Meeting minutes
<jeanne> http://
tzviya: Does anyone have any objections to being recorded?
… No objections, we'll begin recording
Presentation Slides: http://
[the following transcript was taken from Zoom's automatic speech recognition and has not been fully corrected.]
jeanne: So I'm Jeanne Spellman. I've been doing web accessibility work since about 1999 2000 and first as a developer and then as a designer and tester and then the change evangelists, and then I started working on WCAG standards work in 2008.
.: I've worked on the WCAG 2.0 guideline. As a tester for candidate recommendation. And then I've been an editor for the authoring tool accessibility guidelines user agent accessibility guidelines and how WCAG applies to mobile.
.: And I am a co leader of the silver Task Force and the silver community group.
.: So shall I move on. Yes, please.
.: Great. All right. Let's go.
.: So first of all, just briefly what is we kept three.
.: It will is a new set of accessibility guidelines from the W3C that succeeds, but doesn't deprecate with tag to. That's a question we commonly get.
.: We do have a name change, we are keeping the WCAG brand, but the name change the name is now the W3C accessibility guidelines, because we plan to have a broader scope of the code name silver that you may have heard in the past now applies to
.: the task force into the project.
.: And there's a whole introduction to the WCAG 3.0 project which I've linked to there, if anyone wants more information.
.: Here's my big Disclaimer This is a first draft It is the first public Working Draft. There will be many changes to come, we won't be done for years, and tool developers should exercise caution and stay current with changes that the group is working on.
.: We started this project in 2016 with a small group of people who started working on with tag 2.1 and wanted to do more so we laid out a multi year project, and we started out with 18 months of research in partnership with academic and corporate researchers,
.: and there's a lot of information linked on this page I'm not going to go through a lot of the details.
.: But basically, we discovered that in general, people really liked the guidance of what tag to, but they didn't like how difficult it was to use, and they didn't like the way the conformance worked.
.: So we took all of the research results, we formed it into problems statements. And then we held a design sprint, a two day sprint with people, industry, 27 industry leaders from internationally.
.: And we gave them these problems, and they sketched out solutions.
.: And then we spent the next two years, wrangling and prototyping the solutions. And until we got to the first public Working Draft that published last month.
.: So, our first draft.
.: So, we have a new structure for the guidelines.
.: You have principles, guidelines, success criteria and techniques. And then you also have the understanding document but those four are the key parts that people who are trying to implement the guidelines need to use.
.: We tried to flatten it to two levels but we could not get rid of a measurable outcome level. And so we now have three. So it's guidelines are high level plain language version of the content.
.: It's oriented more for managers policymakers and individuals who are new to accessibility.
.: And we have how to section that describes that guideline and that how to.
.: You can sort of think of it as the understanding document for the guidelines.
.: Now the outcomes are testable criteria that include information on how to score the outcome.
.: If you decide that you're going to make a conformance claim.
.: How did I manage to do that. That was good.
.: I hit the keyboard and advanced two slides.
.: And then the methods are roughly similar to the WCAG to techniques. That's detailed information on how to meet the outcome your code samples working examples, resources and information about testing and scoring.
.: So if we compare them side by side, it will come back to you have guidelines and with tag three you have guidelines, they're going to be pretty similar.
.: The success criteria are roughly equivalent outcomes, but the outcomes are going to be a great deal more flexible.
.: The success criteria and we can add to our binary true false statement.
.: And what we found is there were many needs of people with disabilities, particularly in the cognitive disability areas that could not be addressed in with tag to, because their needs didn't fit into a binary true false.
.: So, The outcomes are actually a rating scale.
.: And then within that rating scale you can have different types of tests and measurements, but the outcome level also allows us to normalize different types of testing into a comparable structure.
.: So, what we finally worked it out I was really excited because it's slick and it works, which I'm very very happy about the techniques such as methods, the understanding as to how to.
.: And a lot of people ask about this, the principles are not in the first public Working Draft, but they haven't gone away. We do plan to include them in the future.
.: As we move to a more database driven.
.: We want to be able to serve the information in a more dynamic way more modern way so that people don't have to search through hundreds of pages of documentation to find what they need.
.: And we plan to include the principles as tags that people could organize the information or search on the information by, so those aren't going, they're not in the first public Working Draft but they're not going to go away.
.: So for an example and here's our most basic one, we are, we only moved. We only have five guidelines in the first public Working Draft and I'll get into the details of that.
.: But text alternatives, is the our basic test of what's a very well known.
.: Very well understood. WCAG 2.0 success criteria and that we can show moves into WCAG 3.0 without changes, or with very little changes. So the guideline is very familiar provide text alternatives for non text content.
.: The outcome is that it provides text alternatives for non text content for user agents and assistive technologies. And this allows users are unable to perceive or understand the non text content to determine its meeting.
.: The second sentence is there, because we know that as soon as we publish this, the final version that when we go to wreck, that people will immediately strip out everything put together.
.: Just say here's the new checklist.
.: So we wanted to have a sentence that said why we're doing it in the outcome.
.: And then we have methods, you know, HTML functional images decorative images.
.: And the important one to note here is that we also have author control of text alternatives, which is directly from the authoring tool accessibility guidelines, because
.: by part of our name change to W three c accessibility guidelines, is we will start to assume civil laid a tag and us.
.: So we want to do it at a informative level, because the methods are informative and give guidance to the authoring tools and the user agents and assistive technologies as well.
.: We haven't done much with that yet but we plan to.
.: And that way, There will be guidance of how to do it.
.: but they're not going to be a requirement that they are forced to do.
.: So, we're certainly interested in feedback about that.
.: And then here's a quick look at what a method, looks like for texts alternatives. There's an introduction tab a description tab. Examples tests and resources.
.: So we're very interested in feedback on the tab panel approach.
.: And please take a look at it at your leisure.
.: The text alternatives how to this is oriented more for beginners. That was another thing that came out of the research is people wanted an on ramp for beginners.
.: So each of the how tos starts with a GET STARTED tab, which is very much oriented toward people new to accessibility.
.: And then the other tabs or the next four tabs or by role.
.: Or actually, it's by activity, we've looked at doing roles and just said roles are too restrictive. And they're not flexible enough to cover the span of different types of organizations that use WCAG.
.: So we said, we'll do it by activity because even if you're a one person shop, you're going to plan a project that you're working on. So we'll have a plan tab the Design tab develop tab, and then some of the guidelines will also have, edit, edit tabs.
.: Because a lot of this is about how will you write excessively.
.: And then we have examples and resources.
.: So we have five guidelines in the first draft, and each of them was picked to illustrate a specific part of the structure.
.: So text alternatives was our direct migration with very few changes.
.: Clear words is a brand new guideline. And this was one of the proposals for WCAG 2.1 that couldn't make it in because it couldn't be tested with a true false.
.: Well, a true false binary success criteria. So we're very interested in having people take a look at it. Take a look at our ideas for testing, we've, we've done a lot more work on it since we started working on the first public Working Draft but we're
.: still very interested in feedback.
.: Captions is a little disappointing because this was going to be our example of adapting with tech to guidance to emerging technologies like virtual reality on the web.
.: And we got the basic parts in before the cutoff for the CFC, and we didn't get the, the virtual reality outcomes, and so they'll be in the next draft structured content is an example of merging different previously unrelated with hack to success criteria,
.: including merging double A and triple A.
.: So take a look at that.
.: That one was our prototype guideline that we've had since very early in the process. So it's a, it's not always as up to date as the others because there isn't a group directly working on this, but again we.
.: It's there for you to look at and poke at and see what you like and what you don't.
.: And then the last one is visual contrast is text. This is really exciting one.
.: This is a migration of the WCAG to color contrast, but with substantial changes to the algorithm.
.: And what we hope is that this will open up the color palette to designers, so that they can use a combination of fonts and colors in order to get the contrast that's needed, but allowing more colors to be available.
.: And it is also merging the double A and the triple A success criteria.
.: So, you all know what confirm it says, I don't think I have to talk too much about that.
.: Other groups, I have to explain what conformance beans.
.: So let's start with the conformance the changes from week to week had to you had to evaluate things by web page, but because we're looking at broader scope than just websites.
.: For example, we're looking at including mobile apps, applications.
.: Certainly we intend to include Digital Publishing. We had to look at a much more into a broader way to evaluate and what we've decided to do is to evaluate by the site or the entire product.
.: And then giving people the option if they want to do a logical subset.
.: If people want to do an account, you know, create a new account section of their site that they can test just bad, so we don't want to restrict that.
.: But we were particularly thinking about digital publishing, where you don't want to be looking at things just by the web, individual HTML files you want to look at the bundle of files so that was part of our thinking.
.: and triple A success criteria to prioritize. And we found in the research that this introduced an inadvertent.
.: Definitely inadvertent but a structural bias that people who have disabilities with obvious barriers, had many more success criteria in the a level, and groups like the cognitive accessibility task force or groups or cognitive, we're finding that their
.: success criteria we're ending up in AAA.
.: So we work for a very long time on this, and we think we have it right but we're definitely looking for people to criticize it and challenge the numbers and our calculations and I'll talk more about that in the next slide.
.: We can add to is very is perfection, or fail.
.: If you even have one error.
.: You fail, no matter how good your website is, and this precluded very large organizations from ever meeting with tag.
.: And it made it difficult for smaller organizations to meet with hack you know just a minor error, and a drive by
.: there, they're vulnerable to losses, particularly in the United States, with even just one error and we wanted to address this problem.
.: So what we've done is we created a point system that gives you a more nuanced evaluation of how good is by accessibility really, And we like to double A is mostly used for regulation around the world.
.: And we probably will recommend bronze to the US for regulations.
.: And finally, I talked about this success criteria have a true false evaluation, and it would take three the guidelines are customized with the test as a scoring that's most appropriate for that guideline.
.: So critical errors.
.: Right now we have three. We're talking about a fourth.
.: So the first one is one that most people familiar with accessibility are very familiar with, which is the non interference success criteria that items that stop the user from being able to complete the task if it exists, anywhere in the view screen.
.: So flashing keyboard trap audio with no pause. If those ever exist, that's a critical error, and that we're very familiar with that today.
.: The second one is unique, or is is new to WCAG 3.0.
.: So, errors that are located within a process that means the process can't be completed.
.: Like a navigational icon without alt text, a submit button that's not in the tab order.
.: These blocks the user from being able to complete the task, and that the is a critical error and all three of these critical errors are equally weighted I've numbered them, so we can talk about them but they have the same way they're not hierarchical.
.: And the third one is new and we haven't done a lot with it yet.
.: But errors that when aggregated within a view or across the process, causes failure.
.: And this is addressing I had mentioned the, the problems with a double A and triple A and the inadvertent bias.
.: This is our attempt to say, when there are a lot of fatigue errors that can become a barrier in itself, and that's why we've included that as a critical error in number three.
.: And we may add more, and we're, we're talking about some right now but I don't have the top, to tell you the point system.
.: It has three levels.
.: So basically you're going to start by testing your views and testing the process that you want to accomplish.
.: And I mean it could be reading a chapter, it could be taking a test, whatever is appropriate, and you would set what that processes.
.: But you would test that the views and test the process.
.: And you assign an outcome score.
.: And then the overall score gets calculated by the site or the product.
.: And then it gets calculated by disability category, and again this is part of our trying to balance, and make sure that all the different disability categories are being treated equally.
.: So you have to pass in each category.
.: And then that will tell you whether or not you meet bronze level.
.: Let me just talk briefly about this, the testing is sculpted either a view or a process.
.: And then each outcome has a section that shows how it is scored.
.: And there's a number of different ways that you can, because there are a number of different ways that you can test something, some things will have a pass fail condition like did you identify the language of the page.
.: That's, that's going to be 100% or zero.
.: But test set the element level that can be consistently counted like images that can be tested as a percentage.
.: But tests that apply to content without clear boundaries can be scored using a rating scale.
.: And then you identify the critical errors. When you test the process. And then, if you have a critical error that results in a score of zero.
.: And we hope to do more with more holistic usability oriented tests in a later draft, but we were sick we really tried to get the basics for this one.
.: So briefly with texts alternatives.
.: I now think this is a mistake, and we've had several comments come in about it and I think we will fix it.
.: We did the automated test that can be a percentage of images, but a manual test to see whether or not they have appropriate alternative text that actually should be a rating scale, so that people aren't having to count manually every
.: text alternative that they're evaluating so that's one that we definitely want to correct but but for what went into the document right now. It's also as a percentage.
.: And then, if there's a critical error than the score zero.
.: But in this case, let's just say hypothetically that 83% of the images have appropriate alternative text and there are no critical errors.
.: This is where we start to bring different rating scales together is each outcome has their own rating scale.
.: And that takes all the different possible tests and lows that into a zero to four scale, so they can be compared with each other and normalize for a total score.
.: You know valid way.
.: So for this particular example, at tonight breeding three is 80 to 94% of images have appropriate all text and there were no critical errors. So that's going to be a rating of three.
.: And then the overall scoring as I said we aggregated across all of us.
.: And then you use it to
.: average it or norm, it's actually a normalizing because we're going to drop it would tag to you include things.
.: Your assumed to have passed something that doesn't apply.
.: We're going to say that if it doesn't apply it doesn't apply and you're not averaging. It wouldn't be included in the average. So we calculate the total score by the functional categories they support and that's easy for a tool to do.
.: And we will do that up in advance, is assign all of the functional categories that apply to a different guideline.
.: And right now we're proposing that bronze level, be a score of at least 3.5 in each disability category and overall, and from the feedback we're getting we think that's a little high, so we think these numbers will adjust as we're going.
.: One thing that we are discussing and I would love to get feedback on is, should it be possible to pass with a critical error. If the rest of the site is good enough.
.: And it's a interesting question with a lot of different perspectives on it so I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts, whether or not we should do that.
.: claiming conformance is still going to be optional.
.: The scope can be all the content within a digital product or website, or it can be subsets of the whole based on processes and views.
.: And then we said I said we normalize the scores. So, You know, you must have
.: an average total score and an average score within each disability type.
.: We plan to have three levels, bronze, silver and gold.
.: What are the things we found in the research is many people thought that Level A, which is the lowest level of WCAG 2.0 success.
.: conformance. They thought it was what it was a that was really good.
.: And of course it doesn't apply to countries with international alphabets as well. So the one thing that was universal is the Olympics, for scoring and everyone knows what bronze, silver and gold are.
.: It's taken us a lot of work to get to bronze.
.: We're still talking about what we want to do for silver and gold.
.: We know we want to do more usability oriented testing exactly how much we have a wide range of opinions and we're working toward consensus so what we're doing next with it.
.: So some of the benefits of what we're doing.
.: We can include the WCAG had triple A success criteria.
.: And we can include it it bronze level by giving more points to it, but not requiring a critical error.
.: So we've done a little bit of experimenting with it.
.: And we we plan to do a lot more with that and that's part of the whole bronze, silver, Gold discussion as well.
.: sites can have a small percentage of accessibility bugs as long as they're not a critical error for people with disabilities.
.: The tests can vary by guideline and methods so the most appropriate test can be used more needs of people with disabilities that were previously too hard to measure with a true false test can now be included.
.: And for some people that are testing for conformance as opposed to testing for bugs.
.: If you encounter a critical error you can stop testing that guideline because it fails. So some of our testers are saying it actually is speeding up their testing process over with egg too.
.: Obviously that's not going to apply to everyone but it's not always, it's this is going to be much harder.
.: So here's an important part.
.: We know we have a different, a very different approach than what we've ever used before for accessibility guidelines for conformance. So we formed a group that is just working on the accessibility metrics, these metrics were came from.
.: Aw three see workshop that was done in 2011. It was a symposium of experts on accessibility metrics. We took their final report and said, How do we adapt.
.: What they say is the most are the most important metrics we should be looking at to evaluating with tag three.
.: So we have a group that we have a scoring proposal, we have a slide deck that's introducing the metrics testing, and we're looking at five different metrics validity, that is what is, is the score what the product should get reliability can score be reproduced by another person, the sensitivity.
.: Does this is a more subtle one But does the score reflect the severity of the disability barriers and are the different disabilities being treated equally adequacy is does a minor change in the accessibility produce a minor change in the score.
.: And then, is it going to be harder for you to complexity is it going to be harder for you to test and if so how much.
.: So, the group that's working on this have developed some dummy test sites with known accessibility bugs that we can modify and run different tests, particularly for the sensitivity and adequacy.
.: We've done some audits of websites, mobile apps.
.: And there's another one too that's not on the top of my head but it's in the slide deck there, that is linked here.
.: So we are looking for help with this testing.
.: We've only just started it and it's already revealing a lot of minor issues that needs to be fixed.
.: And, and we'd love to help with that.
.: We have to proof of concept tools for new guidelines, new guidelines or guidance for testing clear words to WCC people who I think will enjoy this.
.: We have a new tool that one of our members created which is silver writer tool.
.: But it is a fork of the XKCD simple writer, which the XKCD author used to write his thing explainer book.
.: And we have one of our people forked that to see if it could be used to test the clear words scoring.
.: He loaded, different vocabularies lists into it and I will repeat the warning here, the lists would be the list came from the top 3000 and the top 5000 words from Google's trillion word corpus.
.: And they were not edited to remove dr safe for work contest so be a little cautious if you're testing them. But what we want. We want to do, and some of us do, and some of us don't obviously we're working toward consensus on this is allowing people to
.: load their own word vocabularies, because we think this will address some of the issues with organizations that have a vocabulary in their own organization that anyone who works for them, knows and understands and.
.: So, we don't have consensus on it but that's one of the possibilities that we have, so I will mention that as possibility.
.: And then using it you just copy and paste it. And it will give you a list of the less simple words and account of them.
.: And we are, because this was done by one person who's not a high level developer.
.: He's still having trouble with the plurals being counted as different words. So he's still working on that but it gives you an idea that it's, it's very much a proof of concept, because one of the criticisms we had in some of the earlier versions of clear
.: where it says that it wasn't testable. So, one of our people said, All right, I'll make a tool.
.: We also have tools for testing visual contrast.
.: We have the APC a test tool, which was done by Andy Summers, who's been a major contributor to the visual contrast work.
.: And we also have and it's in the slide notes. If you want more information about it, but Chrome is also working on a WCAG 3.0 algorithm tool.
.: And they have a bug report thread where they are planning to also include flight analysis in it as well. Right now it's just doing color, but they plan to include the font as.
.: And this was active in the canary version of 25 January, so I'm not sure where I haven't looked back to see where it is now.
.: So we're looking for feedback.
.: The document is full of editors notes, where we explain the decisions we made and ask questions what we particularly want feedback on.
.: I also published a blog, which is a longer list of feedback questions with texture contextual information, and I link to that in the slides, and to request please focus your comments on the structure and not the text of the guidelines, yet, because we
.: we haven't done a lot of work on the text. We've mostly been focused on structure and submit feedback please file an issue in the silver GitHub repository which I linked.
.: And if that's not feasible, then you're welcome send an email to our public public hyphen ag wg hyphen comments at W three.org, which is our, and then we have a link to both the email and the comment archives, and we would like comments by JW re 26.
.: I'm going to skip the FAQ because I don't think that is much interest.
.: And now I'd like to open up for questions.
wendyreid: jeanne: Any questions?
wendyreid: tzviya: Thank you, that was informative
wendyreid: ... tiny comment, EPUB is spelled with all caps
wendyreid: ... will send in an official comment
wendyreid: jeanne: I have a question for you all
wendyreid: ... I would like this group to consider how we would include your work
wendyreid: ... would you like to draft your own, or loan some people to us to draft guidelines
wendyreid: ... it's time for us to have more external guidelines
wendyreid: marisa: I saw mentioned somewhere "disability categories" is it on the roadmap for these guidelines to talk about these, and how do they intersect with the outcomes?
wendyreid: jeanne: That is a great question
wendyreid: ... they come from a group working on functional needs
wendyreid: ... they took all of the major category documentation
wendyreid: ... started working on combining them
wendyreid: ... as part of that they have intersectional disabilities as a category
wendyreid: ... physical/sensory, etc
wendyreid: ... they've included those categories on the list
wendyreid: ... we plan to make that available to all W3C to use as a reference for other guidelines
wendyreid: ... got a lot of attention from other groups interested in this
jeanne: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eJkgXqbh7dx3uD6XAy8XAANmwfbbVZ5GKb_gbsUdkVs/
wendyreid: George_: Great presentation and thanks for the hard work
wendyreid: ... is Matt (Garrish) on your team
wendyreid: jeanne: I think he has commented on a few things, but he's not a regular participant
wendyreid: George_: The first comment is that what we've done for accessibility for EPUB (thanks for including)
wendyreid: ... we're in good shape in terms of conforming to this version
wendyreid: ... I'm delighted to see how many things we're aligned on
wendyreid: ... the ACE a11y checker for epub aligns as well
tzviya: Published today https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/8923
wendyreid: ... we provide automated testing and tips for manual review
wendyreid: ... I've talked with a couple of people about the SMART tool we have
wendyreid: ... it's a great way to evaluate publications
wendyreid: ... structures and walks users through
wendyreid: ... I do have a question about bronze, silver, and gold
wendyreid: ... if bronze is equal to AA
wendyreid: ... but it seems to be less than what companies might strive for, but still seems good
wendyreid: jeanne: At the risk of talking about something we don't have consensus on
wendyreid: ... what came out of the design sprint, bronze, like wcag 2, is like a snapshot
wendyreid: ... it doesn't serve a11y as well as it could
wendyreid: ... if people were building it in by design as part of development
wendyreid: ... we think they should get more points for that
wendyreid: ... silver should be inclusive design, usability testing, assistive tech testing
wendyreid: ... we want to reward people for incorporating testing and process up front
wendyreid: ... which would be for silver
wendyreid: ... gold would be recognizing process within an org, where they keep their site accessible
wendyreid: ... there's disagreement there
wendyreid: ... some think we should only be teting
wendyreid: ... but I think there's an opportunity here to improve things for people with disabilities
wendyreid: ... stop looking at it like a snapshot
wendyreid: ... silver and gold would be optional, or make it a legal requirement
wendyreid: ... but it would be substantive
tzviya: https://www.tpgi.com/the-accessibility-maturity-lifecycle/
wendyreid: tzviya: At Wiley we've been advocating for something like that, I'll share an article here
wendyreid: jeanne: The person who wrote that is on the team :)
wendyreid: CharlesL: It looks and feels like the program for GCA
wendyreid: ... the scoring system, the sliding scales...
wendyreid: ... we'd love to show your team our system and the similarities
wendyreid: ... as George mentioned there's the SMART tool and I could give a demo of that
wendyreid: ... bronze isn't going to just be automatic, but manual as well?
wendyreid: jeanne: YEs
wendyreid: liisamk: Thanks Jeanne
wendyreid: ... I was thinking about the comments about clear words and assessing the language of a document
wendyreid: ... struggling with how we do this
wendyreid: ... we are seeing in trade
wendyreid: ... people are using more vernacular
wendyreid: ... more ficitional language
wendyreid: ... it's hard for us in publishing to help people understand
wendyreid: ... it's not a comprehension issue, its part of the story
wendyreid: ... this has been a challenge for us
wendyreid: jeanne: Take a look at what we have for clear words
wendyreid: ... in the draft, in the how to, and if what we have there is useful
wendyreid: ... would love your feedback on how to make it better
wendyreid: avneeshsingh: I have a practical question
wendyreid: ... I would like to know what is the expected timeline for help
wendyreid: ... we are quite engaged in EPUB a11y 1.1.
wendyreid: ...FPWD released today, and we only have 3 more months to hit the requirements for EUAA
wendyreid: ... what is the timeline for us to engage with you on writing the statements
wendyreid: jeanne: Any tiem in the next two months
wendyreid: ... we want to update quarterly
wendyreid: ... next in april
wendyreid: ... we will take your ideas as soon as you get them to us
wendyreid: ... I doubt we will be finished in 2022
wendyreid: ... much more likely to be 2023
wendyreid: ... there will be a 3.1 and so on
wendyreid: avneeshsingh: We'll do our best to meet 3.0
jeanne: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Er20Ij8De7Q1tdsP6w13U0jRo2rSkyGKOFy5pvwt6t4/
wendyreid: jeanne: One of my colleagues did a presentation in Japan and did a feedback survey, I have done the same
wendyreid: ... please fill it out
wendyreid: ... in addition to other comments
wendyreid: ... I have this slide deck in Japanese
wendyreid: ... and translations coming in Korean and Spanish
wendyreid: tzviya: We have a large and active group in Japan who will appreciate this!
wendyreid: ... any questions or comments?
jeanne: These slides in Japanese <- https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Er20Ij8De7Q1tdsP6w13U0jRo2rSkyGKOFy5pvwt6t4/
wendyreid: tzviya: see the links for feedback, and the links to the slides
tzviya: Thank you, that was informative
… tiny comment, EPUB is spelled with all caps
… will send in an official comment
jeanne: I have a question for you all
… I would like this group to consider how we would include your work
… would you like to draft your own, or loan some people to us to draft guidelines
… it's time for us to have more external guidelines
marisa: I saw mentioned somewhere "disability categories" is it on the roadmap for these guidelines to talk about these, and how do they intersect with the outcomes?
jeanne: That is a great question
… they come from a group working on functional needs
… they took all of the major category documentation
… started working on combining them
… as part of that they have intersectional disabilities as a category
… physical/sensory, etc
… they've included those categories on the list
… we plan to make that available to all W3C to use as a reference for other guidelines
… got a lot of attention from other groups interested in this
<jeanne> https://
George_: Great presentation and thanks for the hard work
… is Matt (Garrish) on your team
jeanne: I think he has commented on a few things, but he's not a regular participant
George_: The first comment is that what we've done for accessibility for EPUB (thanks for including)
… we're in good shape in terms of conforming to this version
… I'm delighted to see how many things we're aligned on
… the ACE a11y checker for epub aligns as well
<tzviya> Published today https://
George_: we provide automated testing and tips for manual review
… I've talked with a couple of people about the SMART tool we have
… it's a great way to evaluate publications
… structures and walks users through
… I do have a question about bronze, silver, and gold
… if bronze is equal to AA
… but it seems to be less than what companies might strive for, but still seems good
jeanne: At the risk of talking about something we don't have consensus on
… what came out of the design sprint, bronze, like wcag 2, is like a snapshot
… it doesn't serve a11y as well as it could
… if people were building it in by design as part of development
… we think they should get more points for that
… silver should be inclusive design, usability testing, assistive tech testing
… we want to reward people for incorporating testing and process up front
… which would be for silver
… gold would be recognizing process within an org, where they keep their site accessible
… there's disagreement there
… some think we should only be teting
… but I think there's an opportunity here to improve things for people with disabilities
… stop looking at it like a snapshot
… silver and gold would be optional, or make it a legal requirement
… but it would be substantive
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: At Wiley we've been advocating for something like that, I'll share an article here
jeanne: The person who wrote that is on the team :)
CharlesL: It looks and feels like the program for GCA
… the scoring system, the sliding scales...
… we'd love to show your team our system and the similarities
… as George mentioned there's the SMART tool and I could give a demo of that
… bronze isn't going to just be automatic, but manual as well?
jeanne: YEs
liisamk: Thanks Jeanne
… I was thinking about the comments about clear words and assessing the language of a document
… struggling with how we do this
… we are seeing in trade
… people are using more vernacular
… more ficitional language
… it's hard for us in publishing to help people understand
… it's not a comprehension issue, its part of the story
… this has been a challenge for us
jeanne: Take a look at what we have for clear words
… in the draft, in the how to, and if what we have there is useful
… would love your feedback on how to make it better
avneeshsingh: I have a practical question
… I would like to know what is the expected timeline for help
… we are quite engaged in EPUB a11y 1.1.
… FPWD released today, and we only have 3 more months to hit the requirements for EUAA
… what is the timeline for us to engage with you on writing the statements
jeanne: Any tiem in the next two months
… we want to update quarterly
… next in april
… we will take your ideas as soon as you get them to us
… I doubt we will be finished in 2022
… much more likely to be 2023
… there will be a 3.1 and so on
avneeshsingh: We'll do our best to meet 3.0
<jeanne> https://
jeanne: One of my colleagues did a presentation in Japan and did a feedback survey, I have done the same
… please fill it out
… in addition to other comments
… I have this slide deck in Japanese
… and translations coming in Korean and Spanish
tzviya: We have a large and active group in Japan who will appreciate this!
… any questions or comments?
<jeanne> These slides in Japanese <- https://
tzviya: see the links for feedback, and the links to the slides
<dale> Thanks everyone.