Meeting minutes
Intros and Announcements
alastairc: announcement - time zone changed in US; invites are based in Boston. Meeting time will be an hour earlier for a short period for some.
Assertions discussion https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qWuFM3fFgC_e1Jik05Os11O0Rl86HLDXu9dolwyWWtc/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p
alastairc: Assertion discussion - assertion is a formal claim of fact attributed to a personal organization. WCAG 3.0 includes usability testing, style guides, process, and practice-oriented things. Information required for someone when they're making a claim is minimal. There has been questions around if organizations would be happy (willing) to
do this. Assertions are similar to an accessibility conformance statement; asserting what does and doesn't conform. The question for today is "Would your organization and all the organizations that you work with be happy to include assertions in your ACR within an accessibility statement? If if not, why not?"
<kirkwood> No. It would no longer be a specification requirement.
alastairc: Can you take the presentation and ask your legal team, or your clients, to find out what the status of this would be?
<kirkwood> that assertion reads more like a requirment
alastairc: example shown will start with requirements, and then the assertion. [Refer to slides shared]. Media assertion (part 1 and part 2)
alastairc: Clear language requirement assertion example provided. Information in the claim in minimal, recommended internal documentation is a copy of the policy, or a proportion of authors who have completed the training, and a copy of the style guide, if any, where clear language review has been defined.
<kirkwood> Legally: Requirements are what the system must do, while Assertions are what we assume or verify to be true at a specific point in time.
LoriO: Doesn't support this, any type of reporting would not put a huge burden on the group that has to do the reporting. The other part is that when you say title role or organization making the assertion. But I doubt that our legal department would be in favor of having specific organization within the company.
alastairc: How does this differ than an organization publishing an ACR?
<kirkwood> +1 to Lori
LoriO: Internal documentation for bookkeeping, people shift around all the time, and the maintenance around this would be quite burdensome.
Rachael: Asking for thoughts or follow up today, the thought for how a large company would be able to create this today. How could you take this partial language?
<GN015> +1 to Lori
LoriO: Talking about clear language assertion, our language in the ACR may have clear language. Does not see the value for these assertions.
kirkwood: +1 to Lori, legally, the requirements were always put into the ACR requirements, or what a system must do.
Shadi: assertions create requirments to create a conformance claim which would be an issue. ACR makes ense with a specific product but difficult with websites. if no central entitiy for company might not be possible. scope around defined web site needed as well.
<Zakim> Charles, you wanted to ask 2 different questions
Shadi: cntral entity, and requirment to make public statement of some sort
Charles: the format of info needed to be included publically specific to ACR? or howeber organization chooses? what suggesting?
… Date of assertion, are we opening door for abuse. keep date current regardless of content
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on voluntary assertions
AC: on date aspect, thinking behind that. WCAG assertion for exmample. It mkes sense in some cases.
… on requiment if you are making conformance than these are thinking what yo need to do. if content meets and process meets these are good to do thats why we were including them
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss division vs author training
Jennie: movement in US of clasification of data in differnet naes around roles, shift in identification on public page. legal says certian info on public page gives opportunity to make request date aurthor training could flag for government not do that
… not wanting to hold individual reaponsible not organization
Shadi: info to be included publically should be info in conformance claim, is that correct?
AC: yes
Gundula: may not be connected at all
… question to recommend colletion of data that may not be connected
Lori: thats GDPR
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest breaking apart the conversation a bit
AC: my company doe it
Gundula: it’s not vissible outside HR
RM: it’s created a lot of concerns it seems. lets froam and talk about ACR
AC: co making assertion, wether and how to have part of call level
Lori: aren’t we already doing with ACRs?
… name, date, publishing is all standard
… concerned about increasing workload
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Lori
Lori: what value does it really give to users, what more than we have
<Charles> thought on ‘what value to user’. to me this seems similar to the iOS accessibility nutrition labels.
RM: yes if assertions part of ACR, this is not about ACR, this is a procedulre you assert you did.
RM: provide credit for procedure or prlocess
prlocess/process
… wouldn’t have to provide a date done separtely somhow
AC: not just that bit extra, requirement things arn’t really objectively testable. putting into process is best way for recognizing this to be done
Shadi: wonder if these are best examples to get done
… clear language example and media could be put into list too. this could also that these might not be best examples
Shadi: think this from COGA needs maybe clear language could be best path
Julie: registry might not be best, objective and relable test such as registry. exmaple of short paragraph in frnch versus other language. active passive difficult to make objectively testable.
… its more about process rather than objectively tesable
Shadi: not sure might raise more concerns for me. having trained athors how to improve end user if not able to define it. plain language, clear language simple language differnet languages
… wondering if this is really been tested and mecoginism for training authors but haven’t shown improvement
RM: maybe we need to step backwards to assertions. meant to address situation of not immedialy verifiable. big ones, plain languagek, user testing, assistive techmology testing. Paticularly using registry but only thing can be that assertion was properly formatted. is it doable at core level. i’m hearing concerns
HB: we tie oursleves it ITI think we have to decide where appear and what process is or testing criteria, if we could would we be willing to share if reqeusted
… what attorneys need, coprotate and product. lot of differnt areas. as lori said its a heavy lift
… is it possible yes but what do we gain
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on gaming
AC: about gaming following alt text style guide but failed requirments it would be obvios not following
… other aspect whats the benefit, while running accessibility training i do pause cognitive section. use simple plain language
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss contract
AC: if chooosing be process by rewuirment
Jennis: i think they can be used together. having an asssertion atleast they are asserting that they are doing something. hafving that assertion present could idnetify one company’s reproting standardazid way. it is something thaaat realizaing COGA patterns i do support asserttions in a way legal doesn’t say they can’t be used
JR: in cognitive area hope we can make assertions more comfortable for org to cover more cognitive territory in WCAG 3
Shadi: with one company asserts one and another assets another, doesn’t create confusion
<Heather> alastairc: We use ITI's VPAT templates: https://
<alastairc> Oh, right, that is the VPAT template, sorry, forgot the org name
<alastairc> In which case, the assertions would appear in the same way as requirements.
Jennie: many orgs will have a doc review process. if 2 companies assert same, each would have a process. upto the org
… some orgs would investigate more throughly than others
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to respond to Shadi
AC: other end of procurement, one dies clear language another doesn’t
<ShawnT> Can we have the exact text we could share with our organizations?
AD: homework can people to whomever signs off on accessiblity reports or legal with a couple of examples would make assertion. in conformance claims.
RM: would having info about recommended internal question. date to it would be good to know?
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest an additional question
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss PDAA
AC question was added to slide deck
<Jennie_Delisi> PDAA: https://
<Jennie_Delisi> Policy Driven Adoption for Accessibility
Jennie: added plicy driven concept to suuplement what is in VPAT
<kirkwood> s/plcy/policy
Gundula: legal who reqweusts the test, who perfoms, don’t feel in postion to ask question, timeframe no less than 4 weeks
AC: don’t know who
Gundulu: to ask legal not person to contact legal
AC: who whould we target?
<ShawnT> I have a lot of organizations... (government departments).
kirkwood: The person to target is the digital accessibility director. It's often done in organizations, particularly if they were sued.
RM: very valuable
JK: the person to Asd is the Digital Accesibilty Director
<Charu> +1
<BrianE> +1
RM: valuable convo to have if willing
<GN015> +1 to more information
<Rachael> +1 to that clarification
Charles: inrtro of what assertions are and timeframe woud be preferred
<shadi> +1 to more information and complete examples
AC: deadling for how doing assetions is couple of years but don’t wnat to was teim if a dead end
AC: examples are nearly complete but can add intro material
examples are referring to WCAG 3 but many people can’t expect them to read 3 first just put in one to have discussion
AC: they are copied out of wcag 3 for that purpose
RM: we will add more context
Updates to ACT exercise https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1klORYoNQq3oDMJLc52q6Qf5gCTIcGHsm2kBbroj7bMM/edit?slide=id.g3cd4cba3573_0_0#slide=id.g3cd4cba3573_0_0
Rachael: Questions came out of the ACT exercise. Tried to get to the point where we can clarify items for the whole group. The deck used before has been updated and hopefully answered questions.
Rachael: When we talk about ACT Rules and procedures, they come at testing from a different point of view. A lot of the testing is the result from the user's point of view; whereas the ACT rule focuses on the content of the criteria. Generally, we need both; a clear, sufficient technology agnostic test, and we need ACT rules. both of those clarify
and support requirements. ACT Rules are technology specific.
Rachael: Test procedures are technology-agnostic, so they are covering not just a piece of the content. [Updates to the exercise are covered via slides]
Rachael: Asking to draft 1-2 rules for each requirement (not 'all'). Procedures need to have the same level of clarity as ACT rules. They should be written in a way that is clear to everyone what passes and what fails. Next is to figure out what definition of done is, so that we can define the next two-year period for the upcoming charter. ACT
rules are valuable for clarifying this work.
Rachael: ACT rules does not aim for sufficiency. Slide shows a 'Test procedure format (DRAFT)' to talk about the test. The test procedure is for 'each' instance of whatever is being tested. Showing a format that is being used consistently. Feedback from the group as people are working on it is welcome.
Rachael: Did this help clarify the questions we had last week? No one on queue.
alastairc: This is the third or fourth week of going through this. Hopefully this has helped.
alastairc: We have space and time for subgroup work now. Will open up the breakout rooms. Due to CSUN, attendance to this meeting is low. If you end up in a room by yourself, you can disconnect. If you need help, stick around, and Kevin can help direct you. In the bottom of zoom, there's a windows icon (or under the 'more' icon), there's a breakout
room, choose the one you are a member of.