Silver Task Force & Community Group

11 June 2021


ChrisLoiselle, Fazio, Francis_Storr, jeanne, Jemma, jennifer, KimD, PeterKorn, Rain, sajkaj, Sheri_B-H
jeanne, Shawn

Meeting minutes

<Fazio> Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ATkbsN04HZE_L-PGH8ZKtWWiGl-stTze/edit#slide=id.gdbfd492681_4_0

<Fazio> Maturity Model Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ATkbsN04HZE_L-PGH8ZKtWWiGl-stTze/edit#slide=id.gdbfd492681_4_0

Survey on Functional Needs

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2021-03_user-needs/

Jeanne: reminder of survey on user needs - please fill it out by June 30.

Survey on scheduling

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/94845/friday-meeting-schedule-2021-6/

Jeanne: not sure what happened with survey, I put in 9:30 am option but it didn't appear in survey yet appears in results. Michael, if you can fix please do.

I will take any 9am Boston and transfer to 9:30 am option.

<Jemma> I think error sub group has a conflict for 9am option.

MichaelC & Jeanne discuss possible issues.

MichaelC: Not sure I know how to fix, but will take a look.

Project plan for August heartbeat draft

Jeanne: will transfer any 9 to 9:30, or cancel and create new.

<jeanne> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Project_Plan_for_Q3_Working_Draft#Project_Plan_for_Q3_Working_Draft

Jeanne: Working on tentative dates, 7 items that we'd like to have in heartbeat, when to go to AGWG, when to survey, when to CFC, when to editors draft… definitely looking for dates for visual contrast & XR captions, when ready to agwg for introduction.

<PeterKorn> +

Will discuss more next week, but putting in folks' thoughts… any other items ?

Peter & Jennifer, refreshed on introduction revisions, will send to Jeanne.

Peter: any more guidelines we're going to try to get in?

Errors, I believe.

How we score errors to address some of the use cases highlighted and delivered.

Jeanne: I'm not expecting we'll have the scoring update for weeks yet, probably not in for quarter 3, either.

preview of Maturity Model

Jeanne: turn over to Sheri, to share screen, etc.

<Fazio> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ATkbsN04HZE_L-PGH8ZKtWWiGl-stTze/edit#slide=id.gdbfd492681_4_0

Fazio: we've been working on maturity model for a while, something folks around the world are interested, and something w3c realizes we need to standardize.

Showing participants of the subcommittee

David Fazio, Jake Abma, Jeff Kline, Lori Samuels, Sheri Byrne-Haber, Raph de Rooij, Wilco Fiers, John Foliot, Sarah Horton

[Scribe won't type slide contents -- only discussion going forward, unless someone needs it, since the reader is reading slides]

Took the best of other maturity models, and broke it into their own system, as noted on Scope of Work. Still under discussion.

None of the existing maturity models fit our needs, which is why we're creating our own.

Working on the weighting and scoring system.

Sheri: identified a number of orgs already using maturity models

Getting something accessible is easy, keeping something accessible is really hard.

Maturity model focuses on keeping.

<Jemma> Our university is using a maturity model from The Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs(G3ict)

The idea is this is WCAG independent, good for 2, 3, and future

Raph: slide showing regular ways of addressing accessibility

maturity model place is between, applied to the goal and what the org is doing about a11y.

there are barriers that have nothing to do with WCAG, and that can be taken into acct in the MM

<Jemma> procurement is a great example for non-technical part.

Sheri: how do we ask the right questions that give ppl the things that are relevant to their orgs? Not all proof points apply to all orgs, depends on many characteristics.

Fazio: MM vs Disability Equity Index

DEI primarily focused on employment, physical a11y; does not focus on what they do influences what is produced.

MM does focus on what is produced.

<Jemma> This sounds interesting - "End-to-end focus on accessibility, not focused on inclusion"

DEI looks for having an a11y statement. MM looks at content of statement.

Four level scoring system, 0 no awareness, 1 recognized need, 2 roadmap in place, 3 fully implemented

7 dimensions: communications, knowledge & skills, support, procurement, personnel, culture, SDLC

<Jemma> sometimes I see "data collection" as one of dimensions.

<Jemma> from other maturity model

Fazio: realize there may be controversy to dimensions, happy to discuss

Fazio: we need help, collab, guidance on next steps. Publish as w3c note, wcag version independence, etc.

Fazio: need buy-in from w3c groups to continue

PeterKorn: final slide answers primary question. I look fwd to reading the draft.

PeterKorn: looking to understand how this fits into WCAG3.

PeterKorn: note feels appropriate.

Fazio: this is part of what was considered, such as Amazon is such a big site; if something breaks while being fixed, then the MM suits for evaluation.

<Jemma> It seems that I don't have a permission to add comment to the slide.

preview of 3rd party

<Jemma> great job on maturity model, sub group!

<Fazio> Maturity Model Draft https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y5EO6zkOMrbyePw5-Crq8ojmhn9OCTRQ6TlgB0cE6YE/edit

<sajkaj> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content

Sajkaj: 3rd party subgroup, we do have a draft, still missing pieces

sajkaj: summary is there's definition for 2 kinds of 3rd party content - who controls the experience / code; can you fix or does someone else have to?

implications are broken out in next section.

two kinds, one service or authentication, and publication of media (music, movies, ebooks)

then user-generated, the site has control but cannot control how well ppl do things like alt text

<Fazio> Yes, the MM link is a working draft that we've continually update for over 6 months

it's important to note an earlier draft was looking at scoring these, but criticism is we can't let ppl off the hook if they do something inaccessible.

sajkaj: if we work through any one of them, the question remains, what is the impact?

sajkaj: they all start with do an assessment.

sajkaj: issues arise when there are a11y challenges with what's there, how do we score that?

PeterKorn: i would note this came out of our initial set of challenges months ago.

PeterKorn: how might we be more thoughtful and explicit in addressing them in wcag3; if 3rd party tool has issue… and exclude it, then the problem isn't really being dealt iwth.

PeterKorn: with copyright, there may be a problem with law, too.

<Fazio> Interesting point

PeterKorn: might include audio descriptions, which might be defined as a derivative work in copyright.

<Fazio> Does the "Fair Use" clause apply?

PeterKorn: it does not have conformance from conformance options, but we should still have wider discussions.

Sheri_B-H: as a former it atty, this interests me. will we attempt to categorize different sources of 3rd party content, and different ways to deal with.

Sheri_B-H: we went through this with Ronald McDonald House, but couldnt' because they didn't own the copyright to the video.

Sheri_B-H: just like with reddit,

Sheri_B-H: … i can see this being an issue for amazon, with folks uploading 3rd party images

PeterKorn: we were not imagining we would have a menu of sub-categories and treat differently. we feel there are 2.5 to 3 buckets, maybe 4 or 5.

Sheri_B-H: i wasn't thinking 20, I was thinking a dozen.

PeterKorn: we would love your input, if we need to schedule a meeting, happy to.

Sheri_B-H: lets discuss offline

sajkaj: great

PeterKorn: one of next steps before bringing to agwg on 22nd, take steps to conform, apply to our two use cases. for use case a, this is what hte site is doing, 3rd party arranged videos… etc.

PeterKorn: so that we can see in a concrete example what this is, and that's what we aim to bring to agwg on 22nd.

sajkaj: since we have a few minutes, might we walk through one of them? user-generated might be understandable.

<Sheri_B-H> I need to drop but will look at the minutes, and reach out to Peter and Janinia about meeting times

PeterKorn: travel site example, use case a, user-generated

PeterKorn: someone visited thailand, wrote up review, stayed x, y, z, and described… the web form for the travelogue prompts user for a variety of things, such as alt text and plain language.

PeterKorn: in this case, the user referenced sensory info, and at the time the site cannot check for duplications or anything not using sensory info. the site might label, possibly through idref - conversation with johnfoliot about tool options - tell users how to make contributions accessible.

PeterKorn: make it clear when content is user-contribution, for example. tbd whether and how we score or report out.

sajkaj: continues to be a work in progress, …

sajkaj: may copy over from atag, possibly, take advantage of that atag work producing authoring tool guidance

sajkaj: the difference is all the site can do is try to get ppl to do the right thing

PeterKorn: the other options we see are disallow 3rd party content, only allow a menu of choices, or have a site that fails to comply/conform, and thereby not be in compliance with regulatory bodies.

sajkaj: people are people and not going to be perfect.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/model/model, /

Maybe present: MichaelC, Peter, Raph, Sheri