[Conformance] Minutes from 16 September

Minutes from the Silver Conformance Options subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 16 September are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
Discussion of Media Considerations; Ready for initial presentation?
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/09/16-silver-conf-minutes.html

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

   W3C

                                                                                                            - DRAFT -
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

16 sep 2021

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Azlan, Bryan, jeanne, JF, PeterKorn, sajkaj, ToddLibby, Wilco_

   Regrets
          Bruce_Bailey, Kim_Dirks

   Chair
          sajkaj

   Scribe
          PeterKorn, PeterKorn:, sajkaj

Contents

    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

Meeting minutes

   <PeterKorn> scribe PeterKorn

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   <PeterKorn> sajkaj: main topic today is media. Have all edits from last week in doc. Decision for us today: are we ready for a first impressions review in AGWG?

   <PeterKorn> sajkaj: Not to go to AGWG shortly for a formal review, but to get directional feedback.

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

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

   sajkaj: anyone wondering about last Editor's note re: creating a scheme, we wanted to remove that for now, wanting more refinement first.

   Azlan: under conformance treatments, and media lacking access techniques, strugglging to understand the sentence

   jeanne: would like to have the first editor's note become an introduction

   jeanne: usability issue: the way this is set up is very persuasive, but would be easier to use if consolidated all info about each category together
   ... so have an introductory paragraph talking about conformance treatment, then look at legacy media & steps to conform for that
   ... then we go on to the next type. Would be eaiser to digest.

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask why the Editor note is not an introduction? and to ask if we should discuss whether to consolidate the instructions with each type of material. This way is more persuasive, but it
   makes it harder to find the info.

   Wilco: bring up limited rights piece; doesn't seem like a 3rd party tester could check the rights.

   <JF> +1

   Wilco: perhaps can't solve this now, but then an editor's note to highlight that challenge

   sajkaj: to Jeanne's first note: worried about having the note as intro first, as it may be less persuasive
   ... re: 2nd idea on grouping, should be pretty trivial to achieve

   JF: to continue on 3rd party testing theme; jeanne mentioned multiple levels of conformance.
   ... how expressed in terms of conformance reporting?
   ... can't leave those topics aside from the larger discussion. Clearly need to address these situations, but how
   ... does a 3rd party understand which thing / level / xxx that you are conforming to?
   ... a media asset not accessible due to rights issues shouldn't score as high as media that is fully accessible

   sajka: idea is to put this forward for directional feedback, not as a "ready to go in" / "ready for CFC" content

   JF: understood, but raising the fundamental question.

   PeterKorn: Notes we discussed JF's point a few meetings ago and decided not to go there until we have the new conformance model as whatever we might put would be sujbect to change

   PeterKorn: No disagreement that those additional pieces are missing, but we're not yet there to define them.

   <JF> putting aside "scoring" we have multiple potential 'conformance' levels - how do we report on that?

   PeterKorn: We want not to have to redo work, is there a intermediate path?

   PeterKorn: Perhaps in the intro? We don't expect that minimum conformance would be rated equally to good conformance

   <jeanne> +1 Peter's idea

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer JF that this is not multi-levels of conformance yet. They are different use cases

   <PeterKorn> jeanne: what we are looking at now / today, is these aren't multipe levels of conformances. These are different use cases that we

   <PeterKorn> ... are working out. Agree it will work its way into different levels, but haven't gotten that far yet.

   <PeterKorn> JF: still comes back... have defined different use cases.

   <PeterKorn> ... this is articulating exceptions, where you can only go so far. So question remains, giving different potential targets

   <PeterKorn> ... for which the author doesn't have control. So how does author explain what they are confoming to?

   PeterKorn: Really a "to be defined."

   PeterKorn: Also "to be named" set of levels, how to score them, etc.

   <JF> How do you make that claim?

   PeterKorn: What the doc is saying so far is do everything you can and let that be recognized, even though it may not be as good as sites that don't have those issues.

   PeterKorn: This is part of the reason we call out higher bar situations like education; could also be health, government, etc.

   PeterKorn: Until we have our model, we can either do nothing, or go as far as we can for now--which is what we're trying to do now.

   <PeterKorn> sajkaj: question: is this in-process work where are ready to present for directional feedback to AGWG? Or we feel conformance levels MUST be addressed here?

   <PeterKorn> JF: yes, present what have now. But this isn't ready yet for people to use.

   <PeterKorn> JF: not baked enough to present. Thinks the first question is what Wilco asked.

   <PeterKorn> sajkaj: feels it is ready to present. Initial approach laid out here demonstrates better than anything else we've

   <PeterKorn> ...brought to a Tuesday call make clear that the WCAG 2 conformance model must change to be more nuanced/flexible.

   <PeterKorn> Wilco: feel that a small note acknowledging that we don't know yet how to do deal with this is sufficient.

   <ToddLibby> +1 to Wilco

   <jeanne> +1 to Wilco

   PeterKorn: As I understand--there's an opening Tuesday. So, the specific immediate question is Tuesday or not? With some changes in the remaining call framed as an early look, with admittedly more needed

   <Wilco_> +1 to presenting

   +1

   <Bryan> +1

   <JF> +.5

   <ToddLibby> +1

   <Azlan> +1 subject to addition of Wilkos note

   <PeterKorn> +6.5 of 8. No -1 votes.

   PeterKorn: listing out issues

   pet: how to identify license holder/missing one; scoring; or reporting

   <JF> not calculates, validates

   <jeanne> Jeanne is ok with postponing putting the first editor's note in the introduction

   <Wilco_> suggestion: The group is looking for suggestions on if and how third-party tester should be able to identify and validate when media has limited rights

   <JF> to be clear, my question is this: a site owner cannot do any more to their media than what they have done, and find themselves in scenario: Legacy Media

   <PeterKorn> WCAG may not have techniques/methods to make some types of media accessible to some groups of people with disabilities.

   <JF> The question then is, how do they signal that as part of "conformaning" (putting aside an numeric scoring)

   <JF> that they are operating under use-case "Legacy Media"


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


   Maybe present: pet, sajka, Wilco


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

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>