[Conformance] Minutes from 24 February

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

===========================================================
SUMMARY:

===========================================================
* Discussion of what parts of Example Scenarios still need better
 framing; We want to identify those before we present.
* Discussion of how best to present Friday and use available time
Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2022/02/24-silver-conf-minutes.html

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


   W3C

                                                                                                            – DRAFT –
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

24 February 2022

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          Azlan, janina, KimD, maryjom, PeterKorn, ToddL

   Regrets
          Darryl_Lehman

   Chair
          janina

   Scribe
          Azlan, PeterKorn

Contents

    1. Agenda Review & Administrative Items
    2. User Scenarios Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

Meeting minutes

   <janina> Date 24 Feb 2022

   <ToddL> I cannot scribe today either. Apologies.

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

  User Scenarios Review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

   Shadi: thanks for everyone who helped with review & feedback for the doc.
   
 quick synopsis of changes made in doc
   
 removed auto-gen TOC, replaced with manual header, so the intro & problem desc. come earlier.
   
 using "fully accessible" and "relevant to PwDs" - explaining this in Key Terminology & Concepts
   
 editing headings as we discussed last week; some few more just came in from Judy
   
 updated example 1.3 to make acquisition more general (vs. just of MOOC).
   
 example 2.2 is being removed - it was really a 3rd party issue, so only one example in situation 2.
   
 cosmetic changes in example 3.2, 4.1. (and make 4.1 more clearly distinct from 5.3)
   
 added time limitation consideration for policy around "forever beta" state.
   
 some further edits in 9.2 around text alternatives.
   
 rest of changes are editorial.

   Janina: in situation 4 remediations (maybe also in 5), we say 1st party, 2nd party, 3rd party doesn't match up with typical meaning of 1st party, etc.
   
 maybe drop the "party" designation, and instead just be descriptive
   
 shadi: anyone opposed to that change?

   <no disagreement with Janina's suggestion>

   <ToddL> Full support here.

   Janina: like shorthand version of "fully a11y". Good that we know how to add more a11y, but want a shorthand for ...

   PeterKorn: There's no way to avoid the issue but how is the situation best presented when if you can't do everything but recognising doing everything may take longer.
   
 maybe in our concept of "fully accessible" we give an example?
   
 This document is about prioritising where you can't do everything immediately

   Shadi: summary of Judy concerns. Situations 1 & 3 have the concerns.
   
 "When making content fully accessible is not achievable immediately" - isn't this something potentially EVERY web developer might claim?
   
 also "When content is accumulating too rapidly to make fully accessible" - again something most web developers would see applying to them?

   Shadi: maybe not focusing on rates, but on volumes. E.g. "Large volumes of content"

   <maryjom> +1 to volume

   <Zakim> Azlan, you wanted to say where do you draw the line? Just employ more staff no matter how big your archive is?

   Azlan: As Peter said, just because you haven't bothered to hire enough staff to do the work... where do you draw the line?

   Shadi: happy to add examples to the content. Judy's primary concern (for now) is peoples skimming headers, coming to conclusions just from those.
   
 add examples now, or continue to refine titles?

   +1 for titles

   Janina: biggest hit is top level labels

   Shadi: add "large volumes of" in front of "content" in situations 1 & 3.

   <Azlan> +1

   Shadi: does that work?

   +1

   <ToddL> +1

   <KimD> +1

   Shadi: other situation from Judy was with situation 2. "When content is seldom used, if ever"
   
 initial discussions were about parts of a page/views that was less relevant/less essential
   
 only thing left in situation 2 is archived content

   <maryjom> One example might be archives of government content - eg old census info, old birth certificates, deeds, legal documents and so on that may have been scanned but not OCR or described.

   maryjom: reiterates her typed comment.
   
 old data like family history going back generations. Seldom used, but you would want to use on demand.
   
 court documents, deeds. Lots of older/historical data. Not all digitized. And they are digitizing it over time.
   
 there is some other method/mechanism to get access.

   Janina: likes not having "archived" in the situation title.
   
 like ancestry example, as it covers the situation better than legal deeds (not just gov't)

   Shadi: is any of the data current, or is it all old? Is there a temporal component to this?

   Shadi: 3 approaches
   
 1: Shadi tries to come up with something for situation 2 title; 2: remove the situation from the document and return to it later;
   
 3: continue discussing it, maybe beyond end of hour

   Peter: "rarely if ever" or "almost never"?

   shadi: before returning microphone to Janina - any thoughts from Tod/Azlan/Wilco?

   Azlan: listening to discussion (not minuted) of prioritization, the example makes a lot of sense to him.
   
 makes more sense than archives of new content. Can hear Gregg "if we are making content available to some people, why not all?"
   
 prioritzation is a situation I can completely understand. Even as new content comes in - may supersede something that may not have been made a11y.

   KimD: really like what Peter said earlier - "you don't know what you need until you need it"
   
 we don't make PDFs of every single thing that is available in print. But if a student needs it, we make the print material available in a11y digital format.
   
 you don't know in advance what you will need in the alternate format.

   <ToddL> I've got to run to another meeting. Thank you everyone.

   Janina: we have 1/2 of Friday call (2nd on agenda).
   
 expect that Shawn will turn mic over to Janina, who will pass to Shadi.
   
 while we were tasked with 3rd party, we actually found 11 situations that needed to be addressed. We felt an overall map was important.
   
 then we might do a deeper dive w/Silver on 1 or 2 of them, and invite Silver to do a close read on their own after.
   
 also ask folks to consider "neutral language" in this text.
   
 remaining question: what to walk out of meeting with?


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).

Diagnostics

   Maybe present: Peter, Shadi
-- 

Janina Sajka
(she/her/hers)
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Thursday, 24 February 2022 18:08:09 UTC