– DRAFT –
Guidance for Policy Makers Subgroup

<shadi> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B-qfTrPxnhIa0AxhPEF6SIDTLAGnneoauBRHGzS5q7U/edit

<garcialo> ready

ready

<Azlan> ready

<garcialo> Jason, if you need to make comments and stuff, I can scribe for what you say.

Shadi: From the top, this is quiet a significant rewrite, but hope it captures all of the discussion last week
… any thoughts/comments?

Luis: Is this full conforming, the phrase. I think something like that has been mentioned previously but not much is mentioned.
… one big difference with WCAG3, is that its not all or nothing, like WCAG 2.
… saying fully conforming feels more WCAG2, then WCAG 3

<bruce_bailey> +1 to emphasize all-or-nothing (as a bug)

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say seems time based

Luis: no proposed alternated wording that he had in mind

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

Shadi: It has been phrased differently at different parts of the document
… he flips back and forth. 'Instantly or immediately' is more semantics. For an abstract, this seems a bit repetitative

<bruce_bailey> +1 for only one of two (instantly OR immediately)

Luis: Overlaps with the 'always'. Abstract seems a bit heavy now

Shadi: 2 seperate things, sometimes not always feasible, and sometimes not immediately feasible

Azlan: Was going to agree with regards to the first sentence, fully does feel a bit overkill at that point
… especially when saying conforming with all criteria

<bruce_bailey> +1 to Shadi, to agree that "immediately" is different issue than "feasible"

Azlan: at this point in the abstract, its diving too much into the detail

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
… think of difference between meeting a criteria, or not meeting a criteria fully
… there is alteast something you can do
… will take another pass at rewording, so its not so overboard
… need to formulate things very carefully

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
… ie. users upload items, satelittes refresh, etc

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

Luis: Its nice, but its a bit too wordy of an example

Bruce: i think i vote for zero or both examples.
… feels like the first sentence leads very nicely. then you have your examples
… we'll have a lot more detail in examples

Shadi: Either both or none, preferably non

Bruce: one example instantly, one example feasible

<Zakim> Azlan, you wanted to say bugs covered in the second example too

Azlan: Includes bugs called out specificaly in first example, almost doubling down on that. Is it neccessary to go into that at that level

Luis: we can get rid of everything but that sentence, company A buying company B whose site is not accessible

<Azlan> +1

Shadi: Hearing agreement on bruces proposal to narrow down

Shadi: was looking at considerations for bugs, but there were additional considerations added. So its getting bigger and bigger.
… reducing and moving down

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

Shadi: We are trying to make a minimal viable product, to show the group what is this work
… trying to show what the doc is supposed to do, and provide 1 or 2 examples
… be nice and concise with what the doc is and how it will be used

Luis: What do you think about starting with the second paragraph. this is what the doc is trying to do
… Do we need the first paragraph

Shadi: Version last week was too brief. Then things were moved to background.

Luis: Not sure what the first paragraph is saying. Maybe more appropriate for background

Shadi: Trying to summarize the background
… other thoughts
… Sentence greg suggest removing, when policy focus on conformance, etc it might not be feasible in practice...
… for example EU directive to require all sites/apps conforming to WCAG 2.1
… counter productive effect of the driveby lawsuits over 1 missing alt text
… not sure, did respond to greg, and ask if he could rephrase

Luis: not sure its necessary, feels like its saying what the first paragraph is saying

<bruce_bailey> +1 for mentioning risk of drive-by-lawsuit, but +1 to Louis that maybe abstract is not best place

Luis: Gave motiviate behind it, but its not in the document only elluding to it

Bruce: I agree with both points, especially with risk.

Luis: If i'm a policy maker, looking for guidance, does this inform me about the drive by lawsuits.
… what policies am i going to create to help balance/mitigate for risk and conform

Shadi: 2 questions in here, first, one how this doc is addressing the issue
… hopefully that in considerations (bug/oversight), by considering these things in your policy, you contribute to less drive by lawsuits
… seperation between conformance and compliance
… I hope this document, will give them ideas how to design policies to minimize those lawsuits
… if i design policies wrong, not only will it not be feasible, but at same time it might be doing some harm
… needs to be clear, either minimize or remove abstract, consider moving down to background

<SusiPallero> +1

<Azlan> +1

Shadi: Is this agreable with all?

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<garcialo> +1

Shadi: any other comments on abstract?
… also consider flipping around 2 paragraphs, or if you need 2 paragraphs
… Lets talk about the background section

<SusiPallero> No

<garcialo> no

Shadi: same with introduction

Luis: Maybe for concise, we stop at feasible. might be wordsmith, but will get main message accross

Shadi: Hoping greg would be hear to talk about his comments
… don't want this to be an agrument to bring down the whole thing
… prefer it to be a bit more academic language here

Luis: Does the use case for WCAG 3 phrase this a certain way

Shadi: Looking back, Didn't get a consensus

Luis: Instead of definitely saying, might not feasible, we phrase it as challenge towards conformance
… it just says these are challenge when you conform, doesn't give someone an out

Shadi: Will policy maker continue to read
… may not be feasible

Luis: that too is a challenge, it softens the finality of it

Shadi: Feedback from the last 2 round was it wasn't clear enough

<SusiPallero> No

Shadi: any other comments on the introduction section?

Luis: Considers the scope of WCAG 2

Shadi: It is a bit of an overkill, but will take a stab at rewording

Shadi: WCAG 3 available 6-7 years from now.
… we are looking at several years
… trying to take in consideration both WCAG 2 and 3
… jury is still out on what it will look like
… hoping this could be backwards compatible
… Scope of Responsibility

<SusiPallero> Finished reading

<garcialo> done

done

Luis: I like it, don't think it needs to be actionable. Maybe needs a closing sentence or two
… keep these things in mind, consider things are things to think about

<SusiPallero> +1 to Luis

bruce: mentioned ppl who make the policy might not have control over the things in the policy
… doesn't explicitely say that the people who are liable for the policy, might not have input to the policy

shadi: this would be a recommendation
… my worry is its repeating more scenarios/use cases
… what can you do?
… can point back to use cases, but its good background for policy makers to understand
… what can they actually do

Luis: What it does, at very least is that it kind of summarizes whats in the use cases document

Shadi: having everything in one place

Luis: Maybe the use cases doc is not refered to explicitely.
… restating example scenarios
… is not hard to follow

Shadi: Good to provide different approaches

<bruce_bailey> I inserted some possible suggested text between two sentences.

<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."

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