- From: Stacey Swinehart <stacey.swinehart@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 10:04:26 -0600
- To: David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
- Cc: "public-maturity@w3.org" <public-maturity@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADZgR=_mgDVjg7tSAvtejDqf78x6z-RWi0HFMnwBActmuxBFCw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi everyone, Are we meeting today? On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:55 AM David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> wrote: > Hello, everyone. Stacey Swinehart Ganderson will be joining us this week, > and from here going forward, as our guest. Below is her review of the > Maturity Model draft. Please review and be prepared to discuss on Wednesday. > > > > *From: *Stacey Swinehart <stacey.swinehart@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, February 24, 2023 at 1:52 PM > *To: *David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> > *Subject: *Re: Maturity model - initial read/thoughts > > > > It's a lot, that's why I want to stress that these don't need responses > from you :) > > > > *Main questions: How do you envision a team, company, etc. use the model? * > > · When would they start using this model? > > · Where do they start/What initial steps would they take? > > · What happens if they have one person with 8 hours per week or > less available to be documenting (and doing the due diligence with others > that they work with to get that data)? Is this model still a feasible > option for them? > > > > *Questions that came up as I was reading through each section: * > > · Is the model only for SDLC/external-facing products? Or, does > it encompass internal products, experiences, processes? This isn’t clear, > but at first read of the introduction it seems external facing products > only. > > · Integrate stage - who’s creating the roadmap? Or is this > meaning it’s baked into the roadmap for various teams? Part of OKRs? > > · I feel like there’s a stage missing between Launch and > Integrate based on the criteria definition. Or, perhaps launch needs a > broader scope of definition. Launch in this instance might actually be a > short timeframe, and how this is defined integrate might be as well. > There’s a lot of planning and potentially internal research, staffing, > out-sourcing, etc. that might happen to make the items in integration come > into play. So integrate feels a bit light on the criteria as well. I feel > like most of the heavy lifting would occur in launch and integrate but it > doesn’t read that way to someone that isn’t well versed in what it take to > build accessibility into their processes and culture. > > · I would expect training and education (up-skilling) to be > called out somewhere in this as well as accountability. Who’s accountable? > While accessibility is everyone’s job, there are definitely structures in > place in organizations where performance is based on certain things…and > very rarely is accessibility one of those things. So that would need to be > a big lever to pull inside of a company becoming more mature. > > · Are there suggestions for how long things take? Execs love to > know that even if it’s as ambiguous as “this phase will take as long as it > takes, or depending on funding and resourcing and the size of your > organization it can take 2-4 years” (and in some cases how broken the org > is) > > · For the overarching maturity rating…how do you know when you > get to each one via the dimensions? What if you have integrate for most > things, but not for others? Where do you land on maturity ratings? Is it > confusing if the dimension ratings are the same as the overarching rating? > Trying to think about how these ladder up to the overarching one “at a > glance” or for the non-expert that might be using this. > > · Do we have suggested steps in how to achieve the dimensions? Is > that something that W3C would do? > > · For knowledge and skills - how do they determine what is > relevant to a role or experience level? What if they don’t have an expert > on staff? Where can they find insights into making some decisions on that? > —> if this is listed later in the doc it would be helpful to note that this > info is provided. > > > > > > > > *Observations as I was reading:* > > · executives in an organization as an intended audience…I’m just > getting into section 2 and it’s already too long for execs. They’ll pass > this off to a person or a team. They want a TLDR on what the model IS not > the definitions, dimensions, how to do it, etc. They’re going to pawn if > off (sorry, delegate) to someone else. > > · can it fit onto 2 slides, and then the “now what” for next > steps. > > · A company may have to do a separate assessment of their current > practices before they can even start on a model/the assessment in this > model. > > · Would love to see a more “how to” type of document to > compliment this document. Like a toolkit for a company or a team to use. > “now that you have this info, here’s how you can go use it ASAP without > tons of training.” — here’s the WHY and the WHAT now here’s the HOW. > > · I know this is trying to be agnostic so it can cover a wide > variety of businesses, education, government… But as I'm looking at the > proof point section, I could see where something like this could be broken > up into areas that match more closely to how an entity might be structured > for better understanding of how it affects how they run. For example, a > large corporation has an operations area. Accessible communications might > fall into operational standards (or even HR, depending). There’s a lot of > assumption in organizations that accessibility doesn’t reach into those > operational areas in the org, and if that’s not clear how will they be set > up for better success to implement these types of broad-reaching > changes/needs? > > · I think it’s possible for an org to move back and forth between > a stage based on how they’re prioritizing, funding and staffing the > initiatives. Similar to the design phases within SDLC. Teams might go back > and forth depending on new insights/data, prioritization and staffing, or > even if there’s a pivot. > > · I like how there are ratings for the dimensions. I don’t think > I caught that earlier in the introduction that this would be the case. > > · Looking at the spreadsheet (and I wasn’t sure on which tabs > were the newest or ones I should look at) - the spaces for evidence make it > seem like an easy thing to track and then list out. But it can be really > weighty and time consuming. And what if one or two teams are doing amazing > but others are struggling? How does that affect how you document and > evaluate maturity in this model? Could be cool to have the evidence > evaluation for the gaps so they know where to shore up and focus (that > might be the intention here already?). > > · I can see this being very overwhelming and just documenting > everything on an on-going basis could be someone’s full time job. Many > companies don’t provide a program manager, product, TPM or other to assist > in accessibility efforts. This may be quite hard for many to implement. > > · Looking at the first tab for spider graph, this is actually a > very simple and easy way to understand experience and maturity and is > commonly used in performance evaluations/discussions and competencies. I > actually wonder if there’s a simple version for people without experts or > for smaller businesses that will need less. Maybe there’s something in this > model as a first step into how to start and build this journey? > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 3:43 PM David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> wrote: > > No worries. That’d be great > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Feb 24, 2023, at 10:22 PM, Stacey Swinehart <stacey.swinehart@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hey there! > > I dug into the model a bit so I can be ready to listen and understand for > the next meeting. I have some initial thoughts and questions. None of them > require a response, just more of a brain dump. Do you want me to email > those to you? > > > > Thanks! > > Stacey > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2023 16:06:45 UTC