[Conformance] Minutes from 2 September

Minutes from the Silver Conformance Options subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 2 September are provided here.

*            Reviewed proposed edits to UGC and logged RESOLUTION accepting most
*            Discussed and edited latest Media Draft

Hypertext minutes available at:



                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

02 September 2021

   IRC log.


          jeanne, KimD, PeterKorn, sajkaj, ToddLibby

          Azlan_Cuttilan, Bruce_Bailey


          jeanne, sajkaj


    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations
    3. User Generated Content
    4. Other Business
    5. Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations
    6. Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   Date 02 Sep 2021

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   <jeanne> Comments on User Generated Github link

  Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

   <sajkaj> JeanNotes an objection to UgC at github above

  User Generated Content

   Comments on User Generated Github link

   <sajkaj> jeanne: Most comments are editorial

   <sajkaj> jeanne: Rephrasing to make clearer, minor typos

   <sajkaj> jeanne: Also proposed edit for "Accessibility Statement or help documentation"

   [jeanne reads] then all of the following must be indicated - either alongside the User Generated Content, or in a separate Accessibility Statement or similar help/documentation, with a consistently located link from
   the page or view where the User Generated Content is present"

   <sajkaj> PeterKorn: So it's "can you live with it for this draft"

   PK: I like it, but not at the moment

   <sajkaj> PeterKorn: Notes we're accepting a good deal of the proposed edits

  Other Business

   Jeanne: I agree. Most of his changes are editorial and I think we can accept them without it going back to AGWG for further conversation. I want to postpone the "or simililar help/documentation" beccause it is
   substantial. Although I also like and agree with it.

   Resolution: We agree with the proposed changes to the UGC objection, except that we want to address the substantial change in the next draft.

  Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

   Janina: It is shorter and I expect there are some discussion points that I have questions about.

   [Peter reads] Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

   <sajkaj> [Peter reads current Media Considerations draft]

   PK: This feels verbose and "in the weeds" to me.

   Janina: I agree that things can be tightened up
   ... there are a range of concepts that I want to preserve and lay out.
   ... I like the table of contents, for example
   ... it is a lot closer than we were at last week.

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest removing some of the examples that do not illustrate the point we are trying to make

   PK: We need to have examples for a range of content. We could just have digitized content including...
   ... we have these different types of media
   ... we see them in 3 different groupings
   ... legacy media
   ... give the range of legacy
   ... contemporanious

   <sajkaj> PeterKorn: give range of legacy, contemporaneous, and grouping that cuts across both

   PK: content for which the website hosting has limited rights
   ... that's all we need in the first section

   KD: I think we need examples, but they need to be "on-point" and good

   PK: I am adding "Types of Content"
   ... and adding an example of each

   Jeanne: I think we should not use the example of Dead Sea Scrolls, because that is an example of where the Scrolls were made accessible.

   PK: I think that it is useful for illustrating the large number of inaccessible media

   <sajkaj> PeterKorn: couldn't be made accessible at the time of creation; and may be too voluminous to do so today

   PK: what is important is that the legacy media was created before there was the ability to make it accessible

   <sajkaj> KimD: agrees

   Jeanne: I think it needs to be time of digitization rather than the creation

   PK: It is inexpensive to put a photo of text handwriting, but expensive to OCR

   Jeanne: I think the the time of digitization is critical, because we don't want to say that old items are exempt just because they are old. However, if they are digitized before the captions or description were
   prevalent, then they should be exempt.

   PK: I don't think I agree. I think that the expense of making it accessible is a factor we have to consider.

  Janina: I think we also have to consider the lyrics of vocals of songs need to be considered

   PK: Revised the table of contents

   [PK reads the Other Considerations]

   PK: I think there is a difference between legacy and lack of rights.
   ... should we vary the scoring by the amount of accessibility done

   Janina: I think it is important to give the metadata and point to the owner of the media
   ... that cuts across all the buckets

   KP: There are agreements like partnerships where that wouldn't work.
   ... for exaample two companies may want to present it under its own brand and not say which comes from company A vs company B

   PK: Then people can say "I will approach "Brand" and ask them to make it accessible"

   Janina: We will consider that to be useful.

   KP: I think there will be legal pushback to that ideaa

   PK: We want to say "Who is the responsible party?" and shift responsibility to that party.

   PK: We have a lot of training videos from a number of third party companies, and some that we license
   ... media for corporate consumption is an interesting corner case.

   KP: what about media displayed on a CMS where they would not want the CMS identified as a separate entity

   PK: Then you would assume responsibility for the accessibility

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest we move Other Considerations as another category of Type of Media and to university videos

   <sajkaj> jeanne: move other consider up as another type

   <sajkaj> jeanne: second needs to be considered more carefully, e.g. university library of videos

   <sajkaj> jeanne: in the u.s. have to be accessible, even legacy

   <sajkaj> PeterKorn: legacy whether or owned or not

   <sajkaj> jeanne: issue is what it's used for

   <sajkaj> jeanne: pwd needs to complete a course and get a grade; complete a degree

   <sajkaj> jeanne: different from renting a video and knowing a11y up front

   <sajkaj> kim: ed is fundamental right; but entertainment isn't

   KD: Education is a fundamental right, where entertainment is not.

   PK: Is the right path to say that WCAG3 sets things out and the law exceeds them, or WCAG3 sets things out and the law is less than them
   ... The Ontarians with Disabilities specifically excludes commercial sites from captions and descriptions while government sites are not exempted

   Janina: we are likely to see both around the planet.
   ... I think accessibility is a reasonable set of expectations and conformance

   KD: We set out what Janina suggests, and every jurisdiction around the globe deals with that

Summary of resolutions

    1. We agree with the proposed changes to the UGC objection, except that we want to address the substantial change in the next draft.

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


   Maybe present: Janina, KD, KP, PK


Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant

Received on Thursday, 2 September 2021 17:33:00 UTC