Meeting minutes
<janina> queue:
Agenda Review & Administrative Items
Janina: Filing an issue on one of the issues assigned to us.
… Wanted to get a sense of if we're ready to advance it.
… Looking at issue 450 our distinction may matter.
… Again, this is our last meeting of the year. Next meeting is January 6th.
Issue 450 Candidate Response https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/450
Janina: Issue 450 was assigned to us. There is more than one topic. I have a proposed comment at the end.
Gregg: Bullet 2 is particularly interesting. As long as it's user contributed, and they're contributing it freely, that's one category.
… When you're paying someone. You pay for a movie you put on a site. That's a contractual relationship where you can say I'll pay for the movie but it needs captions.
… Otherwise you get into a slippery slope of always paying a third party.
Janina: The response don't cover everything. I think we're not going to want to get involved of which kind of content needs which level in the standard.
… Free of paid is interesting, but even that's possibly outside a technical standard. Leans more towards compliance.
… The response is intentionally brief and focused on user generated.
Gregg: Are we reviewing just the response, or 6.2 from the draft.
Janina: 6.2 is from the draft. We may update 6.2 on this call. It came out of this group.
peter: Minor tweak is to be more clear on the particular request. Respond to the second bullet, or something.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note Gregg's observation of paid-for content
JF: Gregg's point, using paid for content as a dividing marker is interesting. Don't want to lose that idea.
Janina: Will try to pick it up.
Peter: I would not change their word. They didn't use the word contracted.
… Or just say "your second bullet" and be done with it.
Janina: I'd rather point to what we addressed.
<jeanne> DRAFT RESPONSE: The updated WCAG 3 Working Draft just published contains Sec.
<jeanne> 6.2: User Generated Content which
<jeanne> responds to your second bullet in your comment. We solicit and welcome your
<jeanne> response to this first iteration of proposed conformance criteria relating to
<jeanne> user generated content even as we continue to bring additional third party
<jeanne> guidance into future WCAG 3 Working Drafts.
<jeanne> We are still in active discussion on your first bullet.
Janina: Any objections?
<JF> +1
Jeanne: I'll mark it ready for survey
Conformance and Compliance Glossary Definition Followup https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates
<GreggVan> +1 to Peters comment that we need to be careful to not put words into the mouths of commenters when we respond.
Janina: Wonder if we think it's ready for the Friday call.
Peter: Absent more that makes use of these terms, throwing just glossary definitions may not be productive.
Janina: I see it as a bit of chicken/egg. We'll get there fast. We're already there with our user generated response.
… Do we try in WCAG 3 to slice and dice between what AWK was asking for.
… There may be other edge cases where we might want to rely on us not wanting to decide everything.
Peter: Completely agree. I'm just wondering if having a discussion on this devoid of place where it would help us may be ineffective.
Janina: Knowing we're likely to get back to our media discussions. Third party is part of our deliverables.
… If we rush to make this distinction, do we block ourselves off?
Gregg: I think we do it now. There is a lot of confusion in the group. All normative words should be defined. Compliance is not. We don't really have a standing. As a note under conformance its nice to make a contrast.
… The reason to put it in is so everyone can see it and comment.
+1 to Gregg's alternative
Gregg: You talked about an United posting on YouTube. It's United that's on the hook for that, not YouTube
JF: Agree to getting it there. This came up Tuesday.
Janina: This fear of publishing makes sense to for WCAG 2.2, but for 3.0 we should have an easier attitude.
<GreggVan> +1 to janinas comment RE new in 2.2 vs new in 3.0 which is nascent
Peter: No objection to bring this to Silver / AGWG. It's important. My only question is do we do it with just this text, or bring it with additional context around where this is important.
… so that we can say this is one of the places where it's important.
<GreggVan> +1 to providing context -- but I would not tie it to media or any other topic. that will draw all that into the discussion and this is generic
Peter: It's just a question of what will help make the discussion most effective.
<PeterKorn> Prefer 2nd option.
Azlan: Do we have a prefer the alternate version or the new one.
Janina: I think we get rid of the initial text and make the alternate version the proposed one.
… At least maybe we should trial it on the Friday call.
<shadi> +1 to ditching the initial version in favor of the second and more improved version
Gregg: Agree not to have two things. I agree we should provide context, but it should be generic. We're doing this because there is a lot of confusion around these therms.
… I would not tie it around any particular topic. I would predict the conversation switches quickly to the other topics.
… Don't want to see it get tangled in a larger discussion.
Shadi: This is different. I much prefer the second version. I do have a wording comment.
Janina: Lets discuss it.
Shadi: The second paragraph in conformance... "something, as contrasted to some entity"
… That implies that only entities comply, and I wonder if products can also comply.
… Later on we talk about entities that comply, I'm not sure it's that restricted. I believe there are laws that might provide tolerances.
… I can provide these wordings in writing.
<jeanne> Jeanne notes that the examples were just notes from the meeting. Please feel free to edit them.
Gregg: Only entities can comply with the law. Laws are a requirement on legal entities. It can't be on a chair, the person who manufactured it has to comply.
… Content conforms, entities comply.
<JF> a huge +1 to Gregg
Gregg: Regarding tolerances, you conform to provisions. Provisions is where you put tolerances.
… I think that the idea of tolerances is interesting to explore, but it wouldn't be in the definition.
<PeterKorn> I've swapped the two on the page, but otherwise left the text contents alone
<PeterKorn> (if you want to refresh the page)
Janina: That's some place compliance is accustomed to put different requirements on entities with different resources.
JF: When you comply to section 508 you conform to WCAG, but there are other requirements.
… I think it's important we continue to make the distinction.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that the examples were notes taken in the last meeting
Jeanne: Those examples do not have to be part, we can change or delete them as you want.
Shadi: Looking at dictionary definitions, it's a little ambiguous.
… compliance is the act of obeying a rule.
Gregg: Example is how to enforce the law, you arrest people. You can't issue a fine against a page.
… The only way to enforce laws, you can never enforce a law against an object.
Janina: Let me propose we have this proposal, and lets take it to Silver on Friday. We're not quite ready for AGWG.
Jeanne: Tuesday agenda is already set.
… I'll check with Shawn if we can get it on the agenda for Friday.
Janina: We have two items, 450 response and the glossary definitions.
Gregg: Current draft still has the old draft at the bottom. I suggest we delete it.
<PeterKorn> +1 to delete; just left it while we were discussing
Peter: Agreed. I would also drop the examples if we're asking Silver to look at it. We haven't had a chance to discuss them.
<Azlan> +1
Gregg: Agreed. It's not really an example, it's redundant.
<PeterKorn> Order executed
<PeterKorn> Don't call me Shirley!
Jeanne: Confirmed, we're on the agenda tomorrow.
Deliverables Planning for 2022 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Deliverables
Gregg: This meeting is about conformance, so the issues here have to do with conforming, reporting conforming, deciding, correct?
Janina: Yes. The kind of stuff from the challenges paper.
Gregg: Then I would add tolerances in here, to see if we can sort out what the role of tolerance should be in conformance.
… It seems we ought to think of that.
… I think there are two types. Tolerance at the provisional level, and tolerance at the standard level.
Peter: I don't know if that fits in with what I added at the bottom. All software has bugs, or whether the tolerances idea is distinct from that. They are certainly related.
… I'd like to discuss that sooner than Q4 2022.
Gregg: I think they are separate topics, both important.
… We have to figure out how to make it without claiming accessibility issue is just a bug.
… Maybe it has to do with remediation?
<PeterKorn> ?
Janina: Another spin, people relying on third-party libraries which are no longer maintained.
Gregg: Some cases there isn't an alternative.
Janina: Some of the abandoned open source libraries, maybe get some of the open source groups fix a few issues.
… Not permanent, problems that need to be fixed.
Peter: I think how much of tolerance is within conformance, how much is a compliance question.
… All software has bugs may have a compliance component when it comes to remediation timelines.
… Another that comes to mind is where and how one might do public betas.
… Part of what's being beta-tested
<shadi> https://
Peter: What to do when there is a new UI interaction model with no known way to make it accessible.
Jeanne: This schedule is part of the larger project. The chairs put a lot of work into looking at what can be done in parallel and what things have dependants.
… I think we first do the work the chairs have asked us for.
<JF> that plan here: https://
Wilco: We can ask the chairs if it could work, but would prefer to keep the order
Janina: I see that as a given
… It's a good point that this is from parallel processing.
… You can see where things fit.
Shadi: The thought here was not to add more deliverables. I think these are all issues I've heard in different discussions.
… Happy to handle things as issues come in.
<PeterKorn> Regrets, I need to drop.
Shadi: I have difficulty understanding the larger plan of conformance. This was a suggestion to try and have the big picture.
Janina: If we need chair assistance we can request it in January.