Shawn: Just want to make sure everyone was aware of first topic. Email was sent out to main list soliciting feedback about process of creating WCAG 2.1 and how it works.
<Lauriat> Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/processfeedback/
<Charles> I have “You are not allowed to see this questionnaire.”
<Cyborg> i can't get access to the survey. or how to contact them. or the questions.
<Cyborg> and the questions too?
Shawn: In order to take it, you need to have W3C account and only those identified as participants of the WCAG working group can do it, but there is an email you can send feedback to. So if you tried working with the WG before, you can send something to that email. I'll send it to everyone in our group.
<Lauriat> Question 1: Feedback on current decision policy
<Lauriat> Question 2: Feedback on Techniques and Understanding document development process
<Cyborg> Can we see links to their current decision policy or techniques and document development process?
<Lauriat> Link to the email describing things: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JulSep/0063.html
Shawn: The goal around this is to focus on prototypes we want to make solid and have testing done before TPAC in October. Spending time on things we can do before then and not other things.
Cyborg: Can we list the prototypes underway?
<Lauriat> List of prototypes: https://w3c.github.io/silver/prototypes/index.html
<Charles> https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/master/prototypes/index.html
<Lauriat> Phase 3: Project Plan https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10p-8-v-XqRllBaX_eTiXXvyyDYeft8GRiN3_11V3U0w/edit#gid=0
Charles: I think the Table 4 prototype is worth working on. That need is developed first without disability and guidance is provided starting with simple and then technical. Ex. Problem: User can't hear; outline solution without saying deaf/deafness/hard-of-hearing.
Kelsey: What is the reason we're not naming the disability?
Charles: It's the most inclusive way to identify a problem and a solution to the problem.
<Lauriat> https://chaals.github.io/proto-silver/atc18/videoAccessibility.html
<Charles> https://codepen.io/hallmedia/pen/zWpoEd
Shawn: It might help to stack
rant our prototypes.
... homepage design and standards for naming tagging can
probably go below Information Architecture
... Plain language should stay pretty high priority
Cyborg: Don't know if that's been updated.
Shawn: I think the sheet itself hasn't, but on Github...it's marked as out of date.
AngelaAccessForAll: Talked to Jeanne; we should have an update for that by Friday.
Shawn: Order we have at the moment - Plain Language Translation, Information Architecture and Conformance Model; below is standards for naming/tagging and homepage design (waiting on IA, but want to involve information outreach group on this); other tasks below about personas and resolving conflicts. More things to do once we get information architecture and conformance model solidified.
Cyborg: Flavor seems to be missing. I could put something together related to involvement of PWD
Shawn: Anything else we need to chat about related to prioritizing prototype projects?
Shawn: okay, let's move on
Cyborg: LuisG and I went through
a couple of changes to the conformance model. No conclusion. A
few aspects we have agreement is integrating P1 and P2 into a
new P1 that doesn't make assumption of one disability over
another.
... planning to do quick survey of PWD to get sites that are
friendly/unfriendly to see if we can do some pretesting of a
conformance model on those to make sure the scoring would be
consistent with that.
... try to get perspective of PWD, have reached out to some
people this morning and gotten some interesting responses.
<Charles> we have a Conformance survey and report with some of that answered
<Charles> Conformance survey report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iOut3_i1JBQu5_16plZ8u7xCd66T4TbW2zPR1KmWWF4/edit?usp=sharing
Cyborg: We also discussed if user testing should be involved in the scale of automated testing/manual testing/user testing for where issues should be found. Maybe including PWD in its own category related to involvement of PWD.
Thanks, Charles :)
<kirkwood> letting people know that there is a process. beyond an accessibility statement but possibly a point of contact for accessibility issues. or state the process? a thought
<Charles> +1 to the value of those criteria. however, they seem like items that are fairly difficult to prove in order to be measured.
<kirkwood> “how handling feedback” is a great point, i think. and getting points for it
<KimD> +1 this is great
<Lauriat> +1
<Charles> the accessibility statement then has to be verified? anyone can claim they include PWD in design and testing.
<Charles> In the Accessibility Action Plan I wrote for my agency, I describe the statement as such: statements should: acknowledge the importance of and an intent / desire to be accessible; cite the steps taken and ongoing effort; express desire to hear of and methods to alert website administrator or accessibility coordinator of issues with a timeframe for response; be prominently located.
Shawn: Looking forward to doing
assessments with this kind of conformance model and whether
this lines up with the experience of PWD.
... if we don't have more to talk about on conformance, let's
return to the tangent...
... what do people think of having guidelines that are process
based?
... We have things around actually doing user testing / actual
"butts in seats" testing.
... it doesn't mean people will listen to it, but if they do,
they'll see the issues that testing would highlight.
Kelsey: In my work experience, if
the organization doesn't have history of fixing their site for
a11y, there is a learning curve where they need to interpret
the guidelines and how it applies.
... I think the agency understanding how the guidelines apply
to them and having to enforce them would encourage companies to
apply the guidelines.
<jemma> rrsagents, make miniutes
Shawn: Including accessibility in the design phase before development is one thing.
Charles: I have an entire action plan for process. One things that comes up quite a bit from Lainey is that contracts should be explicit to identify who is responsible for accessibility. If it's not on paper, it's no one's responsibility.
<Kelsey> Another idea: include accessibility in the Agile process
Shawn: This would be great for consideration for the Conformance Declaration work.
<kirkwood> publicly state there is a person/position in accessibility title in the company. Accessibility Director?
Jan: Some companies have high
level of accessibility and are opposed to losing points for not
having third party testing done.
... I like what you said about preferring 3rd party evaluation,
but am aware of the perception of paying them off.
Shawn: Yeah, there isn't a consulting company big enough to evaluate all of a large companies products.
<Charles> Back to the project plan (other tasks and groups), re: personas – please see previous doc, Insight vs Persona: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HsXvxtE9KUeJDQlTlUHybhKpszBCE5Hgg-Xr-lAtTW4/edit?usp=sharing
<Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting
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) Default Present: jeanne, KimD, Jan, jemma, LuisG, MichaelC, AngelaAccessForAll, shari, kirkwood, mikeCrabb, Lauriat, Imelda, Jeremy, Charles Present: jeanne KimD Jan jemma LuisG MichaelC AngelaAccessForAll shari kirkwood mikeCrabb Lauriat Imelda Jeremy Charles No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: LuisG Inferring Scribes: LuisG WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 14 Aug 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]