Gallery of Accessible Template Challenge

01 Oct 2010

See also: IRC log


John_Croston, Judy, jeanne, Jamal, Jan, Elizabeth, Cynthia_Shelly


agendum 1. Agenda overview

agendum 2. "Quick recap of status of all parts of the project; + question from Scott" taken up [from Judy]

Priming the pump strategy: getting a host of high confidence material from close collaborators that would give people an example of what we are looking for.

... We will ask for these later on the call, and then point Anish to that with a descriptive overview of the project. That would cover Scott's question.

... I will be talking with Scott in a week.

Wiki description, pieces that are in motion. We still need the piece of how the gallery could hang together.

<Judy> ===== snapshot: 3 bits: wiki overview; sample half-dozen; css zen garden ======

Prep for Challenge.gov posting (content; admin host; w3c; accessibility; length; other)

Judy: was there a need for legal review? I think it was for prizes, but we will not be prize oriented. There was a review by W3C management for W3C sponsorship and there was enthusiasm

Jamal: There is greater review if there is prize money. There is also review if there is a panel of judges.
... they don't want it to appear that any company we regulate is getting favor by helping us with this project.

Judy: there has been concern about accessibility of the site itself. We haven't sent them a formal "these are our concerns".

Jamal: That has been on my to-do list.

Judy: We can have an informal meeting next week and bring it up at the Unconference to get a list.

John: Or give them the worst problem, and encourage them to fix it, then tell them the next problem.

Judy: What if we set a 3 month time limit initially and if it was going smoothly, we can extend it. What do people think of a short start up with a permanent gallery.

Jamal: I like it. It motivates people to do it now rather than postpone it if they have a long deadline.

Updates on approach for reviewing submissions (criteria; skills; people; training; tracking; turn-around)

<cyns> As long as we combine a short-term challenge program with a longer-term (or permenant) hosting and searching mechanism, short is fine. Short is probably better for motivating people.

Jan: We met for 20 minutes. We would need different categores, because the need for evaluating a static HTML template would be very different from the time to evaluate a complex widget.
... for large submissions from an organization, then we would spot check 5-10% and put all the submissions up. If there were complaints, the entire submission would be taken down. If we got submissions from high school classes, we could have responses ready to thank them and send to them with suggestions. Keep separate the challenge from direct submissions from more trusted groups.

Cyn: Some of the things we (microsoft) would want to submit, are in Sharepoint and already have WCAG conformance statements.

Jan: This is exactly what we meant - where we would do some spot-checking. We need to discuss what would be a reasonable sample.

Judy: Next Saturday, could Jeanne or Jamal some session on evaluating these kinds of things.

John: Do a group on testing and then go into this?

Jamal: It is hard to describe in the abstract. If there were samples to show, that would help.

Judy: there will be samples by then.

John: Last year, there was a group doing coding, it may be possible to get some involvment.

Judy: We could also reach out to Loretta Guarino-Reed, for her experience with the WCAG rollout.
... for example, if there is disagreement between people as to what is accessible, we don't want to make it very public. Be sensitive to the fact that this could be someone's product.
... we had to document very clear conformance examples.

Jan: We aren't saying it is accessible, but we can pick and choose what goes in the gallery without saying whether or not it is accessible.

<Judy> [note to judy: note expectations in gallery text, wrt conformance support & whether something gets posted]

Further discussion on security and persistence of linked off-site resources

Jan will be traveling the next week. Judy will try to capture in the wiki what Jan and Jeanne discussed. The following week, we will firm that up.

Jeanne should meet with Loretta and Michael to do a simpler version of the testing. Judy will send an email to Loretta and Michael to help with priorities.

Hosting and off-site hosting. How do we make sure that the material is not changed?

Jan: There could be a disclaimer that it was checked on a certain date, and a link to report a problem.

Judy: We need to have some kind of submission agreeemnt that you will try to keep the submission persistent and accessible.

Jamal: I don't think it would be a problem with a 90 day challenge.

Judy: I am also thinking of longer term gallery.

<Judy> ====== [note on persistence & security: *was checked on* date + disclaimer + link to report + (?and possibly, an agreement if posted)

Candidate hosts for the stable longer-term gallery

Judy: What would the criteria be for a host for a longer term gallery? A federal agency, an international agency?

??: I think it should be its own organization. Even if it was a .gov, it would not be under one agency.

Cyn: International - where all would be welcome

<Judy> ==== criteria for longer-term host of gallery itself ====

<Judy> + international

<Judy> + its own identity

<Judy> + decent bandwidth

<Judy> + backed by data-center quality

<Judy> + persistent

<Judy> + funding....???

Confirming "prime the pump" submissions; circulate samples to list now; cross-review initial set?

Judy: looking for a diverse collection (about 12 items) to start out the gallary

Cyn: had an interesting example that she saw in Vienna. She will send to Judy.

<Judy> ==== candidates for "priming the pump" initial high-confidence submissions ====

<Judy> Microsoft, Adobe, Hi-Software, AEGIS, IDRC, IBM, Fluid, SS, IRS


cross-reviewing the initial submissions

Judy: we are building a community behind this effort. I would like to get 6 people who would commit to reviewing someone else's submission.

<Judy> ==== Willing to help look at the initial samples: Jamal, John after unconf; Cynthia; Jeanne;

Cyn: concern about the environment issue - having a system that would be able to install the widgets

<Judy> jb -- check two other people not here today

We will have ARIA stuff from John and Jan.

Outreach goals at next week's unconference (who; presentations; recruiting sites & evaluators)

jeanne and John will talk about presenting at the Camp. Jeanne will talk about ATAG and mention the gallery.

Jeanne may talk about testing and mention the gallery. Jeanne will talk with John to see if there is something that Jeanne can contribute about testing

John, Jamal and Jeanne will talk about the Gallery with the larger audience, that will reach a broader group.

<Judy> * upfront 5 minute bit

<Judy> * atag2 presentation/jeanne/mentions challenge

<Judy> * challenge/gallery presentation/jamal (depending)

<Judy> recruiting goals -- planning; submissions; evaluation

Judy: On evaluation of submissions - WCAG always had two people review each submission, sometimes people had very different responses. Sometimes it was the evaluator, who may not have the knowledge or experience to evaluate.

Jeanne: Often, when there were differences, the two evaluators and Loretta would exchange email or get on the phone and compare notes. Often it could be worked out where someone missed something or that we had to agree on interpretation. But every discrepancy was worked out.

Update on potential launch scenarios and schedule

Judy: @@ [brief overview of schedule]

launch the week of the 26 or the 18?

John: I am not available until the 11th, so that only gives me a week for a launch date of the 18.

Cyn: october is good for me.

Jeanne: 18th launch date would be difficult for me.

Upcoming meetings schedule

Judy: Keep the same schedule for upcoming weeks.

John: I will be speaking at the time.

Jan: traveling

Jeanne and Cyn are good for next week.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]