IRC log of wcag3-policy on 2023-07-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

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