<jeanne> AG-Facilitators meeting
Cyborg: Should we show the slides?
Jeanne: Absolutely. Are they ready to be published?
Cyborg: It should be fine, since this was shared with OCAD...knowing this is an iteration.
<Cyborg> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dsgjIBp7uEwRr63Z3ZFZ6tJ78eRG_qKDS-mjBGqaJwY/edit?usp=sharing
Cyborg: My background is in
journalism and I came in to help with the plain language
prototype and got more interested in this project.
... one of the concerns I and others have experienced is using
it like a checklist
... and we also want to keep more in the spirit of
accessibility and include more people with disabilities
... I've been working with folks at the Ontario College of Art
and Design to see if some of the principles of how they work
could be integrated into Silver.
... I've presented a couple of iterations of a "meaningful
involvement" document for Silver
... what is meaningful involvement, how can we make it
happen?
... not considering PWD as an outside group, but as a part of
the group
... meaningful involvement is very much a part of innovating
and creating new products and features
... as an example, we've had engineers go out into outer space
to create products that we use on earth. and PWD can help
create things that are useful for everyone
... barriers found at the end of the process can be found
sooner by having a more inclusive approach. you can reduce the
cost of reaching out later by including them earlier
... how do you get organizations to buy in to this? this is a
challenging journey for many organizations. they don't know how
to do it, they have push back, internally, etc.
... dealing with working with people with disabilities has been
put off and we're there now. It may seem intimidating but the
hope would be that meaningful involvement would help them cross
that bridge
... when you look at other accessibility steps that have been
taken, having a plan seems to work well. the bronze level could
be creating a plan, silver would be that they're implementing
the steps, and gold would be mature meaningful involvement
<Charles> Not sure how I missed this in previous conversation on this topic, but I thought that meaningful involvement was about participation in creating Silver – not in organizational changes. Isn’t this is advocacy that is outside of the role of guidance?
Cyborg: there are 3 ways of thinking of gold, one is the Principles, another is the Plan, and a third would be strategies of working with PWD
Jeanne, could you mention Charles' point in Webex
Cyborg: This would be specifically within the guidance of collaborating with people
Jeanne: We're including it in this discussion because it could influence structure.
Charles: Are you saying that to be conformant you'd need to have these in place?
Cyborg: That would be the hope
Charles: How would this include content published by an individual?
Cyborg: Let's jump ahead to some
of the issues. This is one of the issues, "how do we get people
there when there are different organization sizes?" How much
would they have in common in terms of their process? There
would probably need to be some kind of different strategies of
getting there that need to be fleshed out.
... it's still kind of unclear, we did a decision tree based on
the size, that there could be multiple pathways to the same
destination. potentially, organizations could learn from
other's mistakes.
Jeanne: What we're looking at is not that individual methods aren't associated with a specific level. They have a cumulative point overall for the level. We could have points that would help companies do the extra work to get to the "gold" level.
Charles: So in terms of milestones of Silver, this is a task within a conformance prototype. That task is basically defining one aspect of measurability in one form of conformance. If we look at it as a prototype in and of itself, it's a little unfair compared to other efforts going on that had research that led to the prototyping phase.
Jeanne: That's one of the advantage of including OCAD since they have that research.
Cyborg: The hope is that in a short time, we can figure out what organization are doing where they think they're doing well. And those folks would have a place to land...not that they'd have to start over.
Jeanne: Can you make sure Mike Crabb sees this conversation explaining it. Just to make sure it's on his radar?
Cyborg: Sure.
... I know for example there are tools and methods to help with
other guidance areas and I'm hoping that comes out of this too.
One thing that came out is about the number of organizations
that don't do this internally, they hire consultants to do it.
They might know which consultants would know how to get to a
gold level. Defining the gold standard could make it easier for
evaluating the program. Some of the concerns are...what do the
organizations do is they're
<Charles> a significant assumption to validate is that by having {n} inclusive practices = accessible output.
Cyborg: not ready for it. Or
maybe they haven't been involved with accessibility but have
had involvement in other domains
... for some it might be a smaller leap than others
Jeanne: Thanks for presenting this and for including OCAD's expertise.
<JF> +1 to Charles
Jeanne: Charles' point make sense and definitely something we need to keep in mind.
Cyborg: If there are folks with other thoughts, I would welcome the feedback and welcome to communication. Thanks!
Jeanne: I sent out a draft of the email I wanted to send out, but haven't gotten any feedback. So let's have a brief discussion of where we want to go with this discussion?
Charles: These are less arguments and more points and counterpoints.
Shawn: Yeah, we should organize it more by topics.
Charles: We should think of this upcoming meeting in terms of a goal of the meeting. And maybe structure this document to help that.
Shawn: I would less claim that
we'd reach into a conclusion. I'd rather have a goal of (if we
can categorize the topics) coming to a conclusion of where we
should investigate into each of these.
... If we make a conformance model that makes one of these
objectively worse, then we should investigate that.
... It's not "if" we take cost of adoption into account; more
"how" we take cost of adoption into account
Jeanne: We have a spreadsheet to kind of help address this.
JF: One of the things that came
out about cost is the priority of constituents. I'm sensing
moving the developers and owners of the content to the first
spot...don't want to lose that things should be better for end
user.
... cost is important for content creator, but having to weight
the cost to creator vs user, I would make sure the end user
trumps the content creator.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to also ask about "priority of constituents" as part of the discussion
<Charles> +1 to JF
+1 to JF
<Lauriat> +1
Jeanne: What we're working on in
the structure conversation is creating it to have the
flexibility to find the sweet spot
... anyone want to take this document and organize it by
topics?
Charles: I'll add some comments, but not sure if I can reformat.
Jeanne: Anything you can do is welcome.
Olaseni: i've got view-only for the document
Jeanne: Send me an email with your google email and I can give you permission
Jeanne: Not sure there is anyone here to give comment on this.
Shawn: Checking for the email he sent to the list
Jeanne: He won't have time for now, so on to next topic.
Jeanne: but this is the document he was working on
Angela, anything new on Plain Language?
Angela: Not finished with documents based on Cyborg's outlines. I like where they're going. Should be able to finish them up over the weekend.
Jeanne: Cyborg, is the prototype you showed us publicly viewable? can we share it?
Cyborg: They're in last meeting's minutes.
Jeanne: Wanted to give a quick
update about handling conflicts between different disabilities.
Met with facilitators of most AG task forces. They had a long
conversation about some of the problems of conflicts between
disabilities.
... Accessible name/label causes problems for speech users. Low
vision users needing to enlarge vs reducing scrolling, etc.
<JF> WebAIM Survey: https://webaim.org/projects/lowvisionsurvey2/
Cyborg: Sent an email with some other conflicts.
Jeanne: Do we have a document where these are all stored?
Cyborg: Don't think it was in a shareable form.
Jeanne: We need to make sure we
have a place to store these.
... Any other comments before moving on?
... okay, then the last one
Jeanne: There are some github issues we need to get on.
<jeanne> https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues
Jeanne: here's a link to the
issues. some are associated with cost of silver
discussion
... we now have tagging so they can be tagged as
appropriate.
... Shawn, can you do more of this? they send me email notices
that got lost in my flood.
JF: I'm having the same problem with the Silver emails. But I can take some time looking at it.
Jeanne: We need some way of keeping an eye on it.
Shawn: I can try to pay more attention. Maybe at least route them to the folks working on it.
Thanks JF!
nice seeing you again
Jeanne: And last item is that
Charles saw Silver in an article!
... it was a little old information, but glad they did it.
<Lauriat> 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/agenda+ FTI/agenda+ FYI/ Succeeded: s/couple influence structure/could influence structure/ Succeeded: s/Send an email with/Sent an email with/ Succeeded: s/FTI/FYI/ Default Present: jeanne, AngelaAccessForAll, Lauriat, KimD, LuisG, Cyborg, mikeCrabb, kirkwood, Charles, shari, Jan, JF Present: jeanne AngelaAccessForAll Lauriat KimD LuisG Cyborg mikeCrabb kirkwood Charles shari Jan JF Regrets: Jemma MikeCr No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: LuisG Inferring Scribes: LuisG 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]