Accessibility Statements

<Brent> Link: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Accessibility_Statements_Requirements

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

Shadi: A month ago we had a call to look at the requirements analysis. Put out a survey and got 11 reviews. Really good to have these comments and some were detailed on GitHUb (from Robert and Vicki) and those have been addressed.
... thanks for making it easier to read. Not wanting to spend too much time on the analysis. Today want to be sure that we agree on the putpose, think about what the resource may look like, have a shared understanding so Eric V and I can go back and get started actually developing this.

Eric V: agreed

Shadi: In the comments, I see comments from Sylvie, having a list of things excluded - what did you think of that, will it require edits?

Eric V: Not really it is already in what we have proposed. Just make sure to kee[ in mind so it is in the final resource. I agree completely with Sylvie that it is improtant.

Shadi: The reference is mostly in the remarks and explanation section. May not be clear to everyone that this will be a dignificant part of the statement.

<scribe> Scribe: Chris

Shadi: issues addressed? Comments, questions?
... examples of existing statements

Lainey: will remove bad accessibility statements from site

Eric: require deliberate wording in examples for proper guidance

Shadi: machine readable formats could be problematic due to rigidity

<evelleman> Can we put the link to the statements in IRC?

Brent: are we proposing specific elements be included?

Shadi: yes

Brent: could be complex based on org structure
... Buy in could be a challenge. How do proceed?

Shadi: same approach as WCAG methodology
... make granular statements
... specificity in the scope

Eric E: good if you have general a11y statement, and then link to statements regarding different products

Brent: buy in is still problematic

Shadi: each org will have to resolve internally

<shadi> [[need to consider cascading/aggregation of accessibility statements]]

Brent: Does this statement expose accessibility reporting? Is that the intent?

Eric P: this is a requirement for certain sites in Europe. Replace required with proposed?

Shadi: Statement not intended to work this way, but could link to related docs

Lainey: This requirement statement could provide an unnecessary target

Brent: statement could show org intent regarding accessibility moving forward

<shawn> Lainey points to https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/accessibility-of-public-sector-websites-and-apps-new-duties-and-regulations/consultation-information-and-questions

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: Shawn Sharron EricE Howard Chris Shadi Brent Robert EricV Lainey(observer) Lainey
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Found Scribe: Chris
Inferring ScribeNick: Chris
Scribes: Sharron, Chris
ScribeNicks: Sharron, Chris
Found Date: 17 May 2018
People with action items: 

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.)