15:42:43 RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf 15:42:43 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/05-silver-conf-irc 15:42:45 agenda? 15:43:27 agenda? 15:44:27 sajkaj has joined #silver-conf 15:44:39 agenda? 15:44:53 Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup 15:44:59 Date: 5 Aug 2021 15:45:02 Chair: sajkaj 15:45:09 rrsagent, make log public 15:46:46 Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items 15:46:46 agenda+ User Generated Content PRs Redux 15:46:46 agenda+ Other Business 15:46:46 agenda+ Be Done 15:47:04 rrsagent, make minutes 15:47:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/05-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 15:49:18 jeanne2 has joined #silver-conf 15:59:01 JF has joined #silver-conf 15:59:10 regrets: Azlan_Cuttilan, Todd_Libby, Bruce_Bailey 15:59:24 agenda? 15:59:46 Present+ 16:02:19 PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf 16:03:11 scribe: JF 16:03:19 zakim, take up item 1 16:03:19 agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj] 16:03:24 present+ 16:03:31 Present+ 16:03:38 present+ Jeanne 16:04:02 Bryan has joined #silver-conf 16:04:04 KimD has joined #silver-conf 16:04:11 Present+ 16:04:12 present+ 16:04:13 JS: only one item: respond and refine our proposed additions to the WCAG 3 WD 16:04:25 ...based on discussions from Tuesday's AG call 16:04:36 ...mostly wordsmithing 16:04:48 ...some additional points in the survey 16:05:01 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-07-User-Generated-Content/results -> survey 16:05:28 ...goal to fix the text and hopefully make it into the next heartbeat. But deadline for that is today 16:05:54 JS: plan to be ready for next Tuesday's AG call with editorial changes for review with the larger group 16:06:41 Jeanne: chairs are upbeat - recognize substantial progress, recognizes ongong minor issues 16:06:55 Wilco has joined #silver-conf 16:06:59 JS: note that we are sometimes loose with our terminology (authors, publishers, etc.) 16:07:09 ...thinks this may be a problem 16:07:22 q+ 16:07:27 q+ 16:08:07 [JS: cites example of United Airlines on Facebook - who is "publisher"? UA or FB? 16:08:20 q? 16:08:30 ack Je 16:08:50 Jeanne: would like to stick to the suggestions from the survey first - otherwise definitions may be a distraction 16:09:06 ack pet 16:09:06 ...proposes we add editor notes where we believe definitions are required 16:09:11 ack P 16:09:36 PK: agree with Jeanne - bigg issue that likely requires public comment 16:09:57 ...but another related question is about Editor's Notes 16:10:08 Jeanne: can we defer that for now? 16:10:32 JS: this is under discussion - propose to point out Editor's Notes issue in email 16:10:36 zakim, next item 16:10:36 agendum 2 -- User Generated Content PRs Redux -- taken up [from sajkaj] 16:11:43 JS: taking up editorial changes that will be reflected in our wiki/draft text 16:12:24 Discussion: use of "repair" - looking at definition in ATAG 16:12:45 PK: to be methodical, should we be doing this via the survey responses to ensure we don't miss anything? 16:13:07 present+ 16:14:04 ...looking at survey feedback - [PK reads aloud] 16:15:09 PK: notes that many of Gundala's comments are related to English language grammar 16:15:52 Jeanne: reviews current edits based on feedback 16:17:36 JF: wonders why we are calling out AT 16:17:43 [agreement to remove] 16:19:33 "The site or product provides a mechanism for users to contribute text alternatives for user generated non-text content that is available via user agents. " 16:21:07 The site or product provides a mechanism for users to contribute or modify text alternatives for their user generated non-text content that is available. If the content is user generated content, then a text alternative mechanism for non-text content is available 16:25:38 PK: asks that we avoid Social media at this time 16:25:46 • Provides functionality to users for adding text alternatives for their non-text content 16:25:55 • Provides functionality to users for modifying text alternatives for their non-text content 16:28:42 discussion about scoping this to "images Only" with a recognition that there are other forms of non-text content (i.e. multi-media) 16:31:57 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/User_Generated_Content#Text_alternatives_for_User_Generated_Content 16:32:37 Draft RESOLUTION: add a note that this is an example for images, that other content-types will require alternative solutions 16:33:25 "Note: How the specific details of this outcome will be managed and what is required vs what is recommended still needs discussion. This is an example of how an outcome could be used with user generated images. " 16:33:33 KD: we already have a note, can we just be a bit more specific in that note? 16:33:42 +1 16:34:03 This is an example outcome to demonstrate how we can include specific instructions for handling user generated content in the general category of images and graphics. More outcomes with other advice will be in future drafts. 16:34:14 +1 to moving note up 16:35:56 "• Provides functionality to check and flag if generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g. the file name, file format) are being supplied as text alternatives" 16:38:30 "• Provides proposed text alternatives to user generated content (e.g. using computer vision, machine learning, or other automated techniques)" 16:39:55 Jeanne: can we hold off on new content - will make it more diffiuclt to advance this 16:41:41 q+ 16:42:27 How about "In the case of image re-use, the user agent will propose to re-use the original text alternative from previous usage" 16:43:54 • In the case when the same image is re-used, offers the user their provided text alternative for that image 16:44:03 +1 16:44:47 In the case when the same image is re-used, offers the user the previously provided text alternative for that image 16:46:34 Wilco: had a concern that invoking ATAG is not part of our current charter. Jeanne will provide a note 16:49:20 PK: that covers the first survey question. The second question was not discussed in the AG call 16:49:33 [PK reads aloud] 16:51:49 Note for ATAG and charter: In the current WCAG3 charter scope, we recommended to exclude normative outcomes for authoring tools and user agents. That makes this example outside the current scope of WCAG3. We are including this example to get public feedback whether we should include normative requirements for authoring tools and user agents. 16:52:12 [discussion around 'volunteers' versus 'recognized' status in forums, etc.] 16:52:52 PK: suspect this requires more feedback/input 16:53:08 JS: add this to the request for feedback note 16:53:56 User Generated Content is provided for publication by visitors where the content platform specifically welcomes and encourages it. User-generated content is content that is submitted through a user interface designed specifically for members of the public and customers. Use of the same user interface as an authoring tool for publication of content by agents of the publisher (such as employees, contractors, or authorized volunteers) rrsagent, make minutes public 16:55:47 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', JF. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:58:54 [reviewing Wilco's comments - vague language] 16:59:16 WF: how do we measure that? How do we test? 17:01:18 PK: suggest that for a while, this will never be needed to hit a 'bar' - we've discussed this prior 17:02:26 [discussion around future-tech] 17:03:17 WF: feels too generic (using AI) - may want to move that to individual outcomes 17:04:45 decision to drop text that Wilco had concerns about 17:14:16 zakim, bye 17:14:16 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been JF, sajkaj, PeterKorn, Jeanne, KimD, Bryan, Wilco 17:14:16 Zakim has left #silver-conf 17:14:27 rrsagent, make minutes 17:14:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/05-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj 17:47:18 sajkaj has left #silver-conf 17:47:35 sajkaj has joined #silver-conf 17:47:41 rrsagent, part 17:47:41 I see no action items