- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:22:50 -0400
- To: public-silver@w3.org
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 â DRAFT â 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