Meeting minutes
shadi: What I want to do today is try to switch from our initial setting-up mode and brainstorm
… and get into more what the guidance document could look like
… emphasis on "could", I see this as an iterative and blue-sky plan
… just starting with a debrief from last week's AGWG meeting
… hope everyone has had a chance to look over the minutes from last week
<shadi> https://
shadi: This is the main group, the AG call
… we presented the slides
… there wasn't really much discussion
… some clarification from Gregg on the relationship to conformance
… a reminder that we're not working on the conformance section, but there might be outputs
… like the idea of when entering data, when a web page accepts inputs, to check that for accessibility
… one possible conformance requirement
… it is an idea that came out of our brainstorming
… there are some technical requirements coming from our work, but also the guidance for policy makers in adoption of WCAG 3
… mainly our presentation, and I'll post the link to the slides
<shadi> https://
shadi: anyone else have any thoughts or comments?
bruce_bailey: You got permission to go three extra weeks
shadi: Thanks Bruce, during the meeting on the 12th, the issue came up that we need more time due to missing meetings
… public holidays etc
… can we extend
… so I asked the chairs offline, and they wanted to know if the participants wanted to extend
… if people agree, and there was no disageement
… reported back to the chairs, more agreement than disagreement, so they granted an extension to the 24th of july
… also reported in the minutes
… any thoughts on this?
… reported on tuesday as well
<mgifford2> Extending sounds good to me.
<SusiPallero> +1
shadi: No comments or follow up from the discussion last week
… trying to get to, if you haven't seen the slides, check them out
… it's more than just a report, it's also an aid for us to determine where we're going
… last monday's meeting helped us align internally and next steps
… two phases, first phase was brainstorming
… second phase, which I want to enter today, is starting to collect data / aggregate into documentation
… see if anyone has any further thoughts on where we are, where we're headed
… questions, guidance?
shadi: With this, I assume everyone is up to speed and read the minutes and slides
… is up to date with where we are and where we're heading
shadi: Ok that was the lead in, let's transition to doing a topic
Outline of Guidance Document
<shadi> https://
shadi: [sharing screen]
… just to walk people through
… going from top to bottom
… introduction is unchanged
… have noted the extension
… next heading (level 2), I've started working on an outline
… abstract, three sentences to review
… introduction and problem description
… then jump right into the considerations
… what I hope we can get through is the introduction, then sketch out the considerations
… over the coming weeks
… for discussion today, there is another heading level 2 with discussion for today
… potential list of considerations
… consider requiring web/app owners to provide accessibility statement, other topics
… do we want to say anything about standards harmonization
… I was more focused on the considerations, but as I was working on the abstract, it came up
… [reads abstract]
… when i started in accessibility, every country had different versions of standards, moving to harmonized standards helps with adoption
… abstract, then overall scope, then specifics
… question, any comments?
garcialo: I like this foundation, since policy makers aren't technical, I think going straight into the considerations is a good structure
bruce_bailey: Big +1 to that
… the two times where agencies have tried to make reference, confused by conforming alternate versions, definitions, they ignore them since they are confused
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to plus one
shadi: Hearing some support
+1
shadi: Let's quickly discuss the abstract
… it's vague and brief
… which it should be, I see it as an executive summary
<bruce_bailey> also definition of web page is tempting for regulators to mess with
shadi: it's iterative, back and forth, we develop it, work on the doc, go back
garcialo: Looks good
Jason_K: Is there a specific question we're trying to answer here?
… how are policy makers meant to implement WCAG?
shadi: That's a good question
mgifford2: Could go about it by how not to do it?
… like a client, they formulated their contract based on meeting a siteimprove score
… it's not the same as WCAG or section 508, but it's a policy that an org tried to meet that got in the way of accessibility
garcialo: I don't know if I'd start from a negative, but it sounds like we should say something like "use WCAG itself"
… just use WCAG without modifications
shadi: Use WCAG, but also recognize that WCAG is a means, not the eend
… a cornerstone of achieving accessibility, but not the only way
… which goes into the considerations
… to Jason's question, what are common pitfalls that policy makers do when people implement WCAG in policy
mgifford2: They don't go and implement that the internet and tech is always changing
… "this" and future releases
… instead stuck at a specific version
mgifford2: make sure docs is relevant
garcialo: WCAG 3 is more meant to be evergreen than WCAG 2
shadi: Less about the standard and more about moving forward
… there are few policies that can refer to evergreen standards
… need a mechanism for transfer
… we're going beyond use cases
… but that's a good thing
… linked to maturity model
Cyborg: Just going to say a few things
<bruce_bailey> Yes, U.S. are required to cite to date certain versions
Cyborg: first one, regarding ever green, I know this conversation has happened
<mgifford2> We can hear you Cyborg
Cyborg: my understanding to date, essentially WCAG would be fixed until a new version, people need to rely on the version, but the how-tos and methodology docs would update as advances happened
… for those that want to be ready, they can, but not compelled to do them
… we can point to being mindful of where WCAG is going by keeping an eye out for new methodologies, there is a living document accompanying the fixed one
… second one, pitfalls, one of them is lowering the bar instead of striving
… a spirit of there being more to do, even when there is a low bar
<mgifford2> WCAG is the floor, not the ceiling.
Cyborg: another pitfall is reactivity
… encouraging orgs to engage early and often
… an issue around, from the canadian perspective, the combination of AODA, the human rights code, there is a lot of onus on the individual to go through a long process to get remedy
… issue around collective rights
… I posted a link
… a new add to the duty to accommodate in the ontario human rights code around inclusive design
<mgifford2> We really should talk about some guidance about the equivalent of AAA recommendation. I've forgotten how WCAG3 talks about this. Gold?
Cyborg: it falls between the individual right to accommodate and the collective right
… it's a crack, we should consider it
… there are complex interactive needs of multiple disabilities, there are collective needs, we need to consider those
… hit the issue from both sides
… the human rights side, the legal side, noting the complex interactive needs
… there are patterns of need based on the collective
shadi: I don't think we need to delve into the specific design of WCAG 3, there is still a lot to decide
… whatever we decide to facilitate transition
… policy makers should consider them too
… not just newer versions, but also newer technologies
… future-proofing policies
… there is already the idea that WCAG is not the end, and policy should do additions
… not sure if we'll get through the full list by the end of the sub-group
… hopefully we can get a stable abstract and introduction and some considerations
… a first version, if its workable, we can create new sub-groups to carry on the work
… so many good recommendations so far
<Cyborg> futureproofing comment...spirit of striving for higher bar/WCAG as floor to stand on (need to build on it), proactive (early & often) approach needed, consider collective needs (complex layered nature of needs for those w multiple disabilities/intersectional identities/pattern of community/collective needs
<Zakim> Azlan, you wanted to say "plan to achieve/maintain" should cover staying relevant
Azlan: We've stated in lots of different ways, we're all agreed in stating things on having a plan, a roadmap, maintaining levels
… talking about the maturity model, and I love what Cyborg said about WCAG being the floor not the ceiling
… we aim to do better
… it's a continuous change and review process
… especially as more and more becomes available to build the standard and what the web/app owners get from their products
… I think we can expand and look to help support with what we're doing
shadi: We'll unpack as many as we can here
… we're really looking at this from a purely technical perspective
… my understanding of scope and competency W3C has, all the comments apply, but we're looking at the technical adoption considerations
Jason_K: A few people have mentioned, this document is not meant to take away from WCAG
… it might be worth clarifying the relationship of this document to WCAG, it's not taking away, how to use it
… when it's meant to be used
shadi: Fully agree
… the abstract cover this, it's complementary
… but I think we can elaborate in the introduction
<mgifford2> Just looking to see how we incorporate best practices being developed by the W3C such as https://
mgifford2: Thought it would be useful to point to existing W3C initiatives
… linked to the ACT guidelines, the ARRM guidelines
… the maturity model
… aware of the other work W3C is doing, and how to get involved
… it's possible for policy makers to actually get involved and participate
… improve their own docs and the collective docs
<mgifford2> https://
shadi: Agreed, this is probably going to expand over time
Cyborg: I just want to build on the last 2 comments
… we're talking about the policy maker audience
… embedded in the doc is also an audience of organizational policy makers
… the manager, the accessibility lead, the designer
… from an organizational perspective, we've aimed it so far on people who can set strategy
… if there is an audience that is policy makers who plan and identify direction in terms of accessibility
… there is an opportunity to bridge that relationship
… if there was a meeting between government bodies implementing regulations, and those they are regulating, where there could be discussion about this document
… not necessarily implementation but strategy
shadi: Good suggestions
… [making changes to doc as we discuss]
… maybe we can elaborate within the main body of the doc
… people involved in the policy-making process, so people with disabilities, affinity groups, strategy setters, advisors.
… often you will get people who are influential in advising the process
Cyborg: Don't disagree, I'm suggesting something slightly different, who within an organization sets the policies and processes for handling accessibility
… i.e. something setting up a plan for what happens when a bug arises
… let's say we recommend that organizations have an accessibility quality plan
… here's how we handle it, how we report to authority
… there are people responsible for doing the work, and they are an audience for this document
shadi: Does this relate to the roles and reponsibilities?
Cyborg: More senior management, not sure how much ARRM goes into senior responsibilities
… may be someone like head of accessibility for an org, or 2-3 people on the team
… setting the process/policy for these protocols
… someone with responsibility
shadi: I understand more
… I would like people, as homework, to look at the maturity model, planning and managing web accessibility, and the ARRM
<garcialo> Just a headsup that we have 10 minutes left
<shadi> qß
shadi: look at additional ideas beyond the use cases we've been looking at
<SusiPallero> I am part of the Maturity Model's working group so I can collaborate with that
shadi: We have 10 minutes left, let me summarize where we are
… this is a rough and early outline
… we have a title, an abstract, it's a start
… line in the sand to work from
… I'm going to start working on an introduction
<Cyborg> one way to deal with senior accessibility direction setters within organizations to develop protocols, organizational practices, maturity models, etc is through roundtables.
shadi: this will help give us a framing on how we see this work and how we're communicating it externally
… then we can focus on a few considerations, then we're on our way
<Cyborg> to encourage building out this work in a manner that has growth
shadi: the overall plan before july 24
… details is where all the work happens
… but I'm not hearing opposition
<garcialo> +1 to just add considerations
mgifford2: The abstract and intro could be written after the fact, I wonder if we should focus on the considerations
… if we can draft something we can dicuss
<Cyborg> +1 to Mike's suggestion - getting concrete
mgifford2: if we work asynchronously
shadi: Agreed, I think we need to do both, work in parallel
… I do think the introduction and problem description comes up a lot
… we need the framing and the content
… if people are able to volunteer to tackle the considerations
<mgifford2> Totally about working in parallel. The intro will help inform the considerations, but we're going to need to revise the introduction based on what considerations we end up running with.
shadi: the first few come from our brainstorming discussions
… considerations like a11y statement
… or mechanism for users with disabilities to report bugs
… one we haven't discussed much is providing training and awareness raising
<mgifford2> I like the role specific training consideration for sure!
shadi: there could be ideas from the maturity model or planning docs
… we can't get through all
<Cyborg> training - maybe reframing as cultivating leadership?
shadi: if we can get consensus on 2-3 of these, we've established an outline for people to see how the document can progress
shadi: Does anyone want to get started on any of them?
<jaunita_george> I can help too
mgifford2: Happy to get started on 1 or 2 to draft for review
shadi: Any favourites?
mgifford2: I can't pick!
garcialo: The second one would be good
mgifford2: That's built into the a11y statement in the EU?
shadi: For the web a11y directive, it needs to be linked from the statement
<bruce_bailey> "accessibility statements" common on u.s. gov sites as well
shadi: for EAA it depends
… whether it's web or a product
Cyborg: +1 on doing it through an a11y statement approach
<jaunita_george> I don't mind taking any of these on
shadi: We're not designing a policy, we're giving considerations to policy makers
… too many countries with different systems
<bruce_bailey> https://
shadi: we're not saying how to do it, but here's what to consider when you do
shadi: If people want to get started, go for it
… don't go too wild
… start small and then we can build out
… feel free to take a stab at a consideration, and I'll work on the introduction
… so people have time to look, I'll send it on Friday
<jaunita_george> I'm not in the 4th, but am in the 3rd
<mgifford2> Sorry..
shadi: maybe no meeting next week due to holidays?
<garcialo> I would be able to make a meeting; or maybe an unofficial working session at the time
shadi: We still have some people to keep going, it's ok if people need to miss
… thanks everyone!
… if you can, we'll meet next week.
<mgifford2> thanks
shadi: Homework, read the maturity model, ARRM, ACT, etc.
… or take a stab at a considerations
<Azlan> Thanks