Meeting minutes
<gb> /issues/234 -> #234
<gb> /issues/233 -> #233
<gb> /issues/232 -> #232
<Fazio> Update on Github Issue #148 Resolution
<gb> /issues/148 -> #148
<gb> /issues/226 -> #226
<gb> /issues/231 -> #231
<gb> /issues/126 -> #126
<gb> /issues/230 -> #230
New Business
<gb> /issues/234 -> #234
<gb> /issues/232 -> #232
<gb> /issues/233 -> #233
<gb> /issues/226 -> #226
<gb> /issues/231 -> #231
<gb> /issues/230 -> #230
<gb> /issues/126 -> #126
Github Issue #233 2.4 Assessment Template Needs Correcting
<Fazio> w3c/
<gb> Issue 233 2.4 Assessment Template Needs Correcting (by Helixopp)
Fazio: assessment template - we haven't decided on one the excel spreadsheet is a work in progress. sample document, we are not saying that you must use this spreadsheet to measure maturity.
Janina: this is not a Normative specification, we dont also use "comply" either
<Fazio> Organizational ICT Accessibility Maturity is assessed using the Accessibility Maturity Model assessment template. The template contains worksheet tabs specific to each dimension. The dimension tabs are organized with the dimension definitions and outcomes for each of the four maturity stages and provides a list of the dimension’s proof points.
<Susana_Pallero> +1 to David
Fazio: "is assessed" is problematic. we don't need to eliminate the template, but we need to be clear that we are working on experimenting with, we want feedback how/if we should update it etc.
… editors note does say its experimental, we can't say this is how you measure maturity.
Dr_Keith: is it problematic, "may be used" instead of "is used"?
<Fazio> An experimental accessibility maturity model assessment template is provided to assist individuals in documenting their evaluation efforts through the process provided in this Editors Draft. This experimental tool provided by the task force to check the feasibility of the process provided in the Editors Draft.
Fazio: this is a "sanity check" to verify that the maturity model works. the current wording is too prescriptive.
IrfanA: planning to adopt this maturity model in one vertical in my company.
… when we launch anything we need sponsorship, we need top down approach, thinking about the Dimensions / proof points, people who are implementing it at a lower level, how to use this.
Fazio: have we addressed sponsorship should be addressed in Culture dimension. Scoring isn't end all be all, bringing to visibility. just seeing the roadmap is a big part.
IrfanA: we acquire things, comes under procurement. but the acquisition wasn't the only team responsible, but the new product came into our vertical, but this will affect our score. but the procurement was done by some other team, how can this be addressed?
Fazio: scoring is something we are still working on. we haven't finalized a scoring system yet.
Jeff: I have had that same situation at IBM, I may have some insights. those products a grace period to give them time to catch up.
Janina: solving an individual problem is something we definitely want to do but this is not the point of the call. Having IrfanA you use the model would be a HUGE benefit for us and the experience will inform the next steps like Benetech has also done.
… if we need to have assessment part of this, we are still deciding on.
Jeff: I agree we don't need 2.4.1 can be combined into 2.4
… I get we don't want that this is the permanent tool, because it may or may not be. we have no plan/funding, etc. for a more robust tool. so we have a tool that has been refined. Charles has improved it more recently making it a lot more user friendly. Maybe a recommended tool as a prototype, I don't like experimental. Doesn't give people a lot of confidence. I would like to say "recommended" in my email in the editors notes hig
h fidelity prototype, final version is still being considered including HTML are being considered.
… we want an apples to apples comparison when we ask for an accessibility report and they don't use the ITI template, had to make comparisons with other organizations.
… we have spent a lot of time improving this template and is very useful. These need to be released together. how do we sync the proofpoints. do we take what we have in the tool and drop them into the model, or do we just say that they won't be in sync. in the process document.
<Dr_Keith> just reconnected
Fazio: Not saying we need to remove the template, just saying that you don't HAVE to use our spreadsheet other things like a word document to do the same thing. We don't want to say they can't create their own tool.
Dr_Keith: what is the core question?
Fazio: 2.4 opening paragraph
… "is assessed" problem word is "is", we can change it.
<Fazio> An experimental accessibility maturity model assessment template is provided to assist individuals in documenting their evaluation efforts through the process provided in this Editors Draft. This experimental tool provided by the task force to check the feasibility of the process provided in the Editors Draft.
Janina: working on assessment is the next step. we need this to make sure the narrative is being confirmed. are we ready to publish? If we can change "is" to "may be" then maybe we are ready to publish. I would have a problem with "recommended" if we are holding the process narrative are we ready to go. refer to our "Note" not "Editors Draft" etc. points back to itself.
<Fazio> An experimental accessibility maturity model assessment template is provided to assist individuals in documenting their evaluation efforts through the process provided in this Editors Draft. This experimental tool provided by the task force to check the feasibility of the process provided in this Note.
Janina: in this Note.
<Fazio> An experimental accessibility maturity model assessment template is provided to assist individuals in documenting their evaluation efforts through the process provided in this Note. This experimental tool provided by the task force to check the feasibility of the process provided in this Note.
Jeff: I am not comfortable with "experimental". Prototype, high fidelity prototype.
<Fazio> The Maturity Model assessment template is intended as a high-fidelity prototype to track the accessibility maturity evaluation process provided in this publication. It was developed in an Excel format. A final published format is to be determined, but is envisioned as HTML. It may also be made available in other downloadable, accessible formats.
<Dr_Keith> suggestion: The Maturity Model assessment template is a detailed prototype designed to track the accessibility maturity evaluation process outlined in this publication. Currently, it is available in Excel format. The final version is expected to be in HTML and may also be offered in other accessible, downloadable formats.
Janina: I am concerned that high-fidelity sounds too jargony. This is what we used. we used this to develop this note. statement of fact.
Janina, Jeff, Charles agrees with this suggestion.
Janina: not Final to Future.
<Dr_Keith> The Maturity Model assessment template is a detailed prototype designed to track the accessibility maturity evaluation process outlined in this publication. Currently, it is available in Excel format. The future version is expected to be in HTML and may also be offered in other accessible, downloadable formats.
<janina> +1
<JXZ> +1
<CharlesL> +1
<Fazio> +1
Jeff: +1
<Susana_Pallero> +1
RESOLUTION: new wording to 2.4 is: The Maturity Model assessment template is a detailed prototype designed to track the accessibility maturity evaluation process outlined in this publication. Currently, it is available in Excel format. The future version is expected to be in HTML and may also be offered in other accessible, downloadable formats.
Github Issue #234 2.4.1 Maturity Model Excel Spreadsheet Should be Deleted
<gb> /issues/234 -> #234
Fazio: anyone object to deleting 2.4.1 since it is repetitive?
<CharlesL> +1
<Susana_Pallero> +1
<Dr_Keith> 0
<Fazio> +1
Jeff: +1 with a comment in github stating it is duplication of 233
RESOLUTION: will delete 2.4.1
Github Issue #232 Dimension Evaluation Instructions Are Problematic
<gb> /issues/232 -> #232
<Fazio> The following steps 1 - 3 have been embedded in every dimension. They need to be edited to explain that if a user wants to use the spreadsheet these are instructions on how to do so. However, the spreadsheet is not a part of the draft guidance:
<Fazio> Download the maturity model spreadsheet.
<Fazio> List all the organization's...
<Fazio> Compare the list to the spreadsheet to decide which proof points will be used to assess your organization's accessibility maturity. Not all proof points will be used for every business or organization. The proof points are non-exhaustive examples of criteria.
Fazio: Step 1 is to download the spreadsheet, this can't be if the spead sheet is not a requirement.
… in the process document
<Fazio> Decide which proof points will be used to assess your organization's [Dimension] accessibility maturity. Not all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in their place and/or additional proof
<Fazio> points.
<Fazio> List all of the organization's documentation in relation to the identified proof points.
<Fazio> Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for {that Dimension].
Janina: yes we can drop step 1, and currently step2 can step 1, and for the next step just do the task don't refer to the spread sheet.
<janina> +1 to David's lang
Fazio: so you can apply this to the spread sheet or your own implementation to assess.
Jeff: there is some redundancy and should say one thing. Do we want to get into any of this at all given this is stated in the spread sheet.
<JXZ> Could we have this in a section at the top instead of in each dimension? If it's the same for all of them.
Janina: we need to figure out what goes in the process document. not the specific tool .
Fazio: Maybe a "How to evaluate" instead of having this repeated in dimension. could be easier to find if its duplicated in each dimension. as long as its technology agnostic.
Jeff: doesn't hurt to duplicate it.
… your language is fine. not all proof points may apply. we don't want folks to "delete" proof points willy nilly.
Janina: we want to support folks who want to do the right thing. so I think we are ok.
Jeff: I think the wording seems fine with me.
<CharlesL> +1
Dr_Keith: how do you feel instead of "determine" to use "identify" instead proof points not make the impression can choose what they want. for #1 and #3, lets focus on #3.
<gb> /issues/3 -> #3
<gb> /issues/1 -> #1
Fazio: Step 1 "Identify" sounds right.
Dr_Keith: I am fine with the wording.
Jeff: Identify which proof points in #1
Janina: I agree with Jeff.
<Fazio> Identify the proof points will be used to assess your organization's [Dimension] accessibility maturity. Not all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in their place and/or additional proof
<Fazio> points.
<Fazio> List all of the organization's documentation in relation to the identified proof points.
<Fazio> Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for {that Dimension].
<Dr_Keith> were in the red zone
Jeff: instead of list all, to "obtain"
Janina: I think Obtain means less to me.
Jeff: we don't have a place to "list" these.
Janina: right and we wont because we haven't finalized anything.
Jeff: list implies something written down. is just a little odd to me.
Fazio: we are still working on the tool so thats our plan.
<Fazio> Identify the proof points to be used to assess your organization's [Dimension] accessibility maturity. Not all proof points may apply to every business or organization. The proof points listed here are non-exhaustive examples of criteria. They may, or may not apply. You may identify other proof points in their place and/or additional proof points.
<Fazio> 2. List all of the organization's documentation in relation to the identified proof points.
<Fazio> 3. Determine what accessibility maturity level your proof point documentation supports for {that Dimension].
<Dr_Keith> +1
<janina> +1
<CharlesL> +1
<Fazio> +1
Jeff +1
<janina> Jeff is +1
<Susana_Pallero> +1
<JXZ> I still need access to work on GitHub please.
RESOLUTION: change the wording to match the suggested text.