[Conformance] Minutes from Thursday 3 June

With thanks to John Foliot for scribing, and also for retrieving and posting an IRC
og while minutes were not generating following our call Thursday. ..

We now have them!

Minutes from the Silver Conformance Options subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 3 June are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            Discussion of primary vs ancillary purposes in a web view, and the
              implications for defining views and processes under WCAG 3
*            Discussion of drafts to cover Third Party Content in the August
              heartbeat.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/06/03-silver-conf-minutes.html

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

   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

3 Jun 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Azlan, jeanne, JF, PeterKorn, sajkaj, ToddLibby, Wilco

   Regrets
          Bruce Bailey, Sarah_Horton

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          JF

Contents

    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. Third Party https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF#Third_Party_Content_.28Continued.29

Meeting minutes

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   JS: two items, on the agenda today

   from draft may report - outstanding from last week (Whoville use case)

   also want to return to the draft may report and review 3rd party content (edits)

   JS: there have been additional edits since last week - some more substantive than others

   JS: will we be presenting this June 21st? And can we do a preview at Silver before then?

   Jeanne: yes and yes

   JS: looking at principle 3 - there are purposes to content and there may be subsidiary content on the page, that doesn't "count"

   PK: they don't count *THE SAME*

   it's not that we are ignoring issues, but they are at different 'weights'

   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

   examples of Footer content being less important, or an iframe that is for mechanical (not user) reasons

   [Peter Korn reads #3]

   JS: trying to define primary from secondary content

   we can postulate that. But what is an acceptable definition of 'view'

   suspect that this may not work - lead to contiguous concept

   <Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about 'programmatic determination' (aka <aside> or similar)

   JF: determining what is primary and secondary should not be subjective. Can we use programmatic containers to help define secondary content?

   JS: Wonder if a page like this would be used that way (primary time conversion tool)

   PK: like the idea of using a landmark (etc.) but not sure if it addresses the concern

   PK: whether it is via markup or other attestation - it is page editor who makes the determination.

   WF: concern about how this discussion is heading. It's problematic for authors and testers to determine what is important for PwD

   it's like *us* determining what is important for you, as opposed to leaving that to the individual

   WF: I think this is an important discussion, but have grave concerns

   <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 what page to review.

   Jeanne: in response to JF's assertion for more objectivity verus subjectivity - was more on ___ rather than what is important on a page.

   Think we still have the ability to have some subjective editorial impact

   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

   maybe look for a better example of "some things are more important than others on a page"

   JS: Open to suggestions

   Azlan: with regards to programmatically determining using markup... we should be very careful there

   example of <aside> may not be the right idea'

   Azlan: so we should tread lightly here

   JF: hearing Azlan's concerns - maybe instead of landmark elements Personalization's emergent "simplification" attribute

   PK: was working on a footer block, and it felt lesser than content in the <main> element

   PK: we already have a preferential 'process' - it's how we address bugs all the time (prioritization)

   so question then becomes do we treat secondary a11y bugs with a differential process?

   i.e. if we aren't going to fix it right away [hot fix] then that says something powerful here

   JS: want to return to the topic - candidate proposal for 3rd party content, as we need to get on that ASAP

   WF: prefers we stay on this, wanted to respond to PK's comments

   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)

   for orgs, that is often what pays the bills - may not be the same 'priority for users' as for the org

   may not be fair to do

  Third Party https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/May_Report_to_the_Silver_TF#Third_Party_Content_.28Continued.29

   JS: have worked on definitions - have for 2 of the 3 categories - tried to incorporate Sarah's feedback last week

   [Peter reads aloud]

   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

   so the whole legal approach is fraught with problems

   <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?

   was thinking of "user generated' versus 'owner arranged'

   PK: not a fan of giving a perfect score to something that isn't accessible

   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

   PK: example - video with no audio descriptions. How explicit does the identification need to be?

   do those attributes need to be listed on the page, or marked "this page does not have audio description"?

   or is it enough to identify the 3rd party? specifics on implementaiton details will be important

   JS: yes and yes

   PK: one way is to be more explicit in our examples

   <Azlan> +1 to the suggestion of metadata

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say writing it up for Captions since we have a Caption guideline

   JF: thinking about using metadata

   We have a requirement for captions already. Automated captions versus hand-crafted could score different points

   <ToddLibby> +1 to metadata and writing it up for Captions as well

   <jeanne> + 1 to the varients of 3rd party

   PK: good ideas. What needs to be worked in is the "3rd partyness" piece, and the variants of that

   JS: Peter raised a point - not giving a perfect score when 3rd party is nonconformant

   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

   e even if it may not be perfect (and may never be)

   JS: are fractional scores acceptable?

   Jeanne: we haven't gotten there yet

   going to fractions has some issues

   PK: other thoughts on scoring, and the path forward. Reporting the issue and adding remediation info

   it could be covered by a blanket statement

   PK: think this can be covered by crafting an example. It could be covered in a policy on the site

   JF: concerns about adding remediation content in a statement

   PK: the issue is whether the author has done as much as they can - no stone left unturned

   but it makes sense to me to encourage the author to pass along this information

   JF: but what is the mechanism to do that?

   JS: the bottom line is to put the responsibility where it lies

   for sites that are using 3rd party content that has issues that the site owner cannot fix

   [Peter reads more]

   JS: no ideas on how to score that, but those sound like the factors we discussed last time

   PK: returning to "how does this help the end user"? Signaling to the end user that the level of accessibility may be different

   eg: the main function of a "for sale" site (may be more accessible than individual postings

   JS: don't have it figured out, but think we are on the right path

   hoping to take this to Silver on a Friday call, and then AG on June 21

   JS: not fully baked yet, but seek feedback early to get this 'right'

   Target date of June 11th


    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>