W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > October 2021

Silver Minutes from 8 October

From: Sajka, Janina [C] <sajkaj@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 14:51:51 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <403c5573dcfd4371a52573ebdffb25a3@EX13D28UWC001.ant.amazon.com>

Minutes from the Silver Task Force and Community Group teleconference of
Friday 8 October are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
*            Prototype document now available with placeholder guidelines--so we
              can get a better sense of how things will come together and further
refine our approach.
*            Reports from subgroups including suggestions on presenting at AGWG to
              emphasize proposals are incomplete, but covering situations we believe
need special treatment.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/10/08-silver-minutes.html

===========================================================
   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Task Force & Community Group

08 October 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Chuck, jeanne, JF_, Lauriat, sajkaj, sarahhorton, Wilco

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          jeanne, Shawn

   Scribe
          Chuck

Contents

    1. Placeholder guidelines to share
    2. Sub-group updates
    3. Placeholder guidelines and the User Needs Vs. Functional Needs mapping structure volunteers?

Meeting minutes

   partial regrets, dealing with migraine and not at full mental strength

   <Lauriat> Please sign up to scribe: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

   Shawn: Signup for scribing.

  Placeholder guidelines to share

   <Lauriat> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/600a2fda8a624489f2d63840abdddbd6af0f7b05/guidelines/index.html#guidelines

   Shawn: Link (above) for github rendering. Thanks Michael for helping to produce draft.

   Shawn: Uses pull request magic to render.

   Shawn: We can bring this kind of rendering back to wider group, and share and reference in general to discuss shape of guidance. This is placeholder guidelines that are drafty in various states.

   Shawn: This is before we've added in warnings. They are still to come, saying "don't implement". Gives idea the more or less # of guidelines we are looking at.

   Shawn: I figured out too late to deliver to tuesday meeting. Makes sense to bring to following Tuesday, the 19th.

   Janina: That's the first of 2 weeks of TPAC. Conformance will forgo, what will agwg be doing?

   Chuck: Send note with agenda item for future call?

   Shawn: yes, will do.

   Shawn: JF dropped link to rawgit which explains ways it works. Michael explained how to generate.

   JF: Very easy. Go to URL, go to git repository, get link, paste into rawgit page, and use generated URL. It's easy.

   Shawn: Thanks.

   Jeanne: I find it confusing having it interleaved with the ones that are built out and the ones that aren't. Wondering if there is any way to improve upon that. There's a big editors note that starts section.

   Jeanne: But it's not... I'm finding it difficult to navigate.

   Shawn: Fair, I was wondering how it would work. I found it easier to get the overview. It's essentially following order of outline. I've not re-ordered. The order of guidance will not make sense.

   Shawn: There are some things sprinkled throughout, not necessarily logically grouped. Rather than impose the structure, I left it as a flat list. We can start the list with the ones that have drafts.

   Shawn: Each can have own editor's notes. Then we can get into "these are placeholders with no build up work at this time".

   Jeanne: That would help a lot.

   Jeanne: It's cool to look at it in table of contents.

   Shawn: That's it on this one. This is an FYI, and hoping to get initial reactions.

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the interleaving is confusing which is done and which are placeholder

   Wilco: What are the next steps? Are we taking this to AG?

   Shawn: Exactly. this came from conversations from wider wg to have some sketch, sense of the overall guidance and what the shape will be, makes it easier to discuss.

   Shawn: We were comparing mental concepts, and this puts a structure that we can all review.

   <jeanne> Thanks, Shawn. This was a lot of work and I appreciate it.

   Shawn: We can have conversations, no decisions here. This is an intro, and something we can reference. I'm thankful we can do it from pull request.

  Sub-group updates

   Shawn: We have a couple of sub groups represented.

   <Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Sub_Groups

   Shawn: Any updates?

   <sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/med_con/

   Janina: From conformance, yes. We are still in a survey, due to issues we ran into last Tuesday. We extended, and are on agenda next week. Few responses yet, hopefully more by Tuesday.

   Janina: I also note that we have responded to some of the comments received, "approved with following changes"

   Jeanne: You also started collecting use cases.

   Janina: Yes, next activity is sampling and reporting. I have link to google doc...

   <sajkaj> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YgiOg3CZz-LAVxRT0CWUTWHzyVa3UrjqdU4NvoyUZ_8/

   Janina: Jeanne thanks for finding former work product.

   Shawn: These are very helpful.

   Janina: Our status - we thought we were done with 3rd party when we broke up user generated and media. We have an aspect of 3rd party that we haven't touched on yet. Going to providers, payment processing or login.

   Janina: It's "pick your 3rd parties well", but we probably want to say more than that.

   sarah: Wondering Janina, has group discussed how to respond to the question that is there about whether or not we are talking about additional requirements for 3rd party. Identifying if it's 3rd party content in
   addition to existing guidelines.

   Sarah: Or different type of evaluation. That seems to be in some responses. Would be good strategy to address that question.

   Janina: I think we are in fact looking to identify when things come from elsewhere (3rd party) and bring along some constraints and inform users.

   Janina: So user can filter out what can and can't be used. Additional requirements that hopefully are practically oriented. There will be this regardless. I'm not certain how we communicate better.

   Janina: We can say more in the proposals, but then they get bigger. It was clear to us that the proposals were not reviewed thoroughly.

   Janina: We responded that we thought we did that when we discussed 3d and building tours and street views in mapping applications.

   Janina: We did provide examples, and that seems to have been missed. Not sure how to handle the comments that seem to have missed this.

  Sarah: I'm not certain I'm being clear. "Exemption" keeps coming up. I don't know if proposal makes clear we are not exempting content from requirements. We are adding additional requirements to flag when something
   is 3rd party content or service.

   Sarah: That content or service still needs to meet WCAG 3.

   Janina: We started discussing last Tuesday. Rachael was right to bring up. Indeed we are requiring, but we aren't always going to be able to get... question becomes "what do you do when you can't get full
   conformance" with all requirements.

   Janina: Do you say there's no hope? Do we say you should be satisfied with WCAG 2?

   Janina: There will be gaps somewhere.

   Janina: If the collection is large enough, there will be breakage, and if you find you go after fixing it. But licensing, legacy, it's too big a scale.

   Janina: Caligraphers at white house, do we need something for all? Obama letter should have a text alternative. But for everything they put on a site, is it necessarily so? To what degree do we insist on
   accessibility as a service or other solution.

   Janina: Some locals like US may have higher standards than some commerical entities. Bruce pointed out last meeting that congress has exempted itself and white house from 508. They did same with ADA.

   Janina: We had braille all over the US on bathrooms, but not on The Hill.

   Sarah: I understand the laws might say one thing. In terms of talking about the survey and trying to make progress. The question comes up, if WCAG 3 is where those exemptions are made.

   Sarah: The proposal is a little unclear if we are proposing additional guidance to help lawmakers, because content has been flagged as 3rd party, or if we are proposing the standard itself makes those distinctions
   and applies different guidance

   Janina: In my mind we aren't providing different requirements for what is an accessible version. You will still need captions, etc.

   Janina: The additional requirements are that we are proposing a scheme of meta data where there is a way to say "this part doesn't fit", and the site that wants to conform has to say "we don't have the legal right to
   alter the content"

   Janina: And they should be bugged about it, that's the most we can do, and we still get to conform. I don't know where we draw the line. I don't think anybody is arguing that...

   Janina: Even though you can make each individual one accessible, we haven't figured it out yet. But I don't know we have buy in on the principal. It's the problem we bump into.

   Janina: I hear repeatedly that some are suggesting that 2.x is sufficient or superior because it requires more. And if you are missing peices, no hope of conforming.

   Shawn: Sarah's point on clarification. I think in order to address the concerns people have, for what it looks like to them that we are proposing. We can clarify that we are identifying different use cases and ask
   how we handle those use cases.

   Shawn: I get that some people are taking it as we are providing the answers, when we are in fact asking.

   Shawn: We provide the use cases, and say "here are the stake holders we want to bring the ideas to". I think that may make it easier to make some progress.

   <Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to build on I think Sarah's point about clarification of question vs. proposal

   Janina: I like what you are suggesting. Make it clearer that the proposal is not presenting a full answer, it's bringing in use cases and starting the conversations.

   Shawn: Exactly. And if we present "here are next steps, here are the stake holders", I think and hope that would help.

   Janina: I will try to remember that Tuesday.

   Shawn: Other sub-group updates?

   Wilco: Reliability, we had our document presented to AG, programmatic language proposal on Tuesday. Went fairly well, got some comments. Not certain on next steps if we develop the document or start providing
   guidance...
   ... or pivit to qualitative testing aspects. Maybe we decide on next call.

   Shawn: Thanks!

   Shawn: Any other sub-groups?

   JF: Our protocols call was interesting. We got zoom bombed.

   JF: Burned up 10 minutes of call. For various reasons we didn't get momentum. We trickled forward. I have 4 pages of notes that we will post.

   JF: We are trying to come up with definition and understanding... we don't have a good definition of "protocol", what it means and how it could be integrated into regulation.

   JF: I have to spend time on my notes and write up good summary.

   Shawn: Sounds good. Great that you had some good discussion.

   JF: yes, had to manage the interruptions.

   JF: Michael may need to provide a new zoom link.

   Shawn: Any other sub-groups present?

   Shawn: Last that I have...

  Placeholder guidelines and the User Needs Vs. Functional Needs mapping structure volunteers?

   Shawn: Since working through it in calls is a bit slow and not a great use of large group, asking for volunteers. Given we don't have too many on call today, may shift to email to ask.

   Shawn: The purpose of exercise is to get a sense of the surface area of user needs and functional needs that provide coverage. We can get a sense of what the coverage is and is not, and we can prioritize new guidance
   in the future.

   Shawn: Any other topics?

   <sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/blog/2021/09/synchronization-accessibility-user-requirements-call-for-review/

   Janina: Publication out for comment by APA. I am aware JF is aware. The synchronization requirements. We spent a full year reviewing research literature.

   Janina: Measuring synchronizing and where comprehension drops off.

   Janina: All in the doc. We are looking for comments. There will be a breakout preso at TPAC. Look forward to hearing from people.

   Janina: Accessibility req doc.

   Janina: Things to consider if wanting to hold an accessible virtual meeting.

   Shawn: Sounds helpful.

   Janina: There will be a breakout on that as well. Publishing Tuesday and Thursday.

   Shawn: Any other topics or announcements?


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

Diagnostics

   Maybe present: Janina, JF, sarah, Shawn


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

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>
Received on Friday, 8 October 2021 14:52:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:53 UTC