Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 07 Sep 2018

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

Accessibility Statements

Brent: We have received feedback on the statement generated by the tools. Shadi?

Shadi: Thanks to everyone who provided feedback, much appreciated. 14 or more response, great turnout. This is important and have collected the comments and brought some for discussion.
... three main things added as sub-bullets to the agenda
... first is the concerns that the minimal and comprehensive do not seem that different. Can we talk about what would be the minimal?
... what should be removed?

<Brent> Accessibility Statement - Minimal Version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Xrqe4N0lS89OlMl6oKj_wDTtPLEsCq-XvXTvXZq5VY/edit#heading=h.t8tx0psdwj1e

Shadi: so for example, the first is the commitment statement, then there is a reference to the standard, then a scope statement (some suggested to remove this). Next was a part about exceptions, limitations section. Audit results was another section to link to a full report.Research indicated that a statement should be backed by measured outcomes.
... we then had an optional accessiblity features section.
... those are the parts we thought we needed. Does anyone think any of this should not be here?
... or to turn it around, do we all agree these should be present?

Brent: I made the comment in the review. The minimal statement does not need conformance, limitations, audit results and that sort of technical thing. more of a statement that you have a commitment. Minimal is going to be extremely minimal that we are aware and care, what the standard is, and a place to say if you ahve problems, here is where to submit.
... the other stuff is good but would not be in a minimal statement which would be just be "we care, here's what we use to measure, optional limitations (depending on what the statement is for, like a small municipality or something) and most importantly where to get help.

Shadi: So the assumption (rmemeber there are two pages - on with general info and one that generates) the assumption is closely related to the webite or product. So a large company with many products may not be able to use just one statement.
... using City Lights accessible version, assume you are writing the statement for the before and after, would you include the limitations? We expect the scope to be close to the actual product.

Denis: I might be paraphrasing Brent but my inaital thought was that the minimal statement was too long and complex. Basically it should be 3 things - we care, the standard we use, and where to get in touch of you have a problem. Then you must make sure someone ansers the problem line.

<Chris> Denis' comments make sense to me

Denis: those other things should be in the comprehensive one. Make the minimal very minimal, easy to use and create.

Shadi: Does everyone agree that is sufficient?
... or will users expect more?

<Laura> +1 to Denis' comments. A more indepth evaluation can be provided to a user who specifically asks for it.

EricE: You made the mistake to ask what I think. That much minimal statement does not satisfy me as a user. Should I even try to use a screen reader on the site. It is important to know what I as a user can actually expect if I jump in to use the site.

Shadi: So would you list individual screen readers you ahve used to test?

EricE: Yes I would list the stack I tested with.

<Brent> I agree with what Eric is saying. If you know there are specific combinations that DON'T work, then they could be included in the minimal so that that information is being conveyed to the user right away.

Denis: The minimal one serves the organization, you do not want to overcommit or overstate. It is the more complex one that will serve the user. Maybe that is a good way to differentiate. Many do not want to make a full statement because it exposes them to more liability. All the detail of the stack etc can make a great support for the user, but you also expose yourself to criticism.

Shadi: Yes we have seen that tension from the beginning. It is the EU that is requiring this statement. But it is meant to be for the user and so even though it may take some time for it to be adopted, what does the WAI want to recommend as best practice.
... so even if businesses may not want to say "yes, we know our credit card section is broken," what do users need?

Rachel: I would also say it is not likely that anyone willlist the known exceptions. Too much time, competitive nature among customers, and difficulty in keeping the list current. Hard mind set to counter if we are up frontabout error and others are not.
... legal will not allow that and recommend to be sure that there is a clear contact path to report problems.

Robert: Must balance giving people the information they need to be successful and what to expect against what companies can realistically be expected to do.
... I like Denis basic three things and might add what kind of testing has been done so far or what the plan is against the mandate like in Europe to tell all. Maybe it is on us as the WAI to recommend the full report, but give them "at least do this."

<dboudreau> +1 to that, @shadi... that's how most of our clients would think about it

Shadi: Yes we have considered that if we lower the bar companies are less likely to walk away from the whole idea of an Accessibility Statement.

<Vicki> +1 Robert, good angle to view the statement from different levels approaching accessibility (from the start, mid-way, more advanced)

Robert: And so we want to recommend that companies at least say what and if they have tested.

Shadi: New landing page with addiitonal information about why they should add different parts to a Statement.
... as a group then what shall we recommend as a bare minimum?

Brent: I want to echo the way Robert spoke about accessiiblity as journey. To begin you would have a simple statemnt and over time as your program becomes more robust you can add to the statement. Maybe letting companies know to begin with the bare minimum and encourage them to continue to consider and add to it as an aid to their custoners. Let them know the statement will evolve along with their

program.

<Zakim> dboudreau, you wanted to comment on component modularity

Denis: Yes agreed and to add to that, we have the experince with our clients that when they are willing to say a little more, they want a more modular approach, declarations that they can pick and shoose from. Things you may consider adding to your statement. DIY statements that allow them to add parts that are meaningful and that they feel safe talking about and referencing.

Shadi: So you are saying that the minimum statement is you care, the standard you use, and how to contact someone if you have a problem.

EricE: I don't feel this would be too useful but am willing to go with the group. It is like the statements people made about privacy - they say they care but do not at all. I think as WAI we can do better even as a minimum statement.

Denis: Want to acknowledge that concern. It is true we sould d better but like everything in our field we come up against what we wish people might do and what they are actually willing to do. If we accept that the minimal is useful to the compnaies and begin the process of commitment and the comprehensive is useful to real users.

<Brent> at least the minimal one lets the user who is having trouble know how/who to contact. It is a place to start.

KrisAnne: We should push them to do more but I like the idea of scaling back the minimal statement and so maybe we add a bit about testing.

<Brent> What about adding "approach/accomplishments"

KrisAnne: do they use a screen reader, what steps they take to assure they meet the standard they quote.

Shadi: So we say that this testing info is highly encouraged but not required?

KrisAnne: Yes the statement must put them on the path of what action is being taken.

Shadi: This is quite a substantial change. Sanne do you want to take any position on this?

Sanne: At first we had the user as the person we were trying to meet the needs of. I can see now if we are thinking of the compnay it will change things quite a bit. Ican see the points from the company POV.

Vicki: I would like to add just a bit more - maybe an option for testing and if known limitations exisit, they could be mentioned.

<rjolly> what about a toggle for EU vs other locales to set what is required for EU?

<rjolly> i know we *want* people to create and publish comprehensive statements... but the reality is folks are scared in the US to admit faults.

Shadi: But as the field progresses, maybe we will be more comfortable with greater transparency.

<dboudreau> Just to be clear, I'm ALWAYS leaning towards the best interest of the users, but my experience leads me to believe that when we dont pay enough attention to the perspective of the organizations, then we alienate them and THAT ultimately hurts the users even more. Pragmatism folks. It pays off.

Shadi: The discussion resolves our discussion, Sanne, is there anything else we need?

Sanne: Yes I think we have covered the questions we came with.

Shadi: And that the limitation section is to be less technical

<shadi> https://www.accessibility.nl/statement/

Shadi: thanks to everyone who participated, here is the early prototype, still very much a draft

<Vicki> nice

<yatil> 👏🏽

Brent: I have attended sessions lately about accessibility statements and all have said the most important thing to do for minimzing legal risk is to have a statement. A pity in a way but emphasizes the importance of this.

Business Case

<shadi> [kudos to EricV, Sanne, Leon, and Martijn]

<Rachel> scribnick: Rachel

<Vicki> i can

<shawn> scribe: Rachel

Sharron: once we changed from early stage draft to complete draft we had a huge number of open issues
... I tried to get through as many as I could last night but there are more this morning
... I aso have a marked up word doc from marketing and comm in WAI
... there will definitely be more changes

<Sharron> https://w3c.github.io/wai-bcase/teach-advocate/business-case/

<Sharron> https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues

Sharron: association with UNCRPD and Legal history opened today
... original intent was to show there wasnnt much attention to accessibility early on
... shawn is saying its too detailed and US centric and should be removed
... and reasons not to remove?
... I integrated about 15 suggestions that were made

Brent: DO you want to try to see if there are any that you want to put on the weekly survey?

Sharron: yep, if there are any I am not able to resolve, I'll put them on the survey

<shawn> Thanks to Vicki for careful review and comments!

Sharron: underneath the summary in the business case there is now a detailed TOC

<Vicki> +1 toc

Sharron: Is there any objection to that? Does it add clutter?
... this includes H3s for subsections
... we also changed rocket ship for robot, took the arrow off the briefcase
... replaced some other images as well

<Vicki> +1 annotated bibliography

Sharron: included articles that could be valuable for someone trying to build their own business case in an annotated bibliography

<Vicki> Bravo, Sharon and team!

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say organization and presentation of Annotated Bibliography is awesome!

Shawn: I think the org and presentation of the annotated bibliography is awesome

<yatil> 😳

brent: I like that the bibliography link shows up in the nav on the left side
... Eric and/or shawn: I know we're trying to be consistent with page summary and page contents. Is this the same as the other pages?

<shawn> yes, it's just like on the other pages!

brent: this looks awesome Sharron! The weekly survey is a great place to forth any questions that are outstanding

Sharron: shawn, is there anything here that requires discussion?

Shawn: legal history is up to you

Sharron: happy to take that out

shawn: the assoc piece is an editorial tweak; the strong statement is also editorial - up to you if you want other opinions

Sharron: I can work that one in
... quotes without attributes aren't distinguished in the way they are formatted
... some people suggested we may need to treat attributed and not attributed differently

<shawn> issue: https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues/45

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-6 - Https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues/45. Please complete additional details at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/track/issues/6/edit>.

shawn: we've done callout sections without quote marks - should we just do that?
... maybe we not italicize it as well to distinguish it

<Vicki> good point, shawn

<Vicki> vote for change hand position, rachel!

<shawn> robot hand position....

<Sharron> scribe: Sharron

UnDoc progress

Brent: Moved how the work for the week is presented, will list that work on top to find quickly, then have the For Everyone section, often reflected in the survey; then the work for only the UnDoc team (others are free to join) and a summary status; and then assignments for that team
... trying to give transparency so people know what is going on in that sub-group and jump in if you wish. Any questions?

Wrap-UP

Brent: will update work for the week; will have some survey questions around tutorials and biz case (possibly); survey will be short.

Sharron: TPAC agenda, add items if you have specifc items to work on

Brent: By the 28th of September

<Vicki> Yeah, Sylvie

Brent: Thanks Shadi, Sanne, Sharron for bringing the items to the meeting, will get survey out.

<Vicki> bye

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

07 Sep 2018

Attendees

Contents

Accessibility Statements

Business Case

UnDoc progress

Wrap-UP

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output