[Conformance] Minutes from 31 March

Minutes from the Silver Conformance Options subgroup teleconference of
Thursday 31 March are provided here.

===========================================================
SUMMARY:
We debriefed on our presentation to AGWG;
Our basic approach seems acceptable;
For next steps we will focus on the details of our 3 bucket approach in a few
chosen situations.
===========================================================

Hypertext minutes available at:
https://www.w3.org/2022/03/31-silver-conf-minutes.html

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

   W3C

                                                                                                            – DRAFT –
                                                                                               Silver Conformance Options Subgroup

31 Mar 2022

   IRC log.

Attendees

   Present
          GreggVan, janina, jeanne, joeyang, maryjom, PeterKorn, shadi, SusiPallero, ToddL, Wilco

   Regrets
          Azlan_Cuttilan, Darryl_Lehmann

   Chair
          Janina

   Scribe
          maryjom, shadi

Contents

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

Meeting minutes

  Agenda Review & Administrative Items

   Janina: main agenda item is debrief
   
 and talking about what next
   
 no announcements today

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

   Peter: think meeting went very well
   
 wasn't surprised that exception discussion came up
   
 but felt there was warmth for the work

   Joseph: [introduces himself]

   Jeanne: thought it went very well
   
 most comments seemed engaging
   
 that was my hope

   Janina: agree

   <jeanne> +1 to Shadi's response

   Janina: didn't hear any opposition to the buckets concept

   Todd: thought conversation went very well
   
 good responses to questions

   Wilco: agree with all
   
 not surprised that exceptions came up
   
 wonder if we need to address upfront

   Peter: tried that in user generated
   
 but may be worthwhile to try again

   Janina: agree it will continue to come up
   
 as long as WCAG 2.x is being worked on
   
 mindset different from 3.0 model
   
 maybe need to work on smaller set of situations
   
 and lay out the buckets more nuanced

   Peter: so far we had mostly focused on standards level work
   
 maybe the next step would be to work on application and policy guidance
   
 as examples to help people understand the approach

   Janina: we seem to be in agreement
   
 maybe not do that for all situations but just a subset

   Jeanne: +1

   <jeanne> +1 to going back with 2 well-worked out examples

   Peter: I like that idea

   <ToddL> +1 as well.

   Gregg: maybe pick ones that are easier to understand
   
 some that are more policy related
   
 to help relieve some of the tension
   
 might get a better reaction
   
 avoid perception we're trying to get an exception

   <PeterKorn> "Considerations for policy-makers looking to adopt WCAG [3]"

   Wilco: is this to come with a document for policy makers?

   Gregg: yes, more towards our third bucket
   
 maybe lead with the policy guidance
   
 and at the end add things that could be done in addition

   <jeanne> +1 to coming back in detail with only 1 or 2 items

   Janina: could pick just 2 or 3 and try to be more nuanced
   
 some things stand out to me from reading the document
   
 critical errors will be an important concept
   
 second, more sophisticated way of labeling things
   
 maybe some form of metadata markup
   
 could be a win, because can build smarter interfaces

   shadi: Generally an explanation of what to expect that is easy to get to that provides access to get help when requirements aren't met.

   Peter: which of the 11 situations do we think are most ripe?
   
 maybe ones that policy makers have already addressed
   
 like small businesses, which most policies already address
   
 another one, is transition periods when introducing new policies
   
 also possibly something around situation 7 and future technologies

   Gregg: think that is spot-on
   
 these are mostly policy areas
   
 will have less controversy
   
 maybe we have too many bullets on policy
   
 could just say, this is a policy issue

   <jeanne> For small business, we should provide suggested language for procurement contracts

   Gregg: could work on the details later

   Janina: on XR, maybe have some first pieces that could be done already

   <GreggVan> sorry I have to go present to a class at CMU regrets

   Janina: speaks to the fact that we can't be just categorical

   <GreggVan> +1

   Janina: would like to address authoring tool vendors a little
   
 because they have such a massive impact

   Peter: suggest even cite policy examples we know of
   
 there might be some technical aspects in the small business area as well
   
 lowest hanging fruit that is easy to do
   
 maybe could be more nuanced
   
 think there might be some examples

   <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we should start with ones that are mostly policy but there are things we can suggest technically.

   Jeanne: thinking of 2 and 3 or of 4 and 5
   
 think these are more balanced examples
   
 technical things we can do
   
 specific things we can put in each of the buckets
   
 if we do only policy ones, might a have a lot to catch up on

   shadi: RE: Peter, agree with overall approach but nervous of citing specific policy as examples. Could start us down rabbit holes.
   
 Should stay somewhat agnostic from specific policy and what is good/bad. Could cause some pushback.
   
 Situation 1 with bugs could have some controversy, but is a central one that has more policy than technical concerns.

   <SusiPallero> +1

   shadi: Marking what works/doesn't work, stating a policy to how to report bugs, avoid having critical errors, etc.

   Peter: maybe being too cautious
   
 could start with something more complex internally
   
 like 11, 1, or other
   
 see how this pans out, and re-assess later

   Janina: last task from AGWG Chairs before this task were
   
 sampling and reporting
   
 and third-party
   
 so could consider that as well

   Peter: third party could be another option

   Peter: could also think about the role of accompanying guidance
   
 things to look for when evaluating a CMS
   
 not for us to develop that guidance but to outline that

   Janina: EOWG has also been doing a lot of excellent work

   <Wilco> +1 I think there's a lot to be said for continuing on the third-party direction

   Janina: doesn't all have to come from AGWG
   
 could maybe be interested in providing some of this guidance
   
 and work with the maturity model guidance

   Todd: think working on subset of buckets is a good idea

   <PeterKorn> I also need to drop a touch early. Thank you!

   Todd: like the discussion we are having today

   Janina: let's think about this more
   
 and regroup next week to take this further


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

   Maybe present: Gregg, Joseph, Peter, Todd

-- 

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, 31 March 2022 19:23:04 UTC