– DRAFT –
Maturity Model Subgroup

<janina> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2023Jan/0015.html

Discussion on Sheris mail Maturity model homework

DF: I'm ok with leaving it out

JS: They were not clear what it meant

I'm not sure how to clarify

DF: Sheri is not beholden to this.

I had comments on #5 - 5) The W3C AMM informs Organizations on best practices for keeping things accessible through the point of view of web, mobile, and documentation development.

DF: I want to add, making things accessible - do we want to add ' for establishing and maintaining.

RESOLUTION: Drop #7 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2023Jan/0015.html

<Fazio> 5) The W3C AMM informs Organizations on best practices for keeping things accessible through the point of view of web, mobile, and documentation development.

RESOLUTION: Change wording in #5 to say establish and maintain https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rqtf/2023Jan/0015.html

JK: I've a Q on #6 - will the final deliverable be a web form?

JS: We are not staying with spread sheets

How we write that tech is an open q

DF: I've a bunch of coders to hand

JK: We may need a list of reqs for that web form

JS: Yes - but now we are working Github issues

JS: We have our special guest Jason here to talk about his issues

Github Issue #18 What's the relationship with ISO/IEC 30071-1:2019?

<Fazio> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/18

JW: There is considerable overlap between this document and the practices recommended in ISO/IEC 30071-1:2019, in that both are concerned with an organization's policies and processes.

JW: Thats the essence of the concern

DF: Can you give us an overview of some points?

JW: That doc covers what an a11y policy should cover and entail

DF: Do they cover the same subjects?

JW: They do and more

JW: For example what needs to be in place for the release of a project etc

JS: What is the cost of getting that spec?

JS: We are free

DF: We want to establish an infrastructure that can do this stuff by embedding it in there.

So the whole organisation puts a11y in there, top to bottom

<Comments that ISO is a payed for standard>

JW: Harmonisation is an issue, overlap is sufficient - and there is a relationship - even if only published as a w3C note

JS: jason would you be happy if we reviewed the doc, so we are not contradicting in any important way

There are some value adds

A form can be used to standardise parts of this process

JS: There are areas that are very well addressed

JS: Is that an issue?

JW: its an open question

ack +

<Zakim> +, you wanted to ask that people speak a little more slowly

<Existential Discussion on standards>

DF: I've a couple of things - Jason. would you object to us moving forward?

JW: It is reasonable to proceed but at some point there will be decisions about that relationship

<jlkline> stil on queue

DF: The IAAP also publish some conflicting things with W3C

W3C is the go to organisation for web standards

JW: I've reviewed the ISO standard and it is a good and serious work

DF: There may be conflicting information - the public will review.

JS: If we disagree we can document

JS: The market may decide

JK: We did review the ISO standard and found that it was limited to the development aspects, it did mention policy

This will be a note, a guide - others can come to us if things dont support the standard they support the spirit of the standard

Things needs to specific if there are conflicts rather than ad hoc review

DF: Jason if you have an issue then please add and we can discuss

JW: We should just check to make sure things are consistent and that there are no conflicts etc

JK: Do open new issues so we can track them

JW: Lets move on

<Zakim> Joshue108_, you wanted to talk about standards relationships

Github Issue #52 Section 2 (and elsewhere, if necessary): broaden the range of standards relevant to the maturity model.

<Fazio> https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/52

DF: Reads Nothing in the proposed maturity model is specific to "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines". However, section 2 can be read as limiting its scope:

JW: The question is matter of making appropriate change to the scope of that section

JK: We are tech standards agnostic for the most part

JW: And some parts could be read as not

JOC: I like Jasons last point

JOC: Gives some agreement to Jasons comments etc about harmonising with existing standards but you have created something that is free and not behind a paywall. This cuts a lot of ice with me.

DF: <Gives a background>

Github Issue #91 Proof points should include measures of the extent to which processes are successful

https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/91

The proof points should include measures of the extent to which the processes pursued by the organization lead to successful outcomes over time with respect to accessibility.

DF: reads..

The proof points should include measures of the extent to which the processes pursued by the organization lead to successful outcomes over time with respect to accessibility

JW: This is the most substantive IMO

Much of what counts as evidence in this draft is circumstantial

This needs to be complimented with processes that are available

e.g. when used with software they establish potential requirements - that can measure how successful things are over time

Are they updated - to ensure a11y?

Do they take into account other standards etc?

There are issues for how feedback is used and bug reports etc

<Gives example of e-commerce company dealing with a11y bugs>

There is a range of measures here that may show how successful an organisation is

I don't see that reflected in the proof points and evidence

There should be addition criteria - to distinguish the maturity of various approaches

JW: What is evidence of maturity? How can this be strengthened?

DF: We don't want to be too prescriptive etc

JK: We came up with proof points

that are not too down in the weeds. A step back is needed to say, this is for the whole organisation

<Fazio> hard to be tech agnostic when you're talking non-compliance

It is important to know this is is all self reported

There may be checks and balances - if someone is sharing, you can ask for detail or artifacts to support these claims

This is about process maturity

<Fazio> DisabilityIN DEI is a goodexample of getting orgs to use a audit

JS: I'm curious to hear from Brian, is it the same for large orgs?

JW: I do appreciate the background - I don't think it speaks to the fundamental concern in that in an a11y policy there will be criteria, responses to reports etc

in measuring what an organisation sets itself out to achieve

how consistent is an org is reaching these goals.

Its not clear enough that this model uses these sources in judging its level of maturity

How can process be consistent and effective

This relates to bug reports etc

To what extent are they getting this - and improving and refining these objectives over time

Regulation and policy evolves - and there needs to be a stronger connection between how it implements its policy and how these are measured

DF: Would you like to join group Jason?

JF: There is another program referenced there

JF: These things are there but are not stated explicitly

We need to stay at a strategic level - but not tell people how to do it.

DF: Refs the disability equality index

DF: It would be great to see concrete suggestions

JW: I could have a look - in the end its about making sure that how the criteria are achieved has a lot of weight in my book

How requirements are managed over time - something more substantial than 'the effectiveness is monitored'

DF: What does that look like?

DF: Jason please join again

JW: I will comment to the last issue at some point