Meeting minutes
<gb> /issues/43 -> #43
<gb> /issues/83 -> #83
<gb> /issues/85 -> #85
<gb> /issues/89 -> #89
<DrKeith> ++
New Business
Jeff: is anyone planning on a CSUN preso on maturity model?
(looks like no)
<DrKeith> is the call for presentations still open? for CSUN?
Mark: any way to note for future (like a summer topic) to talk about future talks/planning for CSUN?
Janina: Yes, there are methodologies, up to the group to define working processes. Can use Github.
Discuss timeline for Maturity Model release Candidate, next year or are we just expectations.
Janina: targeting July per last conversation. Release candidate may not be correct term? Wide review call will likely target May or June for that.
Github Issue #43 & #83 Usability Update
<gb> /issues/43 -> #43
<gb> /issues/83 -> #83
stacey: it's not issue #83, should be issue #85 in relations to issue #43
<gb> /issues/85 -> #85
Stacey: will have a proof of concept for next meeting, will share it with Susi and aMark before then.
Github Issue #85 Inconsistencies in Inactive ratings for various dimensions
Stacey: this agenda item for #85 should be with 43 above it.
Github Issue #89 ICT Development Lifecycle ratings outcomes aren't stated like the outcomes are in Silver
<gb> /issues/89 -> #89
<Fazio_> w3c/
<gb> Issue 89 ICT Development Lifecycle ratings outcomes aren't stated like the outcomes are in Silver (by maryjom)
Mark: we shouldn't be descriptive. Maybe for VPAT someone is using another description. Is this more about providing examples? Or providing more examples? Adjusting language?
David: agree. Don't want examples to take the place of the content and we don't want to be prescriptive
Jeff: agree. Language for the outcome is very specific, should be more general.
David: does this tie into what Stacey, Mark, and Susi are doing with outcome statements? (tie in #89 with #43 as well?)
Stacey: will take a look with proof of concept
Jeff: re-looked at spreadsheet - we discussed the question of should we have outcomes for inactive stage. Maybe revisit this as a group?
David: Stacey, Mark, and Susi looking at that as part of the usability with the outcomes.
Stacey: Jeff, please join us as you're able
David: any new business?
Janina: anyone want to go back to CSUN convo?
Mark: focus on talks in general in 2024. Do we need to develop a slide deck and a talk, something that could be replicated and delivered by more than one person for whomever has time/wants to? Standardized "agreed-upon" preso?
David: for the intro on introducing and how to talk about the need/why we have the model is needed. But every conference has a theme, so could leave the rest open to discuss and promote (not train)
Janina: we can use the W3C and WAI logos.
David: make sure it's not making it sound like it's from the company/individual you represent during a preso.
David: everyone is free to use their social media channels
Janina: caveat, make it clear that you have or have not gotten blessing for it, you're not speaking for W3C, you're speaking for yourself
Janina: we could put an official video, etc. out there but we might not want to until we're done
David: yes, you can share and promote the model
<janina> APA Videos: https://