<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron
Brent: We have received feedback on the statement generated by the tools. Shadi?
Shadi: Thanks to everyone who
provided feedback, much appreciated. 14 or more response, great
turnout. This is important and have collected the comments and
brought some for discussion.
... three main things added as sub-bullets to the agenda
... first is the concerns that the minimal and comprehensive do
not seem that different. Can we talk about what would be the
minimal?
... what should be removed?
<Brent> Accessibility Statement - Minimal Version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Xrqe4N0lS89OlMl6oKj_wDTtPLEsCq-XvXTvXZq5VY/edit#heading=h.t8tx0psdwj1e
Shadi: so for example, the first
is the commitment statement, then there is a reference to the
standard, then a scope statement (some suggested to remove
this). Next was a part about exceptions, limitations section.
Audit results was another section to link to a full
report.Research indicated that a statement should be backed by
measured outcomes.
... we then had an optional accessiblity features
section.
... those are the parts we thought we needed. Does anyone think
any of this should not be here?
... or to turn it around, do we all agree these should be
present?
Brent: I made the comment in the
review. The minimal statement does not need conformance,
limitations, audit results and that sort of technical thing.
more of a statement that you have a commitment. Minimal is
going to be extremely minimal that we are aware and care, what
the standard is, and a place to say if you ahve problems, here
is where to submit.
... the other stuff is good but would not be in a minimal
statement which would be just be "we care, here's what we use
to measure, optional limitations (depending on what the
statement is for, like a small municipality or something) and
most importantly where to get help.
Shadi: So the assumption
(rmemeber there are two pages - on with general info and one
that generates) the assumption is closely related to the webite
or product. So a large company with many products may not be
able to use just one statement.
... using City Lights accessible version, assume you are
writing the statement for the before and after, would you
include the limitations? We expect the scope to be close to the
actual product.
Denis: I might be paraphrasing Brent but my inaital thought was that the minimal statement was too long and complex. Basically it should be 3 things - we care, the standard we use, and where to get in touch of you have a problem. Then you must make sure someone ansers the problem line.
<Chris> Denis' comments make sense to me
Denis: those other things should be in the comprehensive one. Make the minimal very minimal, easy to use and create.
Shadi: Does everyone agree that
is sufficient?
... or will users expect more?
<Laura> +1 to Denis' comments. A more indepth evaluation can be provided to a user who specifically asks for it.
EricE: You made the mistake to ask what I think. That much minimal statement does not satisfy me as a user. Should I even try to use a screen reader on the site. It is important to know what I as a user can actually expect if I jump in to use the site.
Shadi: So would you list individual screen readers you ahve used to test?
EricE: Yes I would list the stack I tested with.
<Brent> I agree with what Eric is saying. If you know there are specific combinations that DON'T work, then they could be included in the minimal so that that information is being conveyed to the user right away.
Denis: The minimal one serves the organization, you do not want to overcommit or overstate. It is the more complex one that will serve the user. Maybe that is a good way to differentiate. Many do not want to make a full statement because it exposes them to more liability. All the detail of the stack etc can make a great support for the user, but you also expose yourself to criticism.
Shadi: Yes we have seen that
tension from the beginning. It is the EU that is requiring this
statement. But it is meant to be for the user and so even
though it may take some time for it to be adopted, what does
the WAI want to recommend as best practice.
... so even if businesses may not want to say "yes, we know our
credit card section is broken," what do users need?
Rachel: I would also say it is
not likely that anyone willlist the known exceptions. Too much
time, competitive nature among customers, and difficulty in
keeping the list current. Hard mind set to counter if we are up
frontabout error and others are not.
... legal will not allow that and recommend to be sure that
there is a clear contact path to report problems.
Robert: Must balance giving
people the information they need to be successful and what to
expect against what companies can realistically be expected to
do.
... I like Denis basic three things and might add what kind of
testing has been done so far or what the plan is against the
mandate like in Europe to tell all. Maybe it is on us as the
WAI to recommend the full report, but give them "at least do
this."
<dboudreau> +1 to that, @shadi... that's how most of our clients would think about it
Shadi: Yes we have considered that if we lower the bar companies are less likely to walk away from the whole idea of an Accessibility Statement.
<Vicki> +1 Robert, good angle to view the statement from different levels approaching accessibility (from the start, mid-way, more advanced)
Robert: And so we want to recommend that companies at least say what and if they have tested.
Shadi: New landing page with
addiitonal information about why they should add different
parts to a Statement.
... as a group then what shall we recommend as a bare
minimum?
Brent: I want to echo the way Robert spoke about accessiiblity as journey. To begin you would have a simple statemnt and over time as your program becomes more robust you can add to the statement. Maybe letting companies know to begin with the bare minimum and encourage them to continue to consider and add to it as an aid to their custoners. Let them know the statement will evolve along with their
program.
<Zakim> dboudreau, you wanted to comment on component modularity
Denis: Yes agreed and to add to that, we have the experince with our clients that when they are willing to say a little more, they want a more modular approach, declarations that they can pick and shoose from. Things you may consider adding to your statement. DIY statements that allow them to add parts that are meaningful and that they feel safe talking about and referencing.
Shadi: So you are saying that the minimum statement is you care, the standard you use, and how to contact someone if you have a problem.
EricE: I don't feel this would be too useful but am willing to go with the group. It is like the statements people made about privacy - they say they care but do not at all. I think as WAI we can do better even as a minimum statement.
Denis: Want to acknowledge that concern. It is true we sould d better but like everything in our field we come up against what we wish people might do and what they are actually willing to do. If we accept that the minimal is useful to the compnaies and begin the process of commitment and the comprehensive is useful to real users.
<Brent> at least the minimal one lets the user who is having trouble know how/who to contact. It is a place to start.
KrisAnne: We should push them to do more but I like the idea of scaling back the minimal statement and so maybe we add a bit about testing.
<Brent> What about adding "approach/accomplishments"
KrisAnne: do they use a screen reader, what steps they take to assure they meet the standard they quote.
Shadi: So we say that this testing info is highly encouraged but not required?
KrisAnne: Yes the statement must put them on the path of what action is being taken.
Shadi: This is quite a substantial change. Sanne do you want to take any position on this?
Sanne: At first we had the user as the person we were trying to meet the needs of. I can see now if we are thinking of the compnay it will change things quite a bit. Ican see the points from the company POV.
Vicki: I would like to add just a bit more - maybe an option for testing and if known limitations exisit, they could be mentioned.
<rjolly> what about a toggle for EU vs other locales to set what is required for EU?
<rjolly> i know we *want* people to create and publish comprehensive statements... but the reality is folks are scared in the US to admit faults.
Shadi: But as the field progresses, maybe we will be more comfortable with greater transparency.
<dboudreau> Just to be clear, I'm ALWAYS leaning towards the best interest of the users, but my experience leads me to believe that when we dont pay enough attention to the perspective of the organizations, then we alienate them and THAT ultimately hurts the users even more. Pragmatism folks. It pays off.
Shadi: The discussion resolves our discussion, Sanne, is there anything else we need?
Sanne: Yes I think we have covered the questions we came with.
Shadi: And that the limitation section is to be less technical
<shadi> https://www.accessibility.nl/statement/
Shadi: thanks to everyone who participated, here is the early prototype, still very much a draft
<Vicki> nice
<yatil> 👏🏽
Brent: I have attended sessions lately about accessibility statements and all have said the most important thing to do for minimzing legal risk is to have a statement. A pity in a way but emphasizes the importance of this.
<shadi> [kudos to EricV, Sanne, Leon, and Martijn]
<Rachel> scribnick: Rachel
<Vicki> i can
<shawn> scribe: Rachel
Sharron: once we changed from
early stage draft to complete draft we had a huge number of
open issues
... I tried to get through as many as I could last night but
there are more this morning
... I aso have a marked up word doc from marketing and comm in
WAI
... there will definitely be more changes
<Sharron> https://w3c.github.io/wai-bcase/teach-advocate/business-case/
<Sharron> https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues
Sharron: association with UNCRPD
and Legal history opened today
... original intent was to show there wasnnt much attention to
accessibility early on
... shawn is saying its too detailed and US centric and should
be removed
... and reasons not to remove?
... I integrated about 15 suggestions that were made
Brent: DO you want to try to see if there are any that you want to put on the weekly survey?
Sharron: yep, if there are any I am not able to resolve, I'll put them on the survey
<shawn> Thanks to Vicki for careful review and comments!
Sharron: underneath the summary in the business case there is now a detailed TOC
<Vicki> +1 toc
Sharron: Is there any objection
to that? Does it add clutter?
... this includes H3s for subsections
... we also changed rocket ship for robot, took the arrow off
the briefcase
... replaced some other images as well
<Vicki> +1 annotated bibliography
Sharron: included articles that could be valuable for someone trying to build their own business case in an annotated bibliography
<Vicki> Bravo, Sharon and team!
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say organization and presentation of Annotated Bibliography is awesome!
Shawn: I think the org and presentation of the annotated bibliography is awesome
<yatil> 😳
brent: I like that the
bibliography link shows up in the nav on the left side
... Eric and/or shawn: I know we're trying to be consistent
with page summary and page contents. Is this the same as the
other pages?
<shawn> yes, it's just like on the other pages!
brent: this looks awesome Sharron! The weekly survey is a great place to forth any questions that are outstanding
Sharron: shawn, is there anything here that requires discussion?
Shawn: legal history is up to you
Sharron: happy to take that out
shawn: the assoc piece is an editorial tweak; the strong statement is also editorial - up to you if you want other opinions
Sharron: I can work that one
in
... quotes without attributes aren't distinguished in the way
they are formatted
... some people suggested we may need to treat attributed and
not attributed differently
<shawn> issue: https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues/45
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-6 - Https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/issues/45. Please complete additional details at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/track/issues/6/edit>.
shawn: we've done callout
sections without quote marks - should we just do that?
... maybe we not italicize it as well to distinguish it
<Vicki> good point, shawn
<Vicki> vote for change hand position, rachel!
<shawn> robot hand position....
<Sharron> scribe: Sharron
Brent: Moved how the work for the
week is presented, will list that work on top to find quickly,
then have the For Everyone section, often reflected in the
survey; then the work for only the UnDoc team (others are free
to join) and a summary status; and then assignments for that
team
... trying to give transparency so people know what is going on
in that sub-group and jump in if you wish. Any questions?
Brent: will update work for the week; will have some survey questions around tutorials and biz case (possibly); survey will be short.
Sharron: TPAC agenda, add items if you have specifc items to work on
Brent: By the 28th of September
<Vicki> Yeah, Sylvie
Brent: Thanks Shadi, Sanne, Sharron for bringing the items to the meeting, will get survey out.
<Vicki> bye
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ tehy/ they/ Succeeded: s/ Tings/ Things/ Succeeded: s/ahve/have/ Succeeded: s/group.It/group. It/ Succeeded: s/Shadi"/Shadi:/ Succeeded: s/brb// Succeeded: s/Toic/Topic/ Default Present: Brent, Chris, Denis, EricE, Lewis, Robert, Sanne, Shadi, Sharron, Sylvie, Vicki, Shawn, Rachel, Laura, KrisAnne Present: Brent Chris Denis EricE Lewis Robert Sanne Shadi Sharron Sylvie Vicki Shawn Rachel Laura KrisAnne Regrets: Norah Amanda Stéphane Andrew Found Scribe: Sharron Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron Found Scribe: Rachel Inferring ScribeNick: Rachel Found Scribe: Sharron Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron Scribes: Sharron, Rachel ScribeNicks: Sharron, Rachel Found Date: 07 Sep 2018 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]