15:58:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-policy
15:58:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/07/17-wcag3-policy-irc
15:58:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wcag3-policy
15:59:44 <shadi> meeting: Guidance for Policy Makers Subgroup
16:00:01 <shadi> chair: shadi
16:00:06 <shadi> present+
16:00:16 <Azlan> Azlan has joined #wcag3-policy
16:00:42 <garcialo> garcialo has joined #wcag3-policy
16:01:31 <bruce_bailey> bruce_bailey has joined #wcag3-policy
16:02:35 <shadi> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B-qfTrPxnhIa0AxhPEF6SIDTLAGnneoauBRHGzS5q7U/edit
16:03:14 <bruce_bailey> present+
16:03:17 <laura> laura has joined #wcag3-policy
16:03:20 <bruce_bailey> zakim, agenda?
16:03:20 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
16:03:21 <bruce_bailey> q
16:03:28 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:03:53 <Azlan> present+
16:03:58 <bruce_bailey> ack me
16:04:42 <Jason_K> Jason_K has joined #wcag3-policy
16:04:42 <garcialo> ready
16:04:48 <Jason_K> Present+
16:04:55 <Jason_K> ready
16:04:58 <garcialo> present+
16:05:43 <Azlan> ready
16:06:43 <laura> regrets+ Laura_Carlson
16:07:36 <Jason_K> scribe: Jason_K
16:07:40 <shadi> regrets+ John_Kirkwood
16:08:19 <garcialo> Jason, if you need to make comments and stuff, I can scribe for what you say.
16:08:27 <Jason_K> Shadi: From the top, this is quiet a significant rewrite, but hope it captures all of the discussion last week
16:08:37 <Jason_K> ... any thoughts/comments?
16:08:48 <bruce_bailey> q+ to say seems time based
16:09:29 <Jason_K> Luis : Is this full conforming, the phrase. I think something like that has been mentioned previously but not much is mentioned.
16:09:47 <Jason_K> ... one big difference with WCAG3, is that its not all or nothing, like WCAG 2.
16:10:03 <Jason_K> ... saying fully conforming feels more WCAG2, then WCAG 3
16:10:11 <bruce_bailey> +1 to emphasize all-or-nothing (as a bug)
16:10:58 <bruce_bailey> ack me
16:10:58 <Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say seems time based
16:10:58 <Jason_K> ... no proposed alternated wording that he had in mind
16:12:12 <Jason_K> bruce: 508 has exceptions, there are things that are not conforming. The additionl of instantly and immediately that is at tension. Is make it sounds like fully conforming is only a problem at the start
16:12:58 <Jason_K> Shadi: It has been phrased differently at different parts of the document
16:13:44 <Jason_K> ... he flips back and forth. 'Instantly or immediately' is more semantics. For an abstract, this seems a bit repetitative
16:13:45 <bruce_bailey> +1 for only one of two (instantly OR immediately)
16:14:17 <Jason_K> Luis: Overlaps with the 'always'. Abstract seems a bit heavy now
16:14:41 <bruce_bailey> q?
16:15:26 <Jason_K> Shadi: 2 seperate things, sometimes not always feasible, and sometimes not immediately feasible
16:16:04 <Jason_K> Azlan: Was going to agree with regards to the first sentence, fully does feel a bit overkill at that point
16:16:18 <Jason_K> ... especially when saying conforming with all criteria
16:16:18 <bruce_bailey> +1 to Shadi, to agree that "immediately" is different issue than "feasible"
16:16:34 <Jason_K> ... at this point in the abstract, its diving too much into the detail
16:17:50 <SusiPallero> SusiPallero has joined #wcag3-policy
16:17:52 <Jason_K> Shadi: We had the example in the use case of images that refresh constantly, you probably can't provide text alternatives every refresh, but you can provide an alt-text of these are images form satelittes, etc
16:17:54 <SusiPallero> present+
16:18:13 <Jason_K> ... think of difference between meeting a criteria, or not meeting a criteria fully
16:18:28 <Jason_K> ... there is alteast something you can do
16:19:26 <Jason_K> ... will take another pass at rewording, so its not so overboard
16:19:39 <Jason_K> ... need to formulate things very carefully
16:20:20 <Jason_K> Luis: Something that came to mind, what if you consider it from the perspective there are sometimes thingsthat might happen that would break our level of conformance
16:20:32 <Jason_K> ... ie. users upload items, satelittes refresh, etc
16:22:02 <Jason_K> Shadi: in reference to the example of company A buying company B; So this maybe a useful angle to add, altho its become too detailed aswell
16:22:13 <Jason_K> Luis: Its nice, but its a bit too wordy of an example
16:22:27 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:22:50 <Jason_K> Bruce: i think i vote for zero or both examples.
16:23:01 <Azlan> q+ to say bugs covered in the second example too
16:23:10 <Jason_K> ... feels like the first sentence leads very nicely. then you have your examples
16:23:21 <Jason_K> ... we'll have a lot more detail in examples
16:23:29 <garcialo> q+
16:23:36 <Jason_K> Shadi: Either both or none, preferably non
16:23:39 <Jason_K> ack bruce_bailey
16:23:58 <Jason_K> Bruce: one example instantly, one example feasible
16:24:02 <Jason_K> ack Azlan
16:24:02 <Zakim> Azlan, you wanted to say bugs covered in the second example too
16:24:39 <Jason_K> Azlan: Includes bugs called out specificaly in first example, almost doubling down on that. Is it neccessary to go into that at that level
16:24:50 <Jason_K> ack garcialo
16:25:13 <Jason_K> Luis: we can get rid of everything but that sentence, company A buying company B whose site is not accessible
16:25:19 <Azlan> +1
16:25:34 <Jason_K> Shadi: Hearing agreement on bruces proposal to narrow down
16:26:20 <Jason_K> Shadi: was looking at considerations for bugs, but there were additional considerations added. So its getting bigger and bigger.
16:26:33 <Jason_K> ... reducing and moving down
16:27:00 <Jason_K> Luis: If this is something the working group will work on, itll be wordsmithed. Keep is less cluttered, and easily for people to read it
16:27:35 <Jason_K> Shadi: We are trying to make a minimal viable product, to show the group what is this work
16:27:50 <Jason_K> ... trying to show what the doc is supposed to do, and provide 1 or 2 examples
16:28:13 <Jason_K> ... be nice and concise with what the doc is and how it will be used
16:28:36 <Jason_K> Luis: What do you think about starting with the second paragraph. this is what the doc is trying to do
16:28:45 <Jason_K> .. Do we need the first paragraph
16:29:37 <Jason_K> Shadi: Version last week was too brief. Then things were moved to background.
16:29:59 <Jason_K> Luis: Not sure what the first paragraph is saying. Maybe more appropriate for background
16:30:15 <Jason_K> Shadi: Trying to summarize the background
16:30:42 <shadi> q?
16:30:44 <Jason_K> ... other thoughts
16:31:20 <Jason_K> ... Sentence greg suggest removing, when policy focus on conformance, etc it might not be feasible in practice...
16:31:37 <Jason_K> ... for example EU directive to require all sites/apps conforming to WCAG 2.1
16:32:32 <Jason_K> ... counter productive effect of the driveby lawsuits over 1 missing alt text
16:32:46 <Jason_K> ... not sure, did respond to greg, and ask if he could rephrase
16:33:15 <Jason_K> Luis: not sure its necessary, feels like its saying what the first paragraph is saying
16:33:28 <bruce_bailey> +1 for mentioning risk of drive-by-lawsuit, but +1 to Louis that maybe abstract is not best place
16:34:02 <Jason_K> Luis: Gave motiviate behind it, but its not in the document only elluding to it
16:34:25 <Jason_K> Bruce: I agree with both points, especially with risk.
16:35:22 <Jason_K> Luis: If i'm a policy maker, looking for guidance, does this inform me about the drive by lawsuits.
16:35:37 <Jason_K> ... what policies am i going to create to help balance/mitigate for risk and conform
16:36:01 <Jason_K> Shadi: 2 questions in here, first, one how this doc is addressing the issue
16:36:30 <Jason_K> ... hopefully that in considerations (bug/oversight), by considering these things in your policy, you contribute to less drive by lawsuits
16:36:47 <Jason_K> ... seperation between conformance and compliance
16:37:22 <Jason_K> ... I hope this document, will give them ideas how to design policies to minimize those lawsuits
16:38:09 <Jason_K> ... if i design policies wrong, not only will it not be feasible, but at same time it might be doing some harm
16:38:54 <Jason_K> ... needs to be clear, either minimize or remove abstract, consider moving down to background
16:39:11 <SusiPallero> +1
16:39:12 <Azlan> +1
16:39:12 <Jason_K> ... Is this agreable with all?
16:39:16 <Jason_K> +1
16:39:16 <bruce_bailey> +1
16:39:23 <garcialo> +1
16:39:35 <Jason_K> Shadi: any other comments on abstract?
16:40:15 <Jason_K> ... also consider flipping around 2 paragraphs, or if you need 2 paragraphs
16:40:37 <Jason_K> ... Lets talk about the background section
16:40:55 <SusiPallero> No
16:41:04 <garcialo> no
16:42:16 <Jason_K> ... same with introduction
16:42:58 <Jason_K> Luis: Maybe for concise, we stop at feasible. might be wordsmith, but will get main message accross
16:43:14 <Jason_K> Shadi: Hoping greg would be hear to talk about his comments
16:43:45 <Jason_K> ... don't want this to be an agrument to bring down the whole thing
16:43:55 <Jason_K> ... prefer it to be a bit more academic language here
16:44:11 <Jason_K> Luis: Does the use case for WCAG 3 phrase this a certain way
16:44:33 <Jason_K> Shadi: Looking back, Didn't get a consensus
16:45:05 <Jason_K> Luis: Instead of definitely saying, might not feasible, we phrase it as challenge towards conformance
16:46:00 <Jason_K> ... it just says these are challenge when you conform, doesn't give someone an out
16:46:11 <Jason_K> Shadi: Will policy maker continue to read
16:46:20 <Jason_K> ... may not be feasible
16:46:36 <Jason_K> Luis: that too is a challenge, it softens the finality of it
16:47:04 <Jason_K> Shadi: Feedback from the last 2 round was it wasn't clear enough
16:48:06 <SusiPallero> No
16:48:07 <Jason_K> ... any other comments on the introduction section?
16:48:35 <Jason_K> Luis: Considers the scope of WCAG 2
16:48:52 <Jason_K> Shadi: It is a bit of an overkill, but will take a stab at rewording
16:49:48 <Jason_K> Shadi: WCAG 3 available 6-7 years from now.
16:49:54 <Jason_K> ... we are looking at several years
16:50:16 <Jason_K> ...trying to take in consideration both WCAG 2 and 3
16:50:33 <Jason_K> ... jury is still out on what it will look like
16:52:25 <Jason_K> ... hoping this could be backwards compatible
16:53:20 <Jason_K> ... Scope of Responsibility
16:53:41 <SusiPallero> Finished reading
16:53:55 <garcialo> done
16:53:59 <Jason_K> done
16:54:55 <Jason_K> Luis: I like it, don't think it needs to be actionable. Maybe needs a closing sentence or two
16:54:56 <bruce_bailey> q+
16:55:12 <Jason_K> ... keep these things in mind, consider things are things to think about
16:55:12 <SusiPallero> +1 to Luis
16:55:20 <Jason_K> ack bruce_bailey
16:55:39 <Jason_K> bruce: mentioned ppl who make the policy might not have control over the things in the policy
16:56:03 <Jason_K> ...doesn't explicitely say that the people who are liable for the policy, might not have input to the policy
16:56:16 <Jason_K> shadi: this would be a recommendation
16:57:12 <Jason_K> ... my worry is its repeating more scenarios/use cases
16:57:18 <Jason_K> ... what can you do?
16:57:38 <Jason_K> ... can point back to use cases, but its good background for policy makers to understand
16:57:45 <Jason_K> ... what can they actually do
16:58:11 <Jason_K> Luis: What it does, at very least is that it kind of summarizes whats in the use cases document
16:58:25 <Jason_K> Shadi: having everything in one place
16:58:43 <Jason_K> Luis: Maybe the use cases doc is not refered to explicitely.
16:58:52 <Jason_K> ... restating example scenarios
16:58:57 <Jason_K> ... is not hard to follow
16:59:21 <Jason_K> Shadi: Good to provide different approaches
16:59:28 <bruce_bailey> I inserted some possible suggested text between two sentences.
17:00:10 <bruce_bailey> Under Scope of Responsibility,  "It is often the case that parties required to follow policy cannot change policy.  Input from policy stakeholders is important."
17:00:14 <Jason_K> Shadi: Go to use cases and try to pick one issue, and try to put it into what can a policy maker do about that
17:01:44 <garcialo> garcialo has left #wcag3-policy
17:06:28 <shadi> regrets+ Wendy
17:06:35 <shadi> zakim, end meeting
17:06:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been shadi, bruce_bailey, Azlan, Jason_K, garcialo, SusiPallero
17:06:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:06:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/17-wcag3-policy-minutes.html Zakim
17:06:41 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, shadi; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:06:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag3-policy
17:07:00 <shadi> rrsagent, make logs world
17:08:08 <shadi> rrsagent, make minutes
17:08:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/07/17-wcag3-policy-minutes.html shadi
17:08:37 <shadi> rrsagent, bye
17:08:37 <RRSAgent> I see no action items