RE: [Conformance] Minutes for 24 June

Correction: I was not present.

Peter

From: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 10:36 AM
To: public-silver@w3.org
Subject: [Conformance] Minutes for 24 June


Minutes from the Silver Conformance Options subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 24 June are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
=We focussed on tightening our definitions of Author Arranged and of User
Generated to more clearly define what's included and excluded following on the
AGWG discussion this past Tuesdayh
*            We briefly touched on a potential future proposal covering site
              creation technology which we are specifically excluding in the Third
Party proposal. This helped us come closer to a delineation of the two.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/06/24-silver-conf-minutes.html

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

   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

24 Jun 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

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

   Regrets
          Bruce_Bailey, Peter_Korn

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          JF

Contents

    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. AGWG Followup https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content
    3. Review Definitions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content#Definitions

Meeting minutes

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   JS: will look back and debrief from Tuesday's call. We are on the agenda for tomorrow's Silver call

   Need to look at the definitions and steps to conform

   may need to prep ourselves more for that - details!

   Shawn also asked about usecases on Tuesday, and so we need to look at that in more detail (item 5)

   Jeanne: we can keep the boy scout example

   JS: that or another one

   Jeanne: we can perhaps tweak it to say they are using a whole payment solution - not custom built

   WF: can we elaborate more on user-generated?

   JS: a whole hosting solution (think WIX or similar)

   JS: only some things we can measure and evaluate - the mechanical stuff

   so the interface and tooling to "create a site" would also be a "thing"

   WF: yes, there is a spectrum there - yo umay be right

   Jeanne: this may be a distraction from what we need to do today

   would like to tighten up our definitions to make clear what is and isn't in scope

  AGWG Followup https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

   JS: anyone with thoughts or comments from Tuesday?

   Jeanne: thought it went well, not as expected but we made progress. Was discussed in Chairs meeting and recommend that we break it down more

   so now we can start defining what is in and what isn't - lots of questions around that on Tuesday

   so tighten up definitions will likely help address those larger questions

   but overall positive feedback and good progress

  Review Definitions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content#Definitions

   JS: currently 2 definitions

   but that seems incomplete or not granular enough (feedback from Tuesday)

   JS: what do we need to tighten or exclude?

   WF: one way to go forward is to just come up with real-world examples - edge-cases too

   KD: yes, we need 'buckets' with examples - the more the better

   JS: concurs

   any specifics to offer?

   Jeanne: one that came up is advertising.

   Jeanne: third party developers, frameworks. Content free items like Component libraries, Design systems, CMS templates, etc.

   JS: building blocks - we have a longer-range plan but they would be out of scope as they *are* building blocks

   so we're focused on 'environments' rather than those building blocks

   Jeane: is the difference between blocks and services?

   JF: something like WIX would be a service and not a building block

   so out of scope

   Azlan: kind of in agreement that design systems and component libraries are out of scope

   <jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#def-Authoring-Tool <- ATAG2 definition of authoring tool

   as opposed to a "whole product". Potential gray area may be something like a CMS (blog engine) where you may have a choice between a hosted service, or a downloadable package that you could host yuorself

   <JF> s/yuorself / yourself

   Jeanne: provides definition of authoring tool

   thinks we can work with those definitions

   JS: does Jeanne think that definition would apply to TikTok or similar?

   Jeanne: the user interface (creation) would be an authoring tool, but the output would be 3rd party (user generated)

   WF: seems the key is who posted the content

   WF: interesting example - github

   github as an organization also has repositories - by people working at github

   JS: they use their own tools

   WF: in that case, it matters who created the content

   JS: so if github created a repository the bar would be higher than if a random person posted a repository

   WF: yes, but that's why we need to know who posted the content

   Jeanne: isn't that the whole point? That we're saying "this was created by someone outside of the org"

   Jeanne: what was the suggestion?

   JS: what Wilco said - who provides the content (user generated) - where we focus is on the content 'generated'

   so one focus is on the tools, but the other focus is what the end user creates

   WF: what is the difference between author arranged and ...

   Jeanne: an alternative to what we mean - for example federated signon systems

   <jeanne> User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, store fronts, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested
   from content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email). The user generated content originates from outside the site or product owner. This excludes web content generation

   <jeanne> sites and other similar where the user creating the content belongs to the organization that owns the site or product.

   something like that is good for the platform - for smaller sites it removes the maintenance burden

   (using federated sign-on example)

   <jeanne> User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, store fronts, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested
   from content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email). The user generated content originates from outside the site or product owner. This excludes sites and other

   <jeanne> similar products where the user creating the content belongs to the organization that owns the site or product.

   ditto with product tracking - smaller sites can offload that tothe shipping company (3d party)

   Jeanne reads her proposal

   JS: that seems to clarify it

   JF: brings up jquery with core and user-contributed modules

   JS: may want to defer that to the tools discussion - there is a level of technical expertise there.

   <jeanne> User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, videos, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested from
   content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email). The user generated content originates from outside the site or product owner. This excludes sites and other

   <jeanne> <jeanne> similar products where the user creating the content belongs to the organization that owns the site or product. Website hosting services are specifically excluded.

   <jeanne> User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, videos, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested from
   content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email). The user generated content originates from outside the site or product owner. This excludes sites and other

   <jeanne> <jeanne> <jeanne> similar products where the user creating the content belongs to the organization that owns the site or product. Website hosting services are specifically excluded from this definition of
   user generated third party content.

   KD: seeking clarification - what about a company that "scrapes" content from a third party?

   JS: not in this context - it becomes "work for hire"

   KD: what about copyright content? Or caselaw

   JS: Kim brought forward a new usecase - case law

   JS: suspect that falls under author-arrange content (where the copyright issue forbids modification)

   WF: an image search platform - not responsible for the accessibility of the images, the tool only finds "pictures"

   JS: usecase - legacy newspaper content that has been scanned and in microfiche to PDF [sic]

   WF: I'd be ok with that being "on-demand'

   Azlan: nuanced difference between "Here's a picture of an old newspaper" versus "here's the content on the page"

   KD: case law is interesting - looking at really old legacy case law, and the structure of those documents are poor to start with

   Jeanne: would really like to get a definition of Author arranged - that is intended to go out to a survey tonight

   Jeanne: the issue that Kim brings up - media. Does that include old content like microfiche material?

   <jeanne> Author Arranged (services or media) third party content (which includes copyrighted content where the authority to publish may be provided in law). Author Arranged is defined as content the claimant hosts or
   facilitates, but which the web content publisher has limited or no control of either the underlying markup or what the user sees and interacts with.

   Jeanne: not sure it would be excluded - asks Kim if there is some language that would work

   KD: lots of content that is cost prohibitive to OCR and 'accessify'

   Jeanne: what do we need to say here to ensure it is included?

   KD: how we talk about it in house is "legacy" - which is usually lower priority than "newer" content

   JF: related to Wilco's idea of "on demand"?

   JS: that seems to be bubbling up

   another constraint may be "legal inability" and/or practicability of wholesale adoption.

   <jeanne> Author Arranged (services or media) third party content (which includes copyrighted content where the authority to publish may be provided in law). Author Arranged is defined as content the claimant hosts or
   facilitates, but which the web content publisher has limited or no control of either the underlying markup or what the user sees and interacts with. Media that does not have legal

   <jeanne> ability to change or practicability of wholesale adoption is considered author arranged.

   If we add those 2 phrases, does that get us there?

   JS: it's not the media that has the authority to modify, but rather the agency

   Jeanne and Janina to work on language 'sanitation' today - time sensitive

   <jeanne> Author Arranged (services or media) third party content (which includes copyrighted content where the authority to publish may be provided in law). Author Arranged is defined as content the claimant hosts or
   facilitates, but which the web content publisher has limited or no control of either the underlying markup or what the user sees and interacts with. Media where the publisher does

   <jeanne> not have legal

   <jeanne> <jeanne> ability to change or practicability of wholesale adoption is considered author arranged.

   <KimD> +1

   +1

   <jeanne> +1

   JS: we also need to make clear that this is for the conformance section - we will need examples

   [discussion]

   Jeanne: concluding this is a big topic. Tuesday illustrated all of the pieces we need to look at

   goal to publish in August

   JS: be done


    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>