[Conformance] Minutes from 23 September

Minutes from today's can be found at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-minutes.html

...or copied below.

********************
AttendeesPresentAzlan, Jeanne, JF, MichaelC, PeterKorn, sajkaj, ToddLibby
RegretsKim_DirksChairsajkajScribeJF
Contents

   1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
   <https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-minutes.html#t01>
   2. Media Considerations
   https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations
   <https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-minutes.html#t02>
   3. Next Topic Discussion
   <https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-minutes.html#t03>
   4. Summary of action items
   <https://www.w3.org/2021/09/23-silver-conf-minutes.html#ActionSummary>

Meeting minutesAgenda Review & Administrative Items

JS: if a second person offers to scribe, be sure to indicate scribe change

JS: planning for Tuesday's call. Peter has made some minor editorial edits
that should be discussed

beyond what we dow with media, we should start to think about "what comes
next"?

JS: no other announcements
Media Considerations
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations

JS: made a minor tweak at top of doc

Proposing a minor edit to remove "at times" to make it clearer and simpler

PK: reads text aloud

PK: seems clear to me

PK: made some edit changes based on feedback from JF

will read first edit, then re-read the larger piece

[PK reads aloud]

PK: JF also suggests replacing "guidelines" with "requirements"

PK: no real opinion here, but recalls Jeanne suggesting guidelines here

Jeanne: OK with the first guidance into requirements, but not sure if we
want to change all of them

JF: explains nuance of his thinking

<Wilco_> I'll just +1 what Jeanne's saying

Jeanne: concerned about confusion between "requirements" and "guidelines"

JS: +1, wanted to comment on similar topic

JS: also don't think this is our remit here

JS: redefining terms is a higher-order work item

JS: also struggling with "finalized"

not sure if we even need that

if we do add, will need to make other edits

<jeanne> +1 to created

JF: would changing "finalized" to "not yet created" (or similar)

JS: yes, but then that would require other edits

PK: based on feedback, will reread the proposed edit

[wordsmithing]

JF: WFM

PK: one of the next things to discuss is metadata

JS: yes

JS: we are increasingly convincing ourselves for the need for metadata
above and beyond this. References ePUB work

JS: there is a scheduled meeting for TPAC between APA and ePub where this
is to be discussed. Thinks that Silver should be there too

JS: will lock in a date and time with ePub, Silver and APA joint chat.

JS: want to understand current W3C position on multiple topics related to
metadata

JS: when we start on that, may want to start with a wiki page to collect
thoughts and ideas

PK: would love to get to our specific document and metadata
… my concern about saying more at this time... the details will be in the
specific guidelines/methods

PK: feel like trying to define what the metadata must look like will vary
based on content type

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to speak for referencing other outside work

JF: either be more specific, or add an Editor's Note that notes 'metadata'
is TBD

<PeterKorn> +1 to the idea of an Editor's Note

JS: we should have some kind of write-up to explain the risk

PK: Like the idea of an Editor's Note. Also warm to the idea to stating "we
believe the methods could be specific", but feel we should leave open room
for alternatives

JS: far more comfortable with Editor's NOte

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to propose Editor Note

JF: offers to draft Editor's Note

JS: we had an editors note before, but concerned about adding confusion
when we bring to AGWG

<PeterKorn> I have a proposal: "We seek comments on the types and ways of
using metadata for conveying to users and also programmatically what the
accessible features can be part of the media, and which are contained
within this specific media."

JS: needs some minor wordsmithing, but agrees in principle

<PeterKorn> We seek comments on the types and ways of using metadata for
conveying to users and also programmatically what the possible accessible
features can be in the given media, and which are contained within this
specific media.

JS: seems we have broad agreement. More wordsmithing may be required

PK: think this is the last item

PK: are we ready to survey (to add to next working draft)?

but feels like we are "survey-ready"

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to move to github

Jeanne: move to github, put in branch, and then we are ready when AGWG is
ready for us

JS: what I am hearing is don't rush survey item-by-item

MC: have discovered that a walk-through before survey minimizes churn

[discussion around when to survey]

JS: suggest to remove "techniques" with "methods"

MC: notes difference between upper and lower case notation

Jeanne: yes, make the changes as part of moving to git-hub

JF: make changes before survey

[broad agreement]

PK: so you are proposing a summary of changes as part of the survey langugae

JS: yes
Next Topic Discussion

JS: what should we look at next? We have a number of potential next items
… including some glossary definitions. May not go anywhere, but worth a
stab?

JS: thinks this may be 'easy' but of value - relates to other WAI work
happening

<PeterKorn>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GyUYTnZp0HIMdsKqCiISCSCvL0su692dnW34P81kbbw/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs

PK: sense now is we are pretty much done about 3rd party, outside of
methods and guidelines

but what about inter-mixed content?

JS: perhaps a page that collects edge and corner-cases?

PK: suggest we chew on a 'next big thing'

<PeterKorn> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/#Challenge-1

[PK reads out potential other next topics]

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say requests from chairs

PK: suggest we look at one of the open items on that page

<jeanne> The chairs have asked for: Clarifying Paths and Process,
Representative sampling, Reporting Conformance

<jeanne>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fvj3M0RS-U_A66UGaYfCgHVTOvOJ9j1NOOpK4Ufar5Q/edit#

Jeanne: may have a convergence, but notes that chairs have requested
clarifying tasks and processes, representative sampling, and third is
reporting conformance

WF: wanted to ask about the reporting thing

Jeanne: comes from an issue that JF has raised multiple times.

<PeterKorn> +1 to digging into the meaty topic of conformance reporting

Jeanne: it's a meaty topic, but also complex and potentially political

<PeterKorn> And I would love to start doing that work by way of use cases.

JS: like this. has some ideas there - W3C hosted form

Jeanne: no, W3C is not interested in hosting a tool for that

WF: conformance claim section is already part of WCAG 2

W3C *has* a form like that

Jeanne: the current tool doesn't 'store' the data

PK: not surprised at that

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that reporting conformance is too early
to do next -- we don't know what the conformance looks like. We could do
it, but later

JS: so wilco are you suggesting an expansion of what is in WCASG 2.x?

WF: yes

PK: like the idea of digging into this. But concerned about how quickly
suggestions are being proposed.

<Wilco_> +1

suggest we take a more methodical approach, similar to how we did the
challenges for 3rd party content

+1 to Peter

<ToddLibby> +1

<Azlan> +1

Jeanne: thinks that we put this on our list, but it may be too early to do
it
… until we have a better idea of what the group wants re: conformance

but working on scalability and use-cases would be useful activity

WF: agree, thinks that reporting should not be an early topic

PK: going to disagree a bit - think we can do both at the same time

JF: disagrees with assertion

PK: looking at challenges will give us some useful insights - once we have
a proposed solution we can contrast it against that work

PK: think we can make progress from a use-case approach

JS: what I am hearing is let's start looking at usecases

<PeterKorn> I would say "Use cases for scaling"

PK: use-cases for scaling, which includes sampling and reporting

PK: last time we started a Google doc and worked there

PK: do we think that was a good path to adopt here, or is there a better
way?
… thinks what we did last time worked fine

JS: struggles with Google docs, but the overall work flow worked

Jeanne: why not just do it in a wiki?

PK: whatever tool we use, thinks the process we used (not an editing
free-for-all) was the more important aspect
… the other thing with the google-docs approach is the ability to leave
comments on the side

which was quite useful

PK: captures concerns asynchronously

JS: notes that we didn't really use that mechanism in the past - issues
with SR and other AT

WF: has a preference for Goog docs

<PeterKorn> +1 to Google Docs

makes it easier to view comments, and get better background on comments,
etc.

<ToddLibby> +1 to Google Docs as well

JS: OK, we can work with Google Docs

<Azlan> Happy with Google Docs too

*ACTION:* PeterKorn to work with Janina to set up a new Google docs for this