<jeanne> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
<Wilco> scribe: Wilco
<janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Current_Glossary_Candidates
Janina: This comes out of
conformance options sub group. We're crafting a definition for
conformance, which contrasts with compliance.
... This is an important distinction to keep in mind.
... We think this could be helpful to continue develop
guidelines and outcome. Especially in conformance
criteria.
... We're not law maker, we shouldn't try to play them. We
think that by being clear on the distinctions it might be
easier to write the part of our specification.
... We know regulators rely on what we've done in the
past.
... The idea is we introduce this here, come back to it in
January
... Do people think this definition might be useful?
<jeanne> Conformance Definition Proposal text: meeting the requirements of a specification or standard.
<jeanne> Something is said to "conform to" a particular standard (as contrasted to some entity complying to a law). An example in this context is conforming to this specification (WCAG 3.0). Some standards define different levels of conformance. In that case, conformance could be to one of the levels of such a standard.
<jeanne> NOTE 1: Conformance is sometimes confused with compliance. Something (e.g. content) would conforms to a standard. An entity (e.g a person or company) complies with a law.
<jeanne> NOTE 2: Compliance with some laws may involve conformance to a standard.
<Chuck> reading...
<Chuck> +1 to good idea (not to adopting yet)
Makoto: This is very helpful and
useful.
... Conformance is confused with compliance all the time when
we translate these into Japanese.
... Some standard define different levels. Conformance can be
to one such level.
<ToddL> Apologies for the lateness.
Janina: We note that in a
standard there may be multiple levels.
... The idea is there.
Jeanne: WCAG 2 is an example. You
can conform to level A, AA or AAA
... We didn't include bronze, silver, gold yet. Didn't want to
get into that discussion.
Jemma: We're trying to define conformance, not the relationship with compliance
Janina: Correct, we don't define compliance, or even say much about.
Jemma: In Korea I hear that WCAG conformance doesn't have an association with compliance.
Janina: The W3C can't tell anyone
who writes regulations what to do.
... Some governments can say you need to conform to WCAG, as
part of their compliance.
... When it's adopted it's usually level AA. It's not something
W3C decides, or should try to decide.
Jemma: Some countries are not
proactive on adopting WCAG.
... I'm talking more about how they adopt it. Conformance is
not in their regulatory system. They try to come up with their
own WCAG, or change some parts of it.
Jeanne: This came from a
discussion where people said that conformance and compliance
are the same.
... In many dictionary definitions they are the same. We need a
way to say what governments are responsible for, and what we
are responsible for.
... We want language to use when coming up against issues that
are more applicable to governments than to a standards
group.
Kirkwood: I feel privileged to
have been on the government side, and on the
compliance/conformance side to guide an agency to meet WCAG
criteria.
... The language gives more of a legal perspective on it, but I
don't think it makes much of a difference.
<Jemma> +1 kirkwood's description of real application.
Kirkwood: We can write the
specifications for it. It's written in the contracts they have
to meet these requirements.
... I don't think it'll make much of a difference.
... I don't think we should spend too much time interpreting
what the legal language should be.
Jeanne: I think this gives us a way to speak about it internally.
<Jemma> I think he touched on the part I was trying to address.
<jeanne> scribe: jeanne
<Jemma> +1 helpful background info, wilco
WF: Example: Third party content - deciding what is first party and what is third party is legal decision and we can't do that. We can say what is required for third party and first party.
<Wilco> Janina: Can we take this back in January before we make the decision?
<scribe> ACTION: discuss again in January
https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/460
<Wilco> Jeanne: Makoto drafted a response.
Draft Response:
Thank you for your comment.
We agree with you that we have to consider the need for flexibility around large and highly dynamic websites and complex software. And we already got this concern in the #448. Please let us use it to address this issue.
And we will use this issue (#460) to track your proposal to create a mapping between "WCAG 2.x" and "WCAG 3.0". We will definitely create it to encourage those already using WCAG 2.x to adopt WCAG 3.0.
<Wilco> Jeanne: This ties it to issue 448.
<Wilco> ... Any comments or suggestions?
<Chuck> I like it!
<Wilco> Wilco: Suggest not starting the sentence with "and". It's editorial
draft RESOLUTION: Accept response to Issue 460 with editorial adjustment
<Chuck> scribe: Chuck
<sarahhorton> +1
Jeanne: If you agree to accept amended response, please +1
<jeanne> +1
<ToddL> +1
+1
<janina> 1
<Makoto> +1
<janina> +1
<Jemma> +1 it is guiding where the issue will be taken care of.
<Rachael> +1
<Wilco> scribe: Wilco
RESOLUTION: Accept response to Issue 460 with editorial adjustment
<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/470
Rachael: We took this into the
process subgroup. It's being worked on. Don't need to track it
here.
... Mike has taken this.
<jeanne> ACTION: Assigned to label Process
<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/494
Jeanne: This issue is about
content-free applications and frameworks
... Shawn wrote a draft response.
<jeanne> Draft response:
<jeanne> Definitely something that we'll continue working through, and the continuation of establishing how basic conformance and scoring will work can help set some of the foundations that we'll need before we can really answer this more completely.
Jeanne: Are we going to accept a "we know, we'll work on it in the future" as language to close the issue?
Rachael: Don't think we can close it until it's addressed.
Chuck: Agreed. I think it needs work.
Michael: Can we tag it to a milestone, make sure it gets picked up at the right time.
Jeanne: This is an internal
comment, it does not need to be processed officially.
... We have a label for internal comments. It is so
labelled.
Rachael: We could tie this into the validating conformance portion of the schedule.
Jemma: I think this issue is more about conformance
Jeanne: I updated the comment.
<Jemma> +1 to Jeanne
<Chuck> +1 to Jeanne.
<Chuck> no survey
Rachael: Let's see what JF says. If we're not closing it, it doesn't need to go to survey
<jeanne> draft RESOLUTION: Issue 494 will remain open for now.
<Chuck> +1 no objections
RESOLUTION: Issue 494 will remain open for now.
<janina> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/450
Janina: The comment has two
bullets. The recently published draft begins to address one of
the points, but not the other.
... We'd like to get the response of the commenter. Therefor
this comment.
<jeanne> DRAFT RESPONSE: The updated WCAG 3 Working Draft just published contains Sec.
<jeanne> 6.2: User Generated Content which
<jeanne> responds to your second bullet in your comment. We solicit and welcome your
<jeanne> response to this first iteration of proposed conformance criteria relating to
<jeanne> user generated content even as we continue to bring additional third party
<jeanne> guidance into future WCAG 3 Working Drafts.
<jeanne> We are still in active discussion on your first bullet.
Jemma: Janina, would you mind, what is the current direction for the second bullet.
<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#user-generated-content
Jeanne: That's part of the draft published last week.
Janina: We added a link to section 6.2
Jeanne: I'm putting this in as ready for survey. We aren't going to close since we're in active conversation about the first bullet.
Jemma: So there is no responsibility of the site owner for example to add alternative text?
Jeanne: The proposal for user
generated content included increased responsibility to have the
tools available to make the content accessible, but not to make
the content accessible.
... The example on text alternatives was not accepted by the
working group.
Jemma: I don't think it's reasonable that the content provider has no responsibility.
Janina: Should YouTube be responsible to provide good captions for all video?
Jemma: I think so. They should
check.
... When it comes to compliance, YouTube is responsible.
... They are first gatekeeper. It's part of education too as a
third-party vendor.
<kirkwood> +1 JaEun agreed all points
Janina: I think it's important to
be practical, not expect every child who puts a comment on a
social media site to hold them to our rules that require some
expertise.
... But say a major company uses social media site, they have a
need.
... This is something a regulator is much better equipped to
do.
Jemma: When a teenager uploads a picture, Instagram should add for an alternative text.
<sarahhorton> +1 Jemma
Janina: Prompting the user, providing good tooling is what we expect to happen. Enforcing it is something else.
Jemma: Including education. I think this is fundamental.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that what we are trying to do is to have requirements to provide the tools to users to make their content accessibnle, but the individual tools are in
<kirkwood> +1 JaEuan
Jeanne: We're trying to make vendors more responsible then they are today. They have no responsibility. It's third-party content, not part of conformance, and it's undue burdon.
<Chuck> +1 to Jeanne's point, this is increasing responsibility.
Jeanne: They don't have to do
anything today. What we're trying to do is if you have a
website that accepts user generated content, you must provide
the tools to make it accessible.
... We're trying to make sites more responsible, not less.
Jemma: That's the direction I'd like to support.
Jeanne: This is in section 6.2
Janina: I think we said the specific steps would be addressed per guideline.
Jemma: I wish this had inside user generated content.
Janina: We may have a lot of guidelines.
Jemma: I want the intention clear
in user generated content
... Is there anywhere I can see this?
Janina: We had work that wasn't approved by AGWG
Jemma: I just want to see the intention of user generated content
Rachael: If we have something to include, we can create an issue and tie it into this item
Jemma: Sounds good
Janina: All of it will be improved
Rachael: We have tools, create and group issues. We can note them and postpone them.
Jeanne: We have a lot of work that has to be done in parallel
<jeanne> draft: RESOLUTION: To accept the response on Issue 450
<Chuck> +1
<janina> +1
<ToddL> +1
<Makoto> +1
<jeanne> +1
<Jemma> +1
<sarahhorton> +1
Jemma: I'll create an issue
RESOLUTION: To accept the response on Issue 450
<jeanne> Next meeting: January 7
Jeanne: We'll meet again on January 7th
<JenniferS> +1
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: jeanne, janina, Wilco, Makoto, Jemma, ToddL, sarahhorton, kirkwood, JenniferS Present: jeanne, janina, Wilco, Makoto, Jemma, ToddL, sarahhorton, kirkwood, JenniferS Found Scribe: Wilco Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco Found Scribe: jeanne Inferring ScribeNick: jeanne Found Scribe: Chuck Inferring ScribeNick: Chuck Found Scribe: Wilco Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco Scribes: Wilco, jeanne, Chuck ScribeNicks: Wilco, jeanne, Chuck WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: assigned discuss WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]