15:42:50 RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf 15:42:50 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/06/24-silver-conf-irc 15:42:56 agenda? 15:43:10 zakim, clear agenta 15:43:10 I don't understand 'clear agenta', sajkaj 15:43:17 zakim, clear agenda 15:43:17 agenda cleared 15:43:22 Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items 15:43:22 agenda+ AGWG Followup https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content 15:43:25 agenda+ Review Definitions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content#Definitions 15:43:28 agenda+ Review Steps to Conform https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content#Steps_to_Conform5 15:43:31 agenda+ Starting on External Website Tooling 15:43:34 agenda+ Other Business 15:43:36 agenda+ Be Done 15:43:52 meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup 15:44:01 Date: 24 Jun 2021 15:44:06 Chair: sajkaj 15:44:13 rrsagent, make log public 15:44:20 rrsagent, make minutes 15:44:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/24-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 15:47:13 present+ 15:47:24 regrets: Peter_Korn, Bruce_Bailey 16:00:42 JF has joined #silver-conf 16:00:48 Present+ 16:00:52 agenda? 16:01:05 zakim, who is here? 16:01:05 Present: sajkaj, Azlan, Wilco, ToddLibby, PeterKorn, JF 16:01:07 On IRC I see JF, RRSAgent, sajkaj, Zakim, trackbot, Rachael 16:01:33 Wilco has joined #silver-conf 16:02:03 Azlan has joined #silver-conf 16:02:08 present+ 16:04:45 scribe: JF 16:04:52 zakim, take up item 1 16:04:52 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj] 16:06:02 JS: will look back and debrief from Tuesday's call. We are on the agenda for tomorrow's Silver call 16:06:04 KimD has joined #silver-conf 16:06:15 present+ 16:06:20 Need to look at the definitions and steps to conform 16:06:33 may need to prep ourselves more for that - details! 16:06:33 present+ 16:07:08 Shawn also asked about usecases on Tuesday, and so we need to look at that in more detail (item 5) 16:07:29 Jeanne: we can keep the boy scout example 16:07:40 JS: that or another one 16:08:06 Jeanne: we can perhaps tweak it to say they are using a whole payment solution - not custom built 16:09:06 WF: can we elaborate more on user-generated? 16:09:36 JS: a whole hosting solution (think WIX or similar) 16:10:01 Q+ 16:10:39 JS: only some things we can measure and evaluate - the mechanical stuff 16:11:05 so the interface and tooling to "create a site" would also be a "thing" 16:11:29 WF: yes, there is a spectrum there - yo umay be right 16:11:46 Jeanne: this may be a distraction from what we need to do today 16:12:03 Caidin_ has joined #silver-conf 16:12:03 would like to tighten up our definitions to make clear what is and isn't in scope 16:13:13 zakim, next item 16:13:13 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, JF 16:13:17 ack me 16:13:22 zakim, next item 16:13:22 agendum 2 -- AGWG Followup https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content -- taken up [from sajkaj] 16:13:24 q? 16:13:28 jeanne has joined #silver-conf 16:13:35 JS: anyone with thoughts or comments from Tuesday? 16:13:55 ack jea 16:14:17 Jeanne: thought it went well, not as expected but we made progress. Was discussed in Chairs meeting and recommend that we break it down more 16:14:42 so now we can start defining what is in and what isn't - lots of questions around that on Tuesday 16:14:56 so tighten up definitions will likely help address those larger questions 16:14:56 q? 16:15:18 but overall positive feedback and good progress 16:15:27 zakim, next item 16:15:27 agendum 3 -- Review Definitions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content#Definitions -- taken up [from sajkaj] 16:16:02 JS: currently 2 definitions 16:16:26 but that seems incomplete or not granular enough (feedback from Tuesday) 16:16:42 q? 16:16:48 JS: what do we need to tighten or exclude? 16:17:15 WF: one way to go forward is to just come up with real-world examples - edge-cases too 16:17:32 KD: yes, we need 'buckets' with examples - the more the better 16:17:37 JS: concurs 16:17:44 q? 16:17:46 any specifics to offer? 16:18:09 Jeanne: one that came up is advertising. 16:19:08 Jeanne: third party developers, frameworks. Content free items like Component libraries, Design systems, CMS templates, etc. 16:20:17 JS: building blocks - we have a longer-range plan but they would be out of scope as they *are* building blocks 16:20:36 so we're focused on 'environments' rather than those building blocks 16:21:12 Jeane: is the difference between blocks and services? 16:21:43 JF: something like WIX would be a service and not a building block 16:22:05 so out of scope 16:22:30 Azlan: kind of in agreement that design systems and component libraries are out of scope 16:22:38 https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#def-Authoring-Tool <- ATAG2 definition of authoring tool 16:23:24 as opposed to a "whole product". Potential gray area may be something like a CMS (blog engine) where you may have a choice between a hosted service, or a downloadable package that you could host yuorself 16:23:38 s/yuorself / yourself 16:23:46 ack jea 16:23:57 Jeanne: provides definition of authoring tool 16:25:03 thinks we can work with those definitions 16:25:51 JS: does Jeanne think that definition would apply to TikTok or similar? 16:26:29 Jeanne: the user interface (creation) would be an authoring tool, but the output would be 3rd party (user generated) 16:27:13 WF: seems the key is who posted the content 16:27:42 WF: interesting example - github 16:28:08 github as an organization also has repositories - by people working at github 16:28:17 JS: they use their own tools 16:28:30 WF: in that case, it matters who created the content 16:28:55 JS: so if github created a repository the bar would be higher than if a random person posted a repository 16:29:07 WF: yes, but that's why we need to know who posted the content 16:29:28 Jeanne: isn't that the whole point? That we're saying "this was created by someone outside of the org" 16:30:00 Jeanne: what was the suggestion? 16:30:31 JS: what Wilco said - who provides the content (user generated) - where we focus is on the content 'generated' 16:30:45 so one focus is on the tools, but the other focus is what the end user creates 16:31:37 WF: what is the difference between author arranged and ... 16:31:59 Jeanne: an alternative to what we mean - for example federated signon systems 16:32:01 User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, store fronts, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested from content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email). The user generated content originates from outside the site or product owner. This excludes web content generation 16:32:01 sites and other similar where the user creating the content belongs to the organization that owns the site or product. 16:32:41 something like that is good for the platform - for smaller sites it removes the maintenance burden 16:33:02 (using federated sign-on example) 16:33:03 User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, store fronts, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested from content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email). The user generated content originates from outside the site or product owner. This excludes sites and other 16:33:03 similar products where the user creating the content belongs to the organization that owns the site or product. 16:33:10 q+ 16:33:32 ditto with product tracking - smaller sites can offload that tothe shipping company (3d party) 16:34:21 Jeanne reads her proposal 16:34:57 JS: that seems to clarify it 16:36:26 JF: brings up jquery with core and user-contributed modules 16:37:03 JS: may want to defer that to the tools discussion - there is a level of technical expertise there. 16:37:49 User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, videos, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested from content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email). The user generated content originates from outside the site or product owner. This excludes sites and other 16:37:49 similar products where the user creating the content belongs to the organization that owns the site or product. Website hosting services are specifically excluded. 16:38:58 User Generated third party content, e.g. blogs, photos, videos, etc. User Generated Third Party Content is created by site users using the authoring environment provided by the claimant, or ingested from content otherwise contributed to the author (e.g., sent via email). The user generated content originates from outside the site or product owner. This excludes sites and other 16:38:58 similar products where the user creating the content belongs to the organization that owns the site or product. Website hosting services are specifically excluded from this definition of user generated third party content. 16:39:19 KD: seeking clarification - what about a company that "scrapes" content from a third party? 16:39:41 JS: not in this context - it becomes "work for hire" 16:39:52 KD: what about copyright content? Or caselaw 16:40:18 JS: Kim brought forward a new usecase - case law 16:40:53 JS: suspect that falls under author-arrange content (where the copyright issue forbids modification) 16:41:35 WF: an image search platform - not responsible for the accessibility of the images, the tool only finds "pictures" 16:42:33 JS: usecase - legacy newspaper content that has been scanned and in microfiche to PDF [sic] 16:42:43 WF: I'd be ok with that being "on-demand' 16:43:22 Azlan: nuanced difference between "Here's a picture of an old newspaper" versus "here's the content on the page" 16:45:39 KD: case law is interesting - looking at really old legacy case law, and the structure of those documents are poor to start with 16:46:15 Jeanne: would really like to get a definition of Author arranged - that is intended to go out to a survey tonight 16:47:13 Jeanne: the issue that Kim brings up - media. Does that include old content like microfiche material? 16:47:18 Author Arranged (services or media) third party content (which includes copyrighted content where the authority to publish may be provided in law). Author Arranged is defined as content the claimant hosts or facilitates, but which the web content publisher has limited or no control of either the underlying markup or what the user sees and interacts with. 16:47:54 Jeanne: not sure it would be excluded - asks Kim if there is some language that would work 16:48:19 KD: lots of content that is cost prohibitive to OCR and 'accessify' 16:48:31 Jeanne: what do we need to say here to ensure it is included? 16:49:29 KD: how we talk about it in house is "legacy" - which is usually lower priority than "newer" content 16:49:43 JF: related to Wilco's idea of "on demand"? 16:49:52 JS: that seems to be bubbling up 16:50:32 another constraint may be "legal inability" and/or practicability of wholesale adoption. 16:51:23 Author Arranged (services or media) third party content (which includes copyrighted content where the authority to publish may be provided in law). Author Arranged is defined as content the claimant hosts or facilitates, but which the web content publisher has limited or no control of either the underlying markup or what the user sees and interacts with. Media that does not have legal 16:51:23 ability to change or practicability of wholesale adoption is considered author arranged. 16:51:28 If we add those 2 phrases, does that get us there? 16:52:23 JS: it's not the media that has the authority to modify, but rather the agency 16:53:17 Jeanne and Janina to work on language 'sanitation' today - time sensitive 16:53:32 Author Arranged (services or media) third party content (which includes copyrighted content where the authority to publish may be provided in law). Author Arranged is defined as content the claimant hosts or facilitates, but which the web content publisher has limited or no control of either the underlying markup or what the user sees and interacts with. Media where the publisher does 16:53:32 not have legal 16:53:32 ability to change or practicability of wholesale adoption is considered author arranged. 16:53:55 +1 16:53:59 +1 16:54:06 +1 16:54:42 agenda? 16:55:41 JS: we also need to make clear that this is for the conformance section - we will need examples 16:56:40 [discussion] 16:57:05 Jeanne: concluding this is a big topic. Tuesday illustrated all of the pieces we need to look at 16:57:10 goal to publish in August 16:57:33 JS: be done 16:58:03 zakim, make logs public 16:58:03 I don't understand 'make logs public', JF 16:59:42 Azlan has left #silver-conf 17:00:08 KimD has left #silver-conf 17:23:41 johnkirkwood has joined #silver-conf 17:29:28 rrsagent, make minutes 17:29:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/24-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 17:30:06 scribe: sajkaj 17:30:12 rrsagent, make minutes 17:30:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/24-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 17:38:57 zakim, clear agenda 17:38:57 agenda cleared 17:39:01 zakim, bye 17:39:01 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been sajkaj, Azlan, Wilco, ToddLibby, PeterKorn, JF, KimD 17:39:01 Zakim has left #silver-conf 17:39:06 rrsagent, bye 17:39:06 I see no action items