15:40:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-conf
15:40:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/09/16-silver-conf-irc
15:40:50 <sajkaj> Meeting: Silver Conformance Options Subgroup
15:40:57 <sajkaj> Chair: sajkaj
15:41:11 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make log public
15:41:18 <sajkaj> date: 16 sep 2021
15:41:22 <sajkaj> agenda?
15:41:27 <sajkaj> Agenda+ Agenda Review & Administrative Items
15:41:27 <sajkaj> agenda+ Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations
15:41:30 <sajkaj> agenda+ Ebook Options
15:41:33 <sajkaj> agenda+ Other Business
15:41:35 <sajkaj> agenda+ Be Done
15:41:56 <sajkaj> Regrets: Kim_Dirks, Bruce_Bailey
15:42:01 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make minutes
15:42:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/16-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj
15:45:05 <sajkaj> present+
15:45:13 <sajkaj> zakim, who's here?
15:45:13 <Zakim> Present: sajkaj
15:45:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, sajkaj, jeanne, Rachael, trackbot
15:55:04 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #silver-conf
15:59:05 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has joined #silver-conf
16:00:33 <PeterKorn> PeterKorn has joined #silver-conf
16:03:18 <PeterKorn> present+
16:03:21 <PeterKorn> scribe PeterKorn
16:03:29 <sajkaj> scribe: PeterKorn:
16:03:33 <ToddLibby> present+
16:03:34 <Azlan> present+
16:03:35 <sajkaj> zakim, take up item 1
16:03:35 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Agenda Review & Administrative Items -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:04:27 <PeterKorn> sajkaj: main topic today is media.  Have all edits from last week in doc.  Decision for us today: are we ready for a first impressions review in AGWG?
16:05:30 <JF> JF has joined #silver-conf
16:05:31 <PeterKorn> sajkaj: Not to go to AGWG shortly for a formal review, but to get directional feedback.
16:05:41 <sajkaj> zakim, next item
16:05:42 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Media Considerations https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations -- taken up [from sajkaj]
16:05:50 <JF> Present+
16:06:01 <jeanne> present+
16:06:36 <jeanne> scribe: PeterKorn
16:07:16 <PeterKorn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Media_Considerations
16:08:32 <Wilco_> Wilco_ has joined #silver-conf
16:08:38 <Wilco_> present+
16:11:01 <sajkaj> q+
16:11:13 <Bryan> Bryan has joined #silver-conf
16:11:23 <Bryan> present+
16:11:29 <Azlan> q+
16:13:11 <jeanne> q+ to ask why the Editor  note is not an introduction?
16:18:16 <sajkaj> q?
16:18:20 <jeanne> q+ to ask if we should discuss whether to consolidate the instructions with each type of material. This way is more persuasive, but it makes it harder to find the info.
16:18:56 <PeterKorn> sajkaj: anyone wondering about last Editor's note re: creating a scheme, we wanted to remove that for now, wanting more refinement first.
16:19:37 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:19:58 <PeterKorn> Azlan: under conformance treatments, and media lacking access techniques, strugglging to understand the sentence
16:20:48 <Wilco_> q+
16:22:07 <PeterKorn> jeanne: would like to have the first editor's note become an introduction
16:22:10 <sajkaj> q+
16:22:32 <Azlan> ack Azlan
16:22:43 <PeterKorn> jeanne: usability issue: the way this is set up is very persuasive, but would be easier to use if consolidated all info about each category together
16:23:02 <PeterKorn> ... so have an introductory paragraph talking about conformance treatment, then look at legacy media & steps to conform for that
16:23:19 <PeterKorn> ... then we go on to the next type.  Would be eaiser to digest.
16:23:24 <sajkaj> q?
16:23:29 <sajkaj> ack jeanne
16:23:29 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask why the Editor  note is not an introduction? and to ask if we should discuss whether to consolidate the instructions with each type of material. This way
16:23:32 <Zakim> ... is more persuasive, but it makes it harder to find the info.
16:24:06 <JF> Q+
16:24:36 <PeterKorn> Wilco: bring up limited rights piece; doesn't seem like a 3rd party tester could check the rights.
16:24:36 <JF> +1
16:25:19 <PeterKorn> ... perhaps can't solve this now, but then an editor's note to highlight that challenge
16:26:04 <PeterKorn> sajkaj: to Jeanne's first note: worried about having the note as intro first, as it may be less persuasive
16:26:35 <PeterKorn> ... re: 2nd idea on grouping, should be pretty trivial to achieve
16:27:10 <PeterKorn> q?
16:27:14 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:27:21 <Wilco_> ack wi
16:27:25 <sajkaj> q?
16:27:29 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:27:34 <PeterKorn> JF: to continue on 3rd party testing theme; jeanne mentioned multiple levels of conformance.
16:27:42 <PeterKorn> ... how expressed in terms of conformance reporting?
16:27:44 <PeterKorn> q+
16:28:02 <sajkaj> q+
16:28:09 <PeterKorn> ... can't leave those topics aside from the larger discussion.  Clearly need to address these situations, but how
16:28:29 <PeterKorn> ... does a 3rd party understand which thing / level / xxx that you are conforming to?
16:29:01 <PeterKorn> ... a media asset not accessible due to rights issues shouldn't score as high as media that is fully accessible
16:29:04 <PeterKorn> q?
16:29:34 <PeterKorn> sajka: idea is to put this forward for directional feedback, not as a "ready to go in" / "ready for CFC" content
16:30:06 <PeterKorn> JF: understood, but raising the fundamental question.
16:30:16 <sajkaj> ack PeterKorn
16:30:21 <sajkaj> scribe: sajkaj
16:30:37 <jeanne> q+ to answer JF that this is not multi-levels of conformance yet.  They are different use cases
16:30:53 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: Notes we discussed JF's point a few meetings ago and decided not to go there until we have the new conformance model as whatever we might put would be sujbect to change
16:31:22 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: No disagreement that those additional pieces are missing, but we're not yet there to define them.
16:31:28 <JF> putting aside "scoring" we have multiple potential 'conformance' levels - how do we report on that?
16:32:02 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: We want not to have to redo work, is there a intermediate path?
16:32:19 <JF> Q+
16:32:33 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: Perhaps in the intro? We don't expect that minimum conformance would be rated equally to good conformance
16:32:37 <jeanne> +1 Peter's idea
16:32:47 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:32:51 <sajkaj> ack jea
16:32:51 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to answer JF that this is not multi-levels of conformance yet.  They are different use cases
16:32:54 <sajkaj> ack saj
16:33:11 <PeterKorn> jeanne: what we are looking at now / today, is these aren't multipe levels of conformances.  These are different use cases that we
16:33:23 <PeterKorn> ... are working out.  Agree it will work its way into different levels, but haven't gotten that far yet.
16:33:34 <sajkaj> ack jf
16:33:41 <PeterKorn> JF: still comes back... have defined different use cases.
16:33:43 <PeterKorn> q+
16:33:53 <sajkaj> q+
16:34:03 <PeterKorn> ... this is articulating exceptions, where you can only go so far.  So question remains, giving different potential targets
16:34:20 <PeterKorn> ... for which the author doesn't have control.  So how does author explain what they are confoming to?
16:34:46 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: Really a "to be defined."
16:35:05 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: Also "to be named" set of levels, how to score them, etc.
16:35:34 <JF> How do you make that claim?
16:36:00 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: What the doc is saying so far is do everything you can and let that be recognized, even though it may not be as good as sites that don't have those issues.
16:36:37 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: This is part of the reason we call out higher bar situations like education; could also be health, government, etc.
16:36:43 <sajkaj> q?
16:36:47 <sajkaj> ack pet
16:37:23 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: Until we have our model, we can either do nothing, or go as far as we can for now--which is what we're trying to do now.
16:37:26 <JF> Q+
16:37:28 <PeterKorn> q?
16:37:37 <JF> ack me
16:38:33 <PeterKorn> sajkaj: question: is this in-process work where are ready to present for directional feedback to AGWG?  Or we feel conformance levels MUST be addressed here?
16:39:03 <PeterKorn> JF: yes, present what have now.  But this isn't ready yet for people to use.
16:39:13 <sajkaj> q?
16:39:25 <PeterKorn> JF: not baked enough to present.  Thinks the first question is what Wilco asked.
16:39:27 <Wilco_> q+
16:39:41 <PeterKorn> q+
16:40:02 <PeterKorn> sajkaj: feels it is ready to present.  Initial approach laid out here demonstrates better than anything else we've
16:40:24 <PeterKorn> ...brought to a Tuesday call make clear that the WCAG 2 conformance model must change to be more nuanced/flexible.
16:40:31 <sajkaj> q?
16:40:36 <sajkaj> ack wil
16:40:49 <PeterKorn> Wilco: feel that a small note acknowledging that we don't know yet how to do deal with this is sufficient.
16:41:11 <ToddLibby> +1 to Wilco
16:41:31 <jeanne> +1 to Wilco
16:41:51 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: As I understand--there's an opening Tuesday. So, the specific immediate question is Tuesday or not? With some changes in the remaining call framed as an early look, with admittedly more needed
16:42:05 <Wilco_> +1 to presenting
16:42:16 <sajkaj> +1
16:42:19 <Bryan> +1
16:42:26 <JF> +.5
16:42:27 <ToddLibby> +1
16:42:31 <Azlan> +1 subject to addition of Wilkos note
16:42:56 <PeterKorn> +6.5 of 8.  No -1 votes.
16:43:57 <sajkaj> PeterKorn: listing out issues
16:44:21 <sajkaj> pet: how to identify license holder/missing one; scoring; or reporting
16:46:02 <JF> not calculates, validates
16:49:11 <jeanne> Jeanne is ok with postponing putting the first editor's note in the introduction
16:50:30 <Wilco_> suggestion: The group is looking for suggestions on if and how third-party tester should be able to identify and validate when media has limited rights
16:50:39 <JF> to be clear, my question is this: a site owner cannot do any more to their media than what they have done, and find themselves in scenario: Legacy Media
16:50:55 <PeterKorn>  WCAG may not have techniques/methods to make some types of media accessible to some groups of people with disabilities.
16:51:12 <JF> The question then is, how do they signal that as part of "conformaning" (putting aside an numeric scoring)
16:51:29 <JF> that they are operating under use-case "Legacy Media"
16:53:22 <sajkaj> q?
16:53:29 <sajkaj> ack sajkaj
16:53:33 <sajkaj> ack PeterKorn
16:59:49 <ToddLibby> ToddLibby has left #silver-conf
17:12:09 <Jemma> Jemma has joined #silver-conf
17:16:05 <sajkaj> rrsagent, make minutes
17:16:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/16-silver-conf-minutes.html sajkaj