Meeting minutes
Reminder of Virtual Face to Face Thursday
<Lauriat> https://
ShawnL: Face to Face reminder
<Azlan> Is it just me that sees a message in Zoom saying the host has another meeting in progress?
ET time presented on link for meeting times.
Friday? Thinking no.
<JF> +1 Shawn
<Francis_Storr> +1
ShawnL: For scheduling, we may not do our Friday meeting due to Thursday. Opens to anyone for comments.
<Rachael> +1
ShawnL: Will send out email to group informing no Friday meeting this week.
AG WG Call reviewing survey of draft responses
ShawnL: At 11:15 , we will be reviewing survey of draft responses, please join at that time if you are interested on the AGWG call.
<Lauriat> https://
ShawnL: Link to draft responses is in the survey link
Reminder of now-forming joint working sessions with ACT May 14 & 21
<Azlan> I am now in. Thanks. Not sure why I had issues. Restarted Zoom.
<Lauriat> https://
Errors methods discussion
<sarahhorton> Errors method draft: https://
Sarah: We were looking to get content in for deadline of heartbeat publication. We wanted to share what we were working on.
Error Prevention - Guideline: Provide features that help users avoid errors. “Error prevention” how-to (link).
… We are looking at one method, on error prevention guideline and input instructions outcome.
… We are for instructions display on source of input and think we can write that up rather soon.
… We are eager for feedback. The How to Content will not be fully developed but were wondering whether that has to be part of release for this publication.
… Question to group is whether we publish or hold back to August. Other request is for feedback to us on substance and edits in document.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that I think we could put it in TBD
Jeanne: I think we could put that in, and mark it "To be Developed" . Michael Cooper, do you agree?
MichaelC: On placeholder to the how to, I think a placeholder at the URI level , but wouldn't require that content is all worked out.
Jeanne: I can help you with that placeholder page.
Sarah: It is in a Google doc, should it be ready for the GitHub template instead?
Jeanne: Yes. I can help you with that. There are also templates available for you within the GitHub structure. I.e. folders and sub folders.
Sarah: Stacy and I can speak to the procedure and templates.
Jeanne: It does need to get into HTML . If you have an expert that can do that, then please do go ahead and do that.
Sarah: Action item for me is to follow up with Stacy on formatting and get as much as possible in GitHub and templates, etc. I am open to feedback on Google doc from this group, thank you.
Review Bronze, Silver, Gold Options 2, 3, & 5
<Jemma> Thanks for all your work, Sarah
Jeanne: Can we start with option 5?
ShawnL: Sure.
Option 5 - Point based system
Rachael: Instead of a rating scale, would use a point based system.
<Lauriat> Assign points each outcome using variety of approaches to testing: If points are used, consider assigning up to 2 points for A and AA like SC (2 for 100% correct within stated scope and 1 for partial). Allow an additional point for AAA-like SC
Rachael: Would assign up to two points for A and AA.
<Lauriat> Points consistent across outcomes
<Lauriat> Bronze, silver and gold is assigned based on the number of points accumulated
Rachael: If outcome was above and beyond, potential for more points, up to 3 points.
<Lauriat> Points evaluated across disability categories
Rachael: Point based could push you to silver and gold and encourage a company to move forward.
… Point cap on category and maturity model would be looked at.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask why points are so "small"
JF: Why are small point numbers the reference point? Granularity , i.e. 62 points vs. 70 points and gradual increase / decrease ?
Rachael: Based on outcome, for Blind users, 30 or 40 outcomes , three points possible, you are potentially around 90 points for this outcome. Simplicity is where we want to head.
… just a different way to look at it .
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to discuss sensistivity metric
JF: Percentages were looked at , at some point , and rolling that up to bronze, silver, gold would be a good reference point. Seems like apples to oranges.
<jeanne> https://
<JustineP> Is it possible for a website to meet bronze-level conformance yet still have one or more major gaps in usability/meeting one or more critical SCs?
Jeanne: JF makes a good point, on Accessibility Metrics. On adequacy metric.
Small change have small change on score. Large changes have large change on score.
<JF> small positive changes are still positive changes...
Jeanne: The thing I like is that it would be simpler to understand and remember.
Janina: I believe if we took outcome by outcome , i.e. to 50 or 99, I'm not sure how you define the difference, seems arbitrary.
… I think this is an outcome by outcome basis, but you are meeting at a category level. I.e. Blind people who use screen readers.
… The category by category parity to not favor one group of users over another.
JF: Right now it states 2 points for 100 percent and 1 for partial. Feels to me that everybody would get 1 point. Binary almost.
Janina: I understand the point. How would you quantify 1 - 5 or a 6?
Rachael: The requirements around simplicity was the goal. The simpler the rating scale is , the better. Set of small points , we set requirements in the categories. Simply across outcomes.
<JF> @Rachael I understand your response
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to react to ChrisLoiselle
<Jemma> +1 for simplicity
<JF> small to whom? For loow-viz users it may be "huge"
Jeanne: If someone improved the visual contrast , and they now had a 2 , and that brought them to a higher level, that would be an issue.
Francis: JF's done some great work on conformance evaluation , great feedback to work through. Thank to JF>
<jeanne> +1 JF
<Francis_Storr> Also: Todd has sent over some really helpful content.
<Lauriat> Option 2: https://
Rachael: Option 2 - AAA to Silver
<Lauriat> Bronze - A/AA, some AAA, and expand to contextual testing
<Lauriat> Silver - AAA and other outcomes that build on bronze
Rachael: WCAG 2.x and contextual items
<Lauriat> Gold - AT and User/Usability testing
<Lauriat> Maturity Model as a 2nd Document
<JF> NOtes that a 3:1 also exists for 14 pt Bold or 18pt or >
Rachael: better in Silver , for example ratios for visual contrast and migrating to silver and gold
<Lauriat> Option 3: One testing type for silver, both for gold
Rachael: Also talks to maturity model , AT and User / Usability Testing.
<Lauriat> Bronze - A/AA (with AAA integrated in) Silver - AT testing or User/Usability Testing Gold - AT testing and User/Usability Testing Maturity Model as a 2nd Document
<Lauriat> Option 4 - AT testing options in Silver & Gold
Rachael: Small orgs may not be able to do assistive technology testing or user testing.
<Lauriat> Bronze - A/AA Silver - AAA and (AT testing or User/Usability Testing) Gold - AAA, AT testing and User/Usability Testing Maturity Model as a 2nd Document
Rachael: difference is where you draw the lines
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that keeping all the guidelines at bronze solves disability parity and also gives incentive to improve
Jeanne: I like the options that keep all the guidelines at bronze level . It solves disparity between disabilities. All guidance at bronze level. Gets away from a and aa and aaa for particular disability groups.
Jeanne: the second part is that keeping guidelines at bronze, provides companies that want to be recognized for doing more, there are two more levels.
Jeanne: JF talks to snapshot in time and incentive to include positive movement .
Jeanne: WCAG EM was a great reference, but wasn't a part of WCAG 2
<JF> +1 to Wilco. There is building safe cars, and learning safe driving. Related but alswo vastly different
Wilco: It is a vastly different thing in that maturity model doesn't belong in same document as silver.
Wilco: There is a base level to maturity to progress to . Squeezing into same conformance model, and flattening it is not recommended.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to expand on Wilco's point from my perspective
<JF> +1 to Shawn
ShawnL: Some orgs have lack of maturity. The development of maturity may be great, but product compliance may not be where they need to be. Each is important in context.
<Jemma> +1 to shawn
Sarah: Has there been talk to process requirements in to all levels? I.e. process and procedure weaved into different levels along with technical standards?
ShawnL: I think there are infinite types of orgs , it can get prescriptive in activity and 100 different right outcomes.
Jemma: We can ask vendors to comply to WCAG 2. If we go to this , how do we tell vendors that we need to meet a maturity model level and silver vs. bronze? Vendor may not work to our requirements as an University.
<jeanne> +1 to Jemma's point that keeps maturity model at a higher level
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask Shawn if he thinks that maturity model "dimensions" should be individual guidelines?
Jeanne: dimensions could be individual guidelines scored within a larger score?
ShawnL: Potentially, but defer to maturity model group members.
Jeanne: How do we say you don't have to do this, if we mix it in with bronze level and guidelines?
<JF> If you say "You don't have to do this" they won't
<Jemma> yes. John is correct
Jeanne: I agree , the people who don't want to do it and are forced by legal to do, won't.
<sajkaj> I find myself thinking of maturity model more as a best practices
Jeanne: I do believe people who are trying to do this will do the extra .
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to speak to a built-in barrier based on entity size
<JF> Over 99 percent of America's 28.7 million firms are small businesses. The vast majority (88 percent) of employer firms have fewer than 20 employees, and nearly 40 percent of all enterprises have under $100k in revenue. (source: https://
JF: On multiple currency topic and BruceB's reference point.
<Jemma> and also the "pointer" should be consistent through organizations like the use case of university's VPAT review
<bruce_bailey> +1 for the multiple currencies !
JF: Talks to small business and number of employees. Scaling of maturity model and having a gold standing for small business would be harder for smaller orgs.
<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to react to JF
ShawnL: Maturity model and wrapping into WCAG 3 would probably be best served for after we review maturity model.
Wilco: I'm not sure if having a maturity model into wcag 3 is beneficial unless it is required by law and enforceable.
<JF> +1 to Wilco.
<johnkirkwood> +1 to Wilco
<Jemma> +1 to Wilco - "enforceable"
<JustineP> +1 to Wilco
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to disagree with Wilco that it has to be used in law. Most standaards are not used in law. It is rare to have a standard that is used in law.
ShawnL: Helpful to have guidance out there for maturity model, wherever it may live.
Jeanne: Most standards aren't used in law but allow people to work in common ways in addition to just legal interpretation.
… I think information in WCAG 3 , i.e. maturity model, would be beneficial to place in WCAG 3.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to discuss possibility of multiple complimentary documents
<Jemma> Illinois state IT accessibility Act use WCAG 2 as enforcement tool for the vendors.
Rachael: WCAG 3 as multiple complementary documents is a possibility. I.e. web, client apps, orgs. Thinking as WCAG 3 as a single document may not be the only way to look at this.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that if we don't make our new standard applicable in law,it won't be taken up that way
JF: I think Rachael sums this up the correct way. For an analogy , we need safe cars but we also need safe drivers who drive the safe cars.
JF: I think the need for unambiguous measurement will be present.
<Zakim> sajkaj, you wanted to comment on standards and law
<Lauriat> Collectively referred to as "Regulatory Environment" in our Requirements, for reference: https://
<Wilco> +1
<JF> +1 to Janina
Janina: In W3C, WCAG basis on law is included in legal. A lot of regulatory reliance on specifications is key and finding a way of being quantifiable is important. Maturity model just for gold is a problem. The effectiveness of document is important to look at.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to compare to IBC
BruceB: The standards documents that I do see a lot are the Accessibility building codes . People who are doing more than the minimum are going to do it regardless of a stamp of gold status.
<johnkirkwood> +1 to Bruce
BruceB: We should be thinking about having a good flow rather than going above it.
floor , not floor.
thanks Jeanne.
<Wilco> +1