15:57:41 RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-policy 15:57:45 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/22-wcag3-policy-irc 15:58:40 meeting: Guidance for Policy Makers Subgroup 15:58:45 chair: Shadi 15:58:48 present+ 16:01:34 Jason_K has joined #wcag3-policy 16:01:39 garcialo has joined #wcag3-policy 16:01:44 +present 16:01:47 present+ 16:02:01 present+ 16:02:48 SusiPallero has joined #wcag3-policy 16:03:42 regrets+ Bruce 16:05:18 present+ 16:09:37 Cyborg has joined #wcag3-policy 16:09:44 Present+ 16:09:46 scribe: Luis 16:10:11 https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Guidance-for-policy-makers-Subgroup 16:10:26 Cyborg_ has joined #wcag3-policy 16:10:31 Present+ 16:11:52 https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/ 16:12:06 Shadi: Now that we're here, to recap. The main point of this group is to continue the "use-cases" work for WCAG3 from another group in the 8 weeks we have before taking it to the main group. 16:13:19 .. that document has situations in which it's difficult to meet accessibility requirements. These aren't supposed to be exceptions to WCAG. We're trying to figure out what could policy guidance look like (which is different from the WCAG guidance); what should they consider when making their policies. 16:14:09 .. there might be something WCAG conformance could do about it (e.g. perhaps issue severity), but what, if anything, can policies do about it? 16:14:25 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023AprJun/0167.html 16:14:46 .. If you haven't looked at it, here's an archived email that has attached documents on feedback of these existing use cases. 16:15:14 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios 16:16:18 Azlan has joined #wcag3-policy 16:16:26 present+ 16:17:35 .. The first document only has use cases. The wiki page has more; "what can a technical standard do" for example. 16:18:16 .. defining severity levels for requirements tolerances and quality levels for accessibility requirements, etc. 16:18:22 present+ 16:18:31 .. and they're just explorations, not recommendations. 16:18:58 .. It's non-normative, like the Understanding documents, Techniques, etc. 16:19:58 .. and how can policies contribute to addressing the situation; maybe defining what oversite is. And again, we're not writing policies or telling them how to write their policies, but what are technical considerations that can be considered when policies are made and refer to WCAG. 16:20:35 .. Some say "do WCAG" or mentioning "disproportionate burden" or "who is responsible" 16:20:54 q+ 16:21:39 .. What I'm hoping we could do is look at Situation 1, discuss the three areas: what can a policy do, what can tech standards do, what can accompanying guidance do. Then maybe after repeating that for other situations, we can have a sketch of what a "Policy Guidance" document would look like. 16:23:25 Cyborg_: I was involved with conformance in the early days of WCAG 3. I'm less familiar with this document outside. Since I'm still getting acquainted with it, I want to ask this content itself; if we go with it, there's an assumption that this is the document we're working from and I'm still concerned about third party content exemptions. 16:24:25 .. I've had opportunities to talk to Greg regarding point number 2 related to third party exemptions and I'd suggest it's larger than he's identified considering procurement, media ownership, subcontracting, and other related to education. 16:25:11 "We also plan to include a definition and concept for substantially conforming in order to address the potential difficulties presented when testing all content in large digital products and 3rd party content." https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#issue-container-generatedID-11 16:25:37 Shadi: There were several different groups doing different things. Can you share a link to the document you're referring to? I think there is confusion here; this document doesn't refer to third party. I personally don't like the term "thid party" because it's ambiguous and confusing. We need more detail. 16:26:39 .. ads, an airline providing professionally produced videos, etc. Does that fall in the same category as someone posting cat videos? I think that's a little different scope than what we're doing here. 16:27:15 .. That said, situation 4 is probably closest to that idea. 16:27:17 Situation 4: Content provider does not own or directly control the content 16:27:54 .. and maybe Situation 5: When content providers have dependencies on other services. 16:28:08 .. but what could policy makers do? 16:28:50 Cyborg_: I pasted in IRC what I was referring to, which isn't this document. I think Situation 2 (When large volumes of content are accumulating too rapidly to make fully conforming) might also be relevant. 16:29:14 .. in general, I'm concerned about this subject and will be keeping my eye out for it. 16:29:18 Shadi: Please do 16:29:49 Cyborg_: We just need to be aware of the third party exemption. 16:30:22 Shadi: I think it's out of scope for this subgroup to work on that area of the conformance. 16:31:13 Topic: Situation 1 16:31:22 Shadi: We've noted this concern on any kind of blanket exemptions. Are there any other concerns for getting caught up for our work? If not, let's try out the first situation. 16:31:42 https://w3c.github.io/silver/use-cases/#situation-1 16:36:09 .. assuming that this is behavior we want from content providers/creators, what can policies, etc. do to encourage such behaviors? 16:37:06 Jason_K: Maybe encouraging tools that have checkers in them? A lot of tools have basic checkers for alt text, etc. that might be useful. And maybe a list of manual checks. 16:37:34 q+ 16:37:36 Shadi: Is that something the technical standard suggests or should that be a policy? 16:38:28 Jason_K: I think guidelines for considering the tools, you might know what features different tools have available. Maybe in addition to WCAG, providing something like that would be useful. We don' tneed to get into every CMS tool, but maybe provide questions to ask when evaluating that. 16:38:46 ack cyb 16:38:55 ack azlan 16:40:10 Azlan: A couple of things. One is that given the example, there's already mechanisms they have in place. Individual components are already accessible. What we're saying is, because a user of the product is able to assemble them in any way, there's a chance they'll reach an edge case of an inaccessible combination. 16:40:19 Put in place a support system for people with disabilities for those cases where they cannot access or interact with non compliant content 16:40:40 .. how do these get reported? Is there a mechanism for bugs to be reported where they can be flagged to the product owner? 16:40:52 *non conformant 16:41:33 .. and perhaps take into account learning from the severity subgroup to elevate the bugs so they can be acted upon in a suitable timeframe. 16:43:12 q+ 16:43:14 Shadi: And I think that reinforces what Azlan was saying. The wiki document suggests something similar, such as providing some severity levels. 16:43:53 .. maybe provide a mechanism or provide contact information for reporting bugs. 16:44:00 +1 to contact info 16:44:27 .. We could also consider what policies could do, such as an accessible grace period for identifying bugs. WCAG 2 actually has an interesting clause... 16:44:50 but contact info should not be viewed as an ‘out’ which happens 16:45:02 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#conformance-partial 16:45:21 "If a page of this type is monitored and repaired (non-conforming content is removed or brought into conformance) within two business days" 16:46:15 Luis: This might not be feasible for some large companies. 16:46:48 Shadi: The thought here is that maybe this doesn't belong in a technical standard. Maybe better for a policy. It would depend on the issue and other factors. 16:47:22 .. setting up an appointment is going to be different from accessing sports content. 16:47:24 a reasonable process/procedure is in place to address the issue. an urgency is assigned to the issue. 16:47:41 Agree definition of the actual timeframe is likely outside of our scope, but perhaps statement that severity of the issue may be used to determine prioritisation? 16:48:08 Cyborg_: It could be left to organization, but a statement could be made that they need to identify within their context an appropriate time period so they make a commitment and can be held accountable internally. 16:48:24 +1 to Cybele on both points 16:48:53 q+ 16:49:10 .. and would suggest caution around severity since it can lead to putting disability types over each other. Similarly with defining what a bug is and what isn't, addressing them, and criteria for considering them, and then leaving it up to the organization to fill in the blanks are within their context. 16:49:53 Actually I love Cyborg_ 'sresponse 16:50:09 publishing how they are addressed. the requirement may be to publish the process. 16:50:39 the policy is to define and publish the process for adressing. 16:50:45 q+ 16:50:45 Shadi: If I'm understanding you correctly, a requirement could be that an organization defines its own process for addressing bugs that are reported and having a reporting mechanism. And then that they actually follow through. It might not be acceptable to say "issues addressed in 5 years" There would need to be boundaries set, but the ultimate reponsibility would be on the organization. 16:51:03 ack cyborg 16:51:49 Cyborg_: If something that needs to be done in an hour, or maybe some other mid-period of time, but yeah; having guardraisl or some ratiionale needs to be given when determining those things. 16:52:43 SusiPallero: I think we could create indicators to help policy makers determine critical issues. 16:53:04 q+ 16:53:16 +1 on providing some metrics for organizations 16:53:23 ack susi 16:53:29 ack kirk 16:54:41 kirkwood: Completely agree with that last part of it. It's difficult with how quickly you can turn around is based on resources and the size of the company. We just need to not leave the person in the dark, that they've been heard and when the response will be given. That's different than just reporting an issue and not getting any sort of response. 16:54:51 q+ 16:55:23 +1 to providing guidance about providing something like a service level agreement and setting the expectations to people that submit issues 16:55:28 ack jason 16:55:59 Jason_K: In addition to severity and communicating to users, maybe provide an alternate way to complete a task. 16:56:26 +1 toalternate route 16:56:29 +1 to providing additional methds 16:56:39 ack cyborg 16:57:22 Cyborg_: Considering people that routinely encounter bugs and are waiting for issue resolutions. Might there be a clause that could encourage them to identify patterns of bugs and maybe provide preventative methods. 16:58:04 Topic: Action Items and Next Meeting 16:58:07 Shadi: These are excellent brainstorms. I'm wondering how much of that fits in technical standard, accompanying guidance, and how much in the policy itself. 16:58:16 cumulative risk of recurring bugs that could be prevented at the level of pattern 16:58:37 .. we meet Mondays at this time. Same policy time, same policy channel 16:58:49 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Substantial_Conformance/Example_Scenarios 17:01:46 Just wanted to make one note that I couldn't get out while scribing. Would this be somewhere we could define that exceptions should be made in circumstances when accessibility issues are encountered. Like, a student trying to submit something by a deadline, but can't because of an accessibility issue, can we guarantee that the organization wouldn't be able to not allow this submission, etc? 17:02:05 Shadi: That's related to the guardrails I was saying we needed. 17:02:55 Can you handle the meeting closing stuff? I don't know how to do that 17:03:04 rrsagent, make logs public 17:03:11 Thanks 17:03:26 rrsagent, make minutes 17:03:28 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/22-wcag3-policy-minutes.html shadi 18:14:12 kirkwood has joined #wcag3-policy 18:47:22 kirkwood has joined #wcag3-policy 19:31:24 kirkwood has joined #wcag3-policy