Pre-CFC on User Generated Content

Hello,

This email is the next step in moving User Generated Content towards
inclusion in the August update to WCAG 3.0. It results from the joint
AGWG/Silver taskforce meeting on August 10 (see minutes from 10 August
<https://www.w3.org/2021/08/10-ag-minutes.html#t05>).  Please review this
email and write the lists back if you have any concerns or objections that
need to be addressed before we move to CFC. If any issues are identified in
time, we can add the topic to the joint AGWG/Silver agenda for Tuesday
August 17th.

*Summary of Actions on Editor's Note*

The joint AGWG and SIlver group approved moving the user generated content
section and the amended glossary definition with editors note to CFC.  The
group felt the example outcome needed more work before going forward and
that instead, an editors note would be added.   The joint group also agreed to
email the draft note to the AGWG and Silver list to ask for objections
before sending the entire package to CFC.  This draft note has been
discussed in the Silver Conformance and Silver calls and there is no
objection to the Editor note from either.
*Proposed Editor's Note*

We plan for the Q4 Working Draft to include specific examples of guidelines
with additional requirements for user generated content. One example would
be alternative text. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) has
specific guidance for providing a mechanism for alternative text. The ATAG 2.0
Guideline B.2.3 <https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#gl_b23> - "Assist authors
with managing alternative content for non-text content" could be adapted to
provide specific, guideline-related guidance for user generated alternative
text.


*Additional Change to an Editor's Note not Discussed in Joint Meeting*
There was an objection in the Silver Conformance subgroup to the minor
wording change approved in AGWG in response to Laura's comment
<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/user-generated-/results>.

1.     Silver Conformance drafted an alternative wording and reached out to
Laura to see if it was acceptable.

2.     Laura did not accept it.

3.     The Silver taskforce discussed this on Friday and agreed to keep the
wording agreed on by AGWG and add a sentence to the editor's note under
steps to conform
<https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/User_Generated/guidelines/index.html#issue-container-generatedID-18>
that addressed the Silver concerns with Laura's language.

(2) Changes to the editor's note
<https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/User_Generated/guidelines/index.html#issue-container-generatedID-18>
:


   - Removes the sentence: See the new example Outcome in Text Alternatives
   (since that Outcome was not approved by AG).
   - Adds the sentence to the end of the editor note:  "The working group
   intends to more thoroughly address the contents and the location of an
   accessibility statement in a future draft."

Thank you,

Rachael