[12:21] <JF> Ack W
[12:21] * Zakim sees jeanne, JF, Azlan on the speaker queue
[12:21] <sajkaj> ack wil
[12:21] * Zakim sees jeanne, JF, Azlan on the speaker queue
[12:21] <JF> WF: concern about how this discussion is heading. It's
problematic for authors and testers to determine what is important for PwD
[12:21] <PeterKorn> q+
[12:21] * Zakim sees jeanne, JF, Azlan, PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:22] <JF> it's like *us* determining what is important for you, as
opposed to leaving that to the individual
[12:22] <JF> WF: I think this is an important discussion, but have grave
concerns
[12:22] <JF> ack je
[12:22] <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask if we should change this use case
and to say that feedback about subjectivity vs objectivity is related to
interpreting success criteria, not choosing
[12:22] <sajkaj> ack jeanne
[12:22] <Zakim> ... what page to review.
[12:22] * Zakim sees JF, Azlan, PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:22] * Zakim sees JF, Azlan, PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:23] <JF> Jeanne: in response to JF's assertion for more objectivity
verus subjectivity - was more on ___ rather than what is important on a
page.
[12:23] <JF> Think we still have the ability to have some subjective
editorial impact
[12:24] <JF> Jeanne: however I think we may need to change the example -
it's not clear enough, we're going into side discussions that may not be
helpful
[12:24] <JF> maybe look for a better example of "some things are more
important than others on a page"
[12:24] <JF> JS: Open to suggestions
[12:24] <JF> ack A
[12:24] * Zakim sees JF, PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:24] <sajkaj> ack asl
[12:24] * Zakim sees JF, PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:25] <JF> ack JF
[12:25] * Zakim sees PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:25] <JF> Azlan: with regards to programmatically determining using
markup... we should be very careful there
[12:25] <JF> example of <aside> may not be the right idea'
[12:26] <JF> Azlan: so we should tread lightly here
[12:26] <sajkaj> ack jf
[12:26] * Zakim sees PeterKorn on the speaker queue
[12:26] <sajkaj> q+
[12:26] * Zakim sees PeterKorn, sajkaj on the speaker queue
[12:27] <JF> JF: hearing Azlan's concerns - maybe instead of landmark
elements Personalization's emergent "simplification" attribute
[12:28] <JF> PK: was working on a footer block, and it felt lesser than
content in the <main> element
[12:29] <sajkaj> q?
[12:29] * Zakim sees PeterKorn, sajkaj on the speaker queue
[12:29] <JF> PK: we already have a preferential 'process' - it's how we
address bugs all the time (prioritization)
[12:29] <sajkaj> ack p
[12:29] * Zakim sees sajkaj on the speaker queue
[12:29] <JF> so question then becomes do we treat secondary a11y bugs with
a differential process?
[12:30] <JF> i.e. if we aren't going to fix it right away [hot fix] then
that says something powerful here
[12:30] <Wilco> q+
[12:30] * Zakim sees sajkaj, Wilco on the speaker queue
[12:30] <JF> JS: want to return to the topic - candidate proposal for 3rd
party content, as we need to get on that ASAP
[12:31] <JF> WF: prefers we stay on this, wanted to respond to PK's comments
[12:31] <sajkaj> ack saj
[12:31] * Zakim sees Wilco on the speaker queue
[12:31] <sajkaj> ack wil
[12:31] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:31] <JF> WF: "importance" is completely relative. There may be
arguments to be made on defining what is important for a 'larger group'
(requires a discussion on what is important)
[12:32] <JF> for orgs, that is often what pays the bills - may not be the
same 'priority for users' as for the org
[12:32] <JF> may not be fair to do
[12:32] <JF> zakim, next item
[12:32] <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Third Party
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF#Third_Party_Content_.28Continued.29
--
taken up [from sajkaj]
[12:33] <JF> JS: have worked on definitions - have for 2 of the 3
categories - tried to incorporate Sarah's feedback last week
[12:33] <JF> [Peter reads aloud]
[12:34] <sajkaj> q?
[12:34] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:35] <JF> rrsagent, draft minutes
[12:35] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate
https://www.w3.org/2021/06/03-silver-conf-minutes.html JF
[12:36] <sajkaj> q?
[12:36] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:36] <jeanne> q+ to say that we need to name it differently, so we don't
go down a blackhole of legal contracts around the world. User generated vs
Author arranged?
[12:36] * Zakim sees jeanne on the speaker queue
[12:36] * jeanne laughs that I have a real talent for queuing right after
Janina checks for q
[12:38] <JF> Jeanne: like what we have so far. recommend we change name of
categories - currently they are very 'legally' oriented, which may lead to
a black hole
[12:38] <JF> so the whole legal approach is fraught with problems
[12:38] <sajkaj> q?
[12:38] * Zakim sees jeanne on the speaker queue
[12:38] <JF> was thinking of "user generated' versus 'owner arranged'
[12:38] <sajkaj> ack jea
[12:38] <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we need to name it
differently, so we don't go down a blackhole of legal contracts around the
world. User generated vs Author arranged?
[12:38] <jeanne> ack jean
[12:38] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:38] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:38] <JF> PK: not a fan of giving a perfect score to something that
isn't accessible
[12:39] <sajkaj> q?
[12:39] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:39] <JF> want to recognize that the owner has done everything they can,
but it feels wrong to say that something that is perfectly accessible
versus something close feels wrong
[12:40] <JF> PK: example - video with no audio descriptions. How explicit
does the identification need to be?
[12:40] <sajkaj> q?
[12:40] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:40] <JF> do those attributes need to be listed on the page, or marked
"this page does not have audio description"?
[12:41] <JF> or is it enough to identify the 3rd party? specifics on
implementaiton details will be important
[12:41] <JF> JS: yes and yes
[12:41] <JF> PK: one way is to be more explicit in our examples
[12:41] <JF> Q+
[12:41] * Zakim sees JF on the speaker queue
[12:42] <sajkaj> q?
[12:42] * Zakim sees JF on the speaker queue
[12:42] <jeanne> q+ to say writing it up for Captions since we have a
Caption guideline
[12:42] * Zakim sees JF, jeanne on the speaker queue
[12:43] <sajkaj> q?
[12:43] * Zakim sees JF, jeanne on the speaker queue
[12:43] <sajkaj> ack jf
[12:43] * Zakim sees jeanne on the speaker queue
[12:44] <Azlan> +1 to the suggestion of metadata
[12:44] <sajkaj> ack jea
[12:44] <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say writing it up for Captions since
we have a Caption guideline
[12:44] <JF> JF: thinking about using metadata
[12:44] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:45] <JF> We have a requirement for captions already. Automated captions
versus hand-crafted could score different points
[12:45] <sajkaj> q?
[12:45] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:46] <ToddLibby> +1 to metadata and writing it up for Captions as well
[12:46] <sajkaj> q?
[12:46] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:46] <jeanne> + 1 to the varients of 3rd party
[12:46] <JF> PK: good ideas. What needs to be worked in is the "3rd
partyness" piece, and the variants of that
[12:47] <JF> JS: Peter raised a point - not giving a perfect score when 3rd
party is nonconformant
[12:47] <sajkaj> q?
[12:47] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:47] <JF> PK: a core principle for me is that we don't water down the
definition of what is accessible, but rather that we bubble up things that
are achievabl
[12:48] <sajkaj> q?
[12:48] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:48] <JF> e even if it may not be perfect (and may never be)
[12:48] <JF> JS: are fractional scores acceptable?
[12:49] <JF> Jeanne: we haven't gotten there yet
[12:49] <JF> going to fractions has some issues
[12:50] <sajkaj> q?
[12:50] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:50] <JF> PK: other thoughts on scoring, and the path forward. Reporting
the issue and adding remediation info
[12:50] <JF> Q+
[12:50] * Zakim sees JF on the speaker queue
[12:50] <JF> it could be covered by a blanket statement
[12:52] <JF> PK: think this can be covered by crafting an example. It could
be covered in a policy on the site
[12:52] <sajkaj> q?
[12:52] * Zakim sees JF on the speaker queue
[12:52] <sajkaj> ack jf
[12:52] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
[12:53] <JF> JF: concerns about adding remediation content in a statement
[12:54] <JF> PK: the issue is whether the author has done as much as they
can - no stone left unturned
[12:54] <JF> but it makes sense to me to encourage the author to pass along
this information
[12:55] <JF> JF: but what is the mechanism to do that?
[12:55] <JF> JS: the bottom line is to put the responsibility where it lies
[12:56] <JF> for sites that are using 3rd party content that has issues
that the site owner cannot fix
[12:56] <JF> [Peter reads more]
[12:57] <JF> rrsagent, make logs public
[12:57] <RRSAgent> I have made the request, JF
[12:57] <JF> rrsagent, make minutes
[12:57] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate
https://www.w3.org/2021/06/03-silver-conf-minutes.html JF
[12:58] <JF> JS: no ideas on how to score that, but those sound like the
factors we discussed last time
[12:58] <JF> PK: returning to "how does this help the end user"? Signaling
to the end user that the level of accessibility may be different
[12:59] <JF> eg: the main function of a "for sale" site (eBay?) may be more
accessible than individual postings
[12:59] <JF> s/eBay?) /
[12:59] <JF> JS: don't have it figured out, but think we are on the right
path
[13:00] <JF> hoping to take this to Silver on a Friday call, and then AG on
June 21
[13:00] <JF> JS: not fully baked yet, but seek feedback early to get this
'right'
[13:01] <JF> Target date of June 11th
[13:02] <JF> rrsagent, make minutes
[13:02] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate
https://www.w3.org/2021/06/03-silver-conf-minutes.html JF
[13:02] == PeterKorn [~PeterKorn@efd4e7dd.public.cloak] has quit ["Page
closed"]
[13:03] == ToddLibby [~ToddLibby@efd4e7dd.public.cloak] has left
#silver-conf []
[13:03] <JF> zakim, end meeting
[13:03] <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, JF, Azlan,
Wilco, jeanne, ToddLibby, PeterKorn
[13:03] <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
[13:03] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate
https://www.w3.org/2021/06/03-silver-conf-minutes.html Zakim
[13:03] <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to
excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
[13:03] == Zakim [zakim@be417852.team.cloak] has left #silver-conf []

-- 
*John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"