WCAG3 Equity Subgroup

22 August 2022


Cyborg, janina, jeanne, JenS, Laura_Carlson, MichaelC
Janina, jeanne
janina, jeanne, MichaelC

Meeting minutes

js: we´re only getting 7 weeks of the planned 8

thought we´d skip doing a report, but they still want them

we´ll present Friday at Silver meeting

Finalize points that Describing Equity in WCAG3 - not a definition

<Cyborg> for some reason i can't find the agenda...

<Cyborg> can someone please resend? thanks

Presentation draft

js: notes, that´s text-dense and needs shortening

don´t want to edit peoples´ work w/o permission

start with equity vs equal

then go into outcome, state, process

look at equity from each of those perspectives

kept ¨Usability for a site at a given conformance level is approximately equivalent across disability groups¨

state = point in time

result = outcome

how I tried to group those

I took the definition proposals into one of those three buckets

then went into known challenges and questions

<JenS> From in the Google doc: State: the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time. Outcome: the way a thing turns out; a consequence. From Oxford Languages: https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en

janina: can we combine the two?

doing so will help avoid confusion of terms

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to discuss outcomes in equity vs. outcomes and methods

(state and outcome), as differentiated from process

cs: I added a number of comments to the google doc

<scribe got lost about what´s where>

cs: added reference to design justice principles

define inequity as problem before defining equity as solution

for process, can it be part of conformance model?

js: put under recommendations

the first 2 not sure if we have time

cs: these aren´t new points

and we need to demonstrate the harms of inequity when people ask why we want to do it

js: it´s time consuming to develop use cases

if someone can work on it, great

cs: meant as a framing

MichaelC: Don't disagree that saying more about inequity is useful, but for now see it as implicit--can fit into later work

MC: I don't object to adding a bullet point on needing to understand inequity, but I don't think we have time in this sprint

michalre combining outcome and state; possibly

MichaelC: wcag3 outcome statement would be different; but guideline by guideline, yes, very similar

MC: Possibly Outcome and State and be combined. Outcome as a noun is relatively equivalent to state

MichaelC: re verbosity, important to cover content digestibly, maybe shorter bullet points with links into GD

MC: the content is what we want to cover. Suggest we boil it down to bullet points and link to the document

MichaelC: written should be enough for presentation; but we can make references

jen: don´t think outcome and state mix

should look at orgs using equity-centered processes

Jen, aren't you arguing against something no one proposed?

state is a condition, outcome is a consequence

we do need to align the lingo

ok for me to do a readability pass on the slides?

js: google has some automatic features

jen: they don´t do enough


Can we please not digress?

jen: I can´t read this at the moment

want to make it easy for the group to read, provide ahead of time

js: I will check display after the content matures

you can take a pass at that point

so, I changed slide title to Equity-centered processes

objections to editing text, if original linked?

lc: that will help

jen: so the slide content is from the google docs?

js: yes

cs: it´s not clear that we´re discussing 2 things

how equity is developed in AG

and how it is achieved via guidelines

as well as relation on conformance model

because we have to look at potential inequities in conformance model from many directions

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say suggesting

mc: suggest using suggesting mode in google docs to highlight your comments

we can review and accept for a new round each weeks

jen: are slides readable to you?

janina: generally gsuite is difficult, it´s got keyboard but gotchas

jen: how will you review?

janina: I will review with Jeanne

jen: I´m really struggling to understand the slides

<Cyborg> +1 to Jennifer being able to do the work to make this understandable

want to make sure people seeing the intro receive a streamlined, impactful message

js: I did re-arrange to give structure

janina: we did think we had a presentation tomorrow, so it was a hasty gathering

js: we´ll move some content back to the background doc, which will help with review

mc: remember that content development has stages from rough to final

we have walkthrough of the rough version

+1 to using "result"

and the nearly final version will be ready for additional review

<JenS> Please note, my concerns are less about the development of content and more about being able to understand what content is presented — due much to the current presentation of the proposed content.

js: what about combine result and state?

mc: if we don´t have consensus to combine, best to leave uncombined at this early stage

cs: equity-based process holds a journey towards an outcome; along that journey there are states

<JenS> Where something is "proposed" might we label it as such? i.e., "Equity as a state" becomes "Proposed: Equity as a state" — this way we come to understand what we're talking about.

<JenS> +1 to Cyborg

js: think people would understand that

cs: that would address process of developing guidelines

<JenS> =1 to Cyborg that along the journey towards equity there are states

if our goal is equity for end users, there is a different process

within equity-based process we consider the meta-process

so want to separate a) how do we achieve equity for end users in WCAG 3 b) how do we engage in equity-based process in the development of WCAG 3

js: that sounds like great content for the final report, which we´re not ready for yet

jen: Please note, my concerns are less about the development of content and more about being able to understand what content is presented — due much to the current presentation of the proposed content.

Where something is "proposed" might we label it as such? i.e., "Equity as a state" becomes "Proposed: Equity as a state" — this way we come to understand what we're talking about.

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to discuss Cyborg's two definitions of equity process

janina: capturing that we want to support equity in the impact of a W3C specification, and that that specification itself embody process designed to continue to improve equity as a result of applying equity to its process

we need to capture how we do that, but not ¨boil the ocean¨

maturity model relates to this

js: editing slide 3 for that point

lc: thanks for the work and input on this difficult work

re recommendations, there are a couple in the wiki

Achieve AGWG consensus on a clear definition of equity scoped for WCAG 3.

Achieve AGWG consensus on the actions and process needed for WCAG 3 to attain equitable results for all disability groups including those who may have been previously marginalized.

could see a slide for that

<laura> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Equity-Framework

cs: I think equity vs inequity fits in slide 2

+1 to janina´s characterization of what I said

but some of the details not clear

one of my biggest concerns is of inequity being baked into conformance

the need for equity in the conformance model is something we need to highlight

js: should conformance have its own slide then?

MC: The slection of recommendations should be in part Conformance oriented
… the filters we have about achievability will have impact on conformance
… accessibility support of WCAG2 has an equity impact by requiring people to have a level of tech
… we aren't propose solutions, but we need to document the entire space

jen: another point we need to document is process

<Cyborg> +1 to what Jen just said

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).


Succeeded: s/clar/clear/

Succeeded: s/should be/should be in part/

Maybe present: cs, jen, js, lc, MC