– DRAFT –
Guidance for Policy Makers Subgroup

<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Guidance-for-policy-makers-Subgroup

<bruce_bailey> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/

<bruce_bailey> Explore the Use cases for WCAG 3.0 to extract potential considerations for designing the conformance section, and for further informative guidance for policy makers wanting to adopt WCAG.

Shadi: We will be meeting the next 8 weeks
… If anyone's not able to scribe, let me know and you won't be on the scribe list
… The next 8 Mondays, noon US Eastern, we'll meet

<shadi> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20230515T120000&p1=43

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_silver-fri

Shadi: the idea of the subgroup is to provide a proposal to the parent group.
… They'll decide next steps from there. We'll try to follow an iterative approach

<shadi> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12O-1BKwlx4iR43GvFzmScejq2xU9V-rehrlxN42st5M/edit

Shadi: I hope everyone has read the subgroup handbook.

<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Guidance-for-policy-makers-Subgroup

Shadi: We'll take minutes. I'll send those out to the list, and we'll link them from the subgroup page.
… After about 4 or 5 weeks we should provide an update to AGWG. During the regular AGWG calls there is a short update 2 min.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask where to put early comments/notes/questions ?

Bruce: Where can we put scratchpad kind-of things? I started to write my notes for myself on the use cases.

Wilco: I can create a Google doc

Shadi: A wiki gets messy quite quickly. A Google doc is a bit easier.

<kirkwood> +1 to Google doc for scratch pad

Goals of the subgroup

Shadi: My feeling is that we often confuse conformance and compliance.

<bruce_bailey> +1 for distinguishing between conformance and compliance

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

Shadi: Some policies basically say "do WCAG", and we end up having policy discussions.
… The idea from this document was that there are technical standards, technical guidance, and advisory
… In the previous subgroup we had consensus (not the working group) on these examples.
… There was also a draft of how could technical standards contribute to the situation.
… For example, maybe a standard could define the severity of certain issues.
… Then beyond the technical standard there could be additional guidance, for example good practices on an accessibility statement
… And then there are maybe considerations of what policies could do. Depending on relative priority, maybe the threshold of how many bugs are acceptable is different in a healthcare situation from an entertainment situation.
… One comment from Gregg in a previous cool stood out for me.
… We spend a lot of time on harmonising guidelines. But we haven't spent so much time helping policy makers consider.
… We know there are hardly any website meet everything fully, but does that mean they are not compliant, and are they not compliant to the same degree?
… We're not telling policy makers how to create policy. But from a technical perspective, what can we build into WCAG 3 to enable policy makers to address issues that occur in real life.
… The subgroup came up with 11 situations, with on average 2 or 3 examples.
… My proposal for this subgroup is that we continue the work; Go through the situations 1 by 1.
… We'll review each of the situations, and come up with ideas of what could be done.
… What I saw from that wiki was that there's a lot of overlap
… We can try out one situation together, and then assign some homework.
… We'll have in 3 or 4 weeks a list of what could be done. I don't want to go back too much on the situations though.
… And then in the later half of the subgroup work, I hope we can come out with a outline for a guidance document for policy makers.
… Two parts; What should AGWG consider regarding conformance, and the second; what should policy makers consider when adopting WCAG

Bruce: I was happy with everything, until you said "laws".
… When we're talking about organisations, that's very broad. If we're talking about laws, that's much narrower.
… I don't have much regulation perspective. I'm also not clear what the difference is between writing clearly and writing anything of special value to policy makers vs regulators & litigators

Shadi: Short answer is I don't know. If we need to define the audience more narrowly we can work on that.

<bruce_bailey> "technical implications for adopting wcag"

Shadi: From a technical perspective, when we're saying what the technical considerations are, is there a substantial difference between the policy of an organisation or in law.
… Scale is different, but from a technical perspective is there a big difference?

Wendy: It would be weird to see some of these things.
… The web has many different uses. Just saying "follow this" isn't useful. Giving specific ways and guidance is useful.

Bruce: I think there's a different threshold as soon as its about laws.
… It's certainly a problem in federal space. I'm not sure how WCAG could help with that.
… One thing this use case document does is highlight all the different words; regulator, policy maker, etc. This uses those words interchengably. I want to get a handle of that.

Shadi: Would you be interested to help draft a disclaimer? What we're doing, and what we're not doing.
… We're not telling regulators, policy makers, what to put into their documents. We don't tell law makers how to write laws.

<bruce_bailey> bruce also voluntold for disclaimer for this docuement

Shadi: It's the technical considerations. What about timelines, what happens when acquiring a company, what happens if you host other's content.
… This is often an area of sensitivity.

Bruce: Yes, happy to try to write this disclaimer.
… I think I understand WCAG 3 to be charged to saying something to policy makers though? That's the conundrum.

Shadi: There's WCAG 3 as the standard, and then there's the package. The methods, understanding, etc.
… Maybe we come out with certain suggestions / considerations for WCAG 3 conformance? Maybe not? But at the very least we should come up with guidance to help policy makers.

Laura: I have some concerns for supplying loopholes to organisations for making something accessible.

Shadi: Absolutely, these aren't loopholes. There are overal considerations, these exist.

John: I'm having a difficult time with what the problem we're trying to solve really is.
… Policy often changes in accordance with what the burden is.
… If we're going to give tools to policy makers, that's one thing.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to john kirkwood

Shadi: There's a problem description in the use cases document.

<bruce_bailey> policy writer tool kit is a provocative idea

Shadi: The problem we're trying to address is that scenario Wendy mentions. "Do WCAG". No website really meets that. Is that a realistic expectation?

Wendy: I think there's two ways to view this.
… We can go back to AGWG and say there are gaps that may need to be filled. The other direction is down to the end uers.
… I don't think anyone wants to create loopholes. What I think we can do is point to who's responsible for what.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to help scope out "who is responsible for what"

Wendy: For example a website with many authors. One solution is training, another may be with the CMS provider.
… There should always be someone who's responsible. The site owner needs to find a solution.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask Laura if "conformance loophole" is already in one the documents we have looked at today?

Bruce: Laura, do we have that phrase?

Laura: I think third party is in the conformance section

Bruce: I hope that's not characterized as a loophole.

<Laura_Carlson> Notes for the Media Content Conformance Section of the WCAG 3 Editor's Draft

<Laura_Carlson> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t2vSTNI3qG2bWgSMsfIRUdPfZ7UzxunmO1JgeOZ9s2k/

Shadi: We broke down third party. There's a difference between an airline posting a video on YouTube, and a child posting a video there.

Mike: There are a lot of organisations stuck on WCAG 2.0.
… We have to keep documents evergreen. Organisations should keep coming back for review.

<bruce_bailey> Mike Gifford from Zoom chat: "Failings of WAI implementations on policy. - Stuck on WCAG 2.0 rather than ever-green approaches - Lack of adoption of ATAG 2.0 - Lack of criteria geared for USA specific lawsuits."

Mike: Legislators don't seem to remember that.
… I'm hoping ATAG will be part of this. Legislators need to think about the authoring tools.
… I have yet to see a serious RFP for ATAG.

<Laura_Carlson> +1 to Mike

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/

Mike: In many cases this will be tested in the US courts. Nowhere else. How do we set this up for cases to be tried effectively.

Shadi: There are two situations in this dealing with the cascade of responsibilities.
… We need to consider the chain of responsibilities in web content.

Bruce: I wanted to mention that substantial conformance means non-conformance.

Shadi: I don't think we're trying to define conformance, substantial, partial.

<mgifford> Looking forward to that Bruce, thanks. Would love to get your thoughts on ATAG.

Shadi: We might come out with suggestions. The more important part is guidance.

Wendy: We have an example of this working. The European Accessibility Act.
… There are separate requirements for Ebooks, readers, and retailers.
… I'm not responsibility for the epub documents on our platform. The author is, and it's clearly defined.

<bruce_bailey> @wendy can you point to those separations spread out ?

<bruce_bailey> Sounds like a good approarch

Wendy: We should be able to do that for everything.

Shadi: I feel the EAA has a lot of roles defined for physical products. It doesn't have that for services.

<kirkwood> interesing e- book approach

Shadi: There will be a lot of detail to hash out.

Homework

Shadi: I'd like people to go through the use cases document

<shadi> https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios

<mgifford> If we have questions or thoughts on the use cases document, do we leave thoughts in an issue queue or where?

Shadi: Have a look at these examples as well

<mgifford> Looking forward to future calls Wilco.

<Laura_Carlson> Bye. Thanks everyone.