Silver Task Force & Community Group

10 Nov 2020


jeanne, ChrisLoiselle, Lauriat, Francis_Storr, Chuck, Joshue108, JakeAbma, JustineP, mgarrish, MichaelC, Wilco, Fazio, CharlesHall, Sheri_B-H, sarahhorton, Makoto, Shri, mikecrabb
Shawn, jeanne


<jeanne> Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group

<jeanne> <jeanne> present+

<jeanne> <jeanne> chair: Shawn, jeanne

<jeanne> check-in

I've logged into the zoom call , however it shows the host is in another meeting. Is this true, or should I log out and back in again?

<Lauriat> Seeing the sameā€¦ Michael?

<sajkaj> The Zoom channel doesn't appear open yet

<sajkaj> OK, Thanks!

<sajkaj> resent+

PUblishing update

Chuck: I can give an update. As far as publishing, chairs are considering objectives and potential impact for publishing.

objections, not objectives.

MichaelC: Not sure on target date , but not before Thanksgiving.

Maturity Model Presentation

Jeanne: Estimated date would be great for blogs and publishing that points back to the publishing of FPWD.

Sheri: I will lead the conversation on maturity model. Shares slides on what a maturity model is etc.

<Fazio> Maturity Model Spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WDpYI7oMTwPmwDSkGHWarqRDvcotuvRi/

Process starts from adhoc and moves to optimized for maturity curve .

<Fazio> Working page tab in spreadsheet is what we're currently working on

We looked at various maturity models , PDAA, Digital Accessibility Maturity Model, Accessibility Maturity Model, MODECUA, ISO 30071 , etc.

We went through threshold questions. The Silver Maturity Model needs to be flexible , i.e. from a one person company to enterprise companies. Tool will ask questions and will ask relevant questions off of that.

<Fazio> DEI stands for disability equality index

The Silver maturity model (MM) is different than the DEI. Silver will have a save state, intended to be self-completed, weighted , dimensions and artifacts are creating on accessible products and services, more refined.

Procurement department review process will be different than DEI.

Accessibility statement , do you have one? It will look at different levels of the statement and what standard you are measuring against, etc. More detailed as maturity curve moves upwards and forward.

Maturity Levels, Level 0 through 3. Level 3 is full organization ICT Accessibility maturity consistently implemented. Level 0 is No effort toward achieving organization wide ICT maturity

Measures 8 dimensions , communication, knowledge, support, grc , procurement, personnel, culture, sdlc

Sheri defines culture, at level 1.

Shares draft list of culture attributes, i.e. executive sponsor for digital accessibility.

business strategy includes proactive approach, disability inclusion included in core values, code of conduct, digital accessibility focus in communities of practice.

Maturity Model Spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WDpYI7oMTwPmwDSkGHWarqRDvcotuvRi/ from David F. and Sheri

Working page tab in spreadsheet is where you want to be.

Column C shows artifacts.

Jeanne: Is there a plan to move this into note format?

Sheri: Yes, but we haven't started yet . We are wordsmithing before doing so.

Possibility the note is published around January.

Wilco: Where would this be published?

I think speaking with the Working Group , AGWG is a next step.

Sheri: Agreed, we want input from them before moving forward.

Wilco: Does this need a charter?

Jeanne: Maturity model is looking to publish this as note.

MichaelC: We will review further.

Sheri: This is aligned with Silver but not specifically tied to Silver.

DavidF: G3ICT and IAAP have been working on maturity model as well.

Janina: It seems that the benefit would not be limited to Silver. The way to integrate some kind of system is the key to the process. May be a W3C wide adoption, i.e. how does this fit moving forward?

Sheri and DavidF: That makes sense, thank you.

Janina: It is a different type of technical document. This fits into a Quality Assurance framework , which APA and W3C were reviewing many years back.

MichaelC: I think we need to review further on technical guidance and whether a note is the right path.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask wilco if he has concerns.

Working group support would be needed for any publishing effort.

Sheri: Intention is to get working group's approval, then W3C, then pursue proper process for whatever format for publication is available.

<Chuck> +1 no objections to Jeanne's suggestion to move to github

Jeanne: I would like to see a version in say Github that is more readable before moving to next step.

Sheri: agreed.

Jeanne: Michael and I will review W3C process and recommend back to you on next location.

Wilco: Are you anticipating this as a first draft ?

Sheri: Yes, we would ask for feedback.

<sajkaj> Wikipedia page on Management Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_science

Jeanne: Janina dropped a link to management science, as it may be useful for further research on topic.

<Fazio> Thanks Janina!


Training day for writing content

Jeanne: We have a number of groups that we would like help on writing content. Perhaps an hour or so of what is Silver and content writing around Silver.

Do people have ideas?

Michael: What type of guidance do you want in Silver? What do you feel you need to know in order for it to fit in format in Silver?

Guideline proposals should be incorporated now, but these are troubles I had fitting into current format.

Jeanne: Updating the templates and making that easier for people to find and access , so they know where to start.

I think we need to review the guidelines and methods document on what goes where. What should be an outcome, what should be a method, what should be a guideline etc.

Jeanne: We have guidance from Michael , standards on technical writing and how to address lists, abbreviations, when is WCAG singular and plural etc.
... Any other thoughts?

Please reach out to Jeanne for contributing.


<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Sub_Groups

Jeanne: Subgroup checkins.

<Chuck> chris: Visual Contrast, we are meeting this Thursday, will have a more complete update next meeting.

FrancisS: We have been looking at scoring criteria. Clear language and how it impacts scoring is also being looked at.
... There is a list on Github for clear language for writing. I'm exploring lists and pair it down to 3,000 to 5,000 words and re run tests for clear language to compare scoring.

We need to also look into exceptions we need to express in clear language, i.e. technical language vs. laymen terms.

Jeanne: Exploration of simple writer is review if it is possible to explore automation piece of clear language and how to improve silver.
... I think FrancisS' work is important and that the process is working when testing real websites and apps.

Makoto: We wrote 4 methods on HTML basic techniques for text alternatives. There are types of images from wai tutorials, we have 3 more methods to work on and we are looking at this as high priority.

We are cross referencing if we covered all WCAG techniques. We may write new methods if needed. We will revisit the gap analysis our group did last year. Concentrating on HTML advice. Once done on HTML we will explore other formats.

Lots of feedback from Jake.

I can't hear him.

Jeanne: Any other groups want to check in?

MichaelCrabb: XR update - we met last week. Meeting Thursday now. We are working on gap analysis on mixed reality and accessibility. Real world and digital tech review and exploring next steps.

Hope to share within next month on ideas moving forward.

Janina: On conformance group, we have met 3 times. We are looking to where we have agreement and where to talk through questions. We do have a subgroup wiki page

MichaelC: Substantially conformant name is something that should be explored in more detail. The placeholder text should be changed.

Janina: I can review further.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask and suggest that we take this conversation out of meeting.

<Lauriat> +1 to Chuck

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/11/10 15:30:08 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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: jeanne ChrisLoiselle Lauriat Francis_Storr Chuck Joshue108 JakeAbma JustineP mgarrish MichaelC Wilco Fazio CharlesHall Sheri_B-H sarahhorton Makoto Shri mikecrabb
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: ChrisLoiselle
Inferring Scribes: ChrisLoiselle

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

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]