Silver Community Group Teleconference

07 Sep 2018


jeanne, AngelaAccessForAll, Lauriat, KimD, LuisG, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, kirkwood, Charles, shari, Jan, JF
Jemma, MikeCr
jeanne, Shawn


<jeanne> AG-Facilitators meeting

Meaningful Involvement update

Cyborg: Should we show the slides?

Jeanne: Absolutely. Are they ready to be published?

Cyborg: It should be fine, since this was shared with OCAD...knowing this is an iteration.

<Cyborg> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dsgjIBp7uEwRr63Z3ZFZ6tJ78eRG_qKDS-mjBGqaJwY/edit?usp=sharing

Cyborg: My background is in journalism and I came in to help with the plain language prototype and got more interested in this project.
... one of the concerns I and others have experienced is using it like a checklist
... and we also want to keep more in the spirit of accessibility and include more people with disabilities
... I've been working with folks at the Ontario College of Art and Design to see if some of the principles of how they work could be integrated into Silver.
... I've presented a couple of iterations of a "meaningful involvement" document for Silver
... what is meaningful involvement, how can we make it happen?
... not considering PWD as an outside group, but as a part of the group
... meaningful involvement is very much a part of innovating and creating new products and features
... as an example, we've had engineers go out into outer space to create products that we use on earth. and PWD can help create things that are useful for everyone
... barriers found at the end of the process can be found sooner by having a more inclusive approach. you can reduce the cost of reaching out later by including them earlier
... how do you get organizations to buy in to this? this is a challenging journey for many organizations. they don't know how to do it, they have push back, internally, etc.
... dealing with working with people with disabilities has been put off and we're there now. It may seem intimidating but the hope would be that meaningful involvement would help them cross that bridge
... when you look at other accessibility steps that have been taken, having a plan seems to work well. the bronze level could be creating a plan, silver would be that they're implementing the steps, and gold would be mature meaningful involvement

<Charles> Not sure how I missed this in previous conversation on this topic, but I thought that meaningful involvement was about participation in creating Silver – not in organizational changes. Isn’t this is advocacy that is outside of the role of guidance?

Cyborg: there are 3 ways of thinking of gold, one is the Principles, another is the Plan, and a third would be strategies of working with PWD

Jeanne, could you mention Charles' point in Webex

Cyborg: This would be specifically within the guidance of collaborating with people

Jeanne: We're including it in this discussion because it could influence structure.

Charles: Are you saying that to be conformant you'd need to have these in place?

Cyborg: That would be the hope

Charles: How would this include content published by an individual?

Cyborg: Let's jump ahead to some of the issues. This is one of the issues, "how do we get people there when there are different organization sizes?" How much would they have in common in terms of their process? There would probably need to be some kind of different strategies of getting there that need to be fleshed out.
... it's still kind of unclear, we did a decision tree based on the size, that there could be multiple pathways to the same destination. potentially, organizations could learn from other's mistakes.

Jeanne: What we're looking at is not that individual methods aren't associated with a specific level. They have a cumulative point overall for the level. We could have points that would help companies do the extra work to get to the "gold" level.

Charles: So in terms of milestones of Silver, this is a task within a conformance prototype. That task is basically defining one aspect of measurability in one form of conformance. If we look at it as a prototype in and of itself, it's a little unfair compared to other efforts going on that had research that led to the prototyping phase.

Jeanne: That's one of the advantage of including OCAD since they have that research.

Cyborg: The hope is that in a short time, we can figure out what organization are doing where they think they're doing well. And those folks would have a place to land...not that they'd have to start over.

Jeanne: Can you make sure Mike Crabb sees this conversation explaining it. Just to make sure it's on his radar?

Cyborg: Sure.
... I know for example there are tools and methods to help with other guidance areas and I'm hoping that comes out of this too. One thing that came out is about the number of organizations that don't do this internally, they hire consultants to do it. They might know which consultants would know how to get to a gold level. Defining the gold standard could make it easier for evaluating the program. Some of the concerns are...what do the organizations do is they're

<Charles> a significant assumption to validate is that by having {n} inclusive practices = accessible output.

Cyborg: not ready for it. Or maybe they haven't been involved with accessibility but have had involvement in other domains
... for some it might be a smaller leap than others

Jeanne: Thanks for presenting this and for including OCAD's expertise.

<JF> +1 to Charles

Jeanne: Charles' point make sense and definitely something we need to keep in mind.

Cyborg: If there are folks with other thoughts, I would welcome the feedback and welcome to communication. Thanks!

Planning the Cost of Silver discussion meeting

Jeanne: I sent out a draft of the email I wanted to send out, but haven't gotten any feedback. So let's have a brief discussion of where we want to go with this discussion?

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VLP5o8mwcPwnQkKXccw6AmL6V__VOFyrqmJ-FB0pXfM/edit#heading=h.v1y7ccahpl82

Charles: These are less arguments and more points and counterpoints.

Shawn: Yeah, we should organize it more by topics.

Charles: We should think of this upcoming meeting in terms of a goal of the meeting. And maybe structure this document to help that.

Shawn: I would less claim that we'd reach into a conclusion. I'd rather have a goal of (if we can categorize the topics) coming to a conclusion of where we should investigate into each of these.
... If we make a conformance model that makes one of these objectively worse, then we should investigate that.
... It's not "if" we take cost of adoption into account; more "how" we take cost of adoption into account

Jeanne: We have a spreadsheet to kind of help address this.

JF: One of the things that came out about cost is the priority of constituents. I'm sensing moving the developers and owners of the content to the first spot...don't want to lose that things should be better for end user.
... cost is important for content creator, but having to weight the cost to creator vs user, I would make sure the end user trumps the content creator.

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to also ask about "priority of constituents" as part of the discussion

<Charles> +1 to JF

+1 to JF

<Lauriat> +1

Jeanne: What we're working on in the structure conversation is creating it to have the flexibility to find the sweet spot
... anyone want to take this document and organize it by topics?

Charles: I'll add some comments, but not sure if I can reformat.

Jeanne: Anything you can do is welcome.

Olaseni: i've got view-only for the document

Jeanne: Send me an email with your google email and I can give you permission

Update on Information Architecture

Jeanne: Not sure there is anyone here to give comment on this.

Shawn: Checking for the email he sent to the list

Update on Plain Language

Jeanne: He won't have time for now, so on to next topic.

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBk9qG5u5LGJa9pIvou5JsqxnZFiROyeuUN6fmhU3D8/edit#heading=h.b1dz0h25u639

Jeanne: but this is the document he was working on

Angela, anything new on Plain Language?

Angela: Not finished with documents based on Cyborg's outlines. I like where they're going. Should be able to finish them up over the weekend.

Jeanne: Cyborg, is the prototype you showed us publicly viewable? can we share it?

Cyborg: They're in last meeting's minutes.

Update: Discussion on Conflicts between Disabilities at the

Jeanne: Wanted to give a quick update about handling conflicts between different disabilities. Met with facilitators of most AG task forces. They had a long conversation about some of the problems of conflicts between disabilities.
... Accessible name/label causes problems for speech users. Low vision users needing to enlarge vs reducing scrolling, etc.

Github Issues

<JF> WebAIM Survey: https://webaim.org/projects/lowvisionsurvey2/

Cyborg: Sent an email with some other conflicts.

Jeanne: Do we have a document where these are all stored?

Cyborg: Don't think it was in a shareable form.

Jeanne: We need to make sure we have a place to store these.
... Any other comments before moving on?
... okay, then the last one

FYI: Charles spotted Silver in AbilityNet news

Jeanne: There are some github issues we need to get on.

<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues

Github Issues

Jeanne: here's a link to the issues. some are associated with cost of silver discussion
... we now have tagging so they can be tagged as appropriate.
... Shawn, can you do more of this? they send me email notices that got lost in my flood.

JF: I'm having the same problem with the Silver emails. But I can take some time looking at it.

Jeanne: We need some way of keeping an eye on it.

Shawn: I can try to pay more attention. Maybe at least route them to the folks working on it.

Thanks JF!

nice seeing you again

Jeanne: And last item is that Charles saw Silver in an article!
... it was a little old information, but glad they did it.

<Lauriat> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/09/07 19:05:46 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Succeeded: s/agenda+ FTI/agenda+ FYI/
Succeeded: s/couple influence structure/could influence structure/
Succeeded: s/Send an email with/Sent an email with/
Succeeded: s/FTI/FYI/
Default Present: jeanne, AngelaAccessForAll, Lauriat, KimD, LuisG, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, kirkwood, Charles, shari, Jan, JF
Present: jeanne AngelaAccessForAll Lauriat KimD LuisG Cyborg mikeCrabb kirkwood Charles shari Jan JF
Regrets: Jemma MikeCr
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: LuisG
Inferring Scribes: LuisG
Found Date: 07 Sep 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]