- From: Stacey Swinehart <stacey.swinehart@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:48:52 -0400
- To: David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
- Cc: Jeff Kline <jeffrey.l.kline@gmail.com>, Susana Pallero <susipalleroarguello@gmail.com>, Maturity Model TF <public-maturity@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Message-ID: <CADZgR=_QJxeqnd29w0As9nZZSVPm5PkevGOuQ9FmO7K0=H-1-A@mail.gmail.com>
Regrets for today. I'm out of town. sent from my phone On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 1:25 AM David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> wrote: > I’ve reviewed the Google doc that we are updating the Editor’s draft with > to see if Jason’s request about including monitoring effectiveness has been > addressed. It appears every dimension has at least one stage where > effectiveness is somehow monitored. I’ve pasted the findings below. We will > discuss tomorrow and should be able to resolve Github Issue 154. > > Communications: > > > > The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that:: > > - authoring, editing, and reviewing processes, procedures, and tools > are in place, used consistently, and are regularly evaluated and refined to > ensure that all internal and external communications are fully accessible > - accessible communications training relevant to each individual’s > position is required, measured, and monitored for improvement. > > > > > > Proof Points: > > > > None listed > > > > Knowledge and Skills > > > > The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that: > > - all personnel position descriptions, hiring announcements, and > project management consistently communicate the required and preferred > accessibility knowledge and skills > - the workforce is periodically evaluated to ensure knowledge and > skills are current with the most up-to-date standards and accessibility > practices > - training is part of the onboarding process > - periodic analysis has been used to identify gaps in knowledge as > well as training materials > - annual training (conferences, events, online, etc.) is provided to > maintain skills current with ICT accessibility requirements and industry > best practices > - workforce inclusion training incorporates accessibility for persons > with disabilities, and certification programs are available > - tracking systems are in place and consistently used to maintain > training inventory, measure skills, and track completion > - training to enhance accessibility knowledge and skills relevant to > each individual’s position is required, measured, and monitored for > improvement. > > > > Proof Points: > > > > *3.2.2.1 Assessing Current Skills to Identify and Address Gaps* > > Assessments may include: > > - organizational surveys that identify current skill levels and gaps > - tracking employee training for ICT accessibility skills > - certification or competency reviews and programs > - accessibility criteria integration into employee performance > measurements. > > > > Support > > > > The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that: > > - fully trained customer support staff able to support users' > accessibility questions > - multiple ways to communicate with technical support that meets the > needs of customers with disabilities are provided > - ICT accessibility support is available for all internally and > externally used ICT > - training programs are in place for ICT support staff, and staff has > been trained > - continuous improvement plans are ongoing > - accessibility support training relevant to each individual’s > position is required, measured, and monitored for improvement. > > > > Proof Points > > > > *3.3.2 Proof Points* > > > > Support proof points may include but are not limited to: > > - written policy on requesting and providing employee ICT-related > accommodations > - publicly available (and accessible) web accessibility statement with > pointers to support mechanisms > - support mechanisms are accessible > - help topics or FAQs that are specific to accessibility > - training for customer support agents (or internal ICT support staff) > in accessibility, assistive technology, and disability etiquette and > awareness > - established disability-focused employee resource groups (ERG) with > executive sponsorship > - validation process in place to manage accessibility feedback > - accessibility feedback is incorporated to facilitate continuous > improvement of identified ICT > - defined and documented methods to evaluate the effectiveness of > accessibility support, actively in use. > > > > ICT Development Lifecycle > > > > The level is in *Integrate* when proof points demonstrate that: > > - there are ongoing process improvement efforts for accessibility in > the ICT development lifecycle per role or discipline > - accessibility requirements are considered and practiced but not > consistently applied during ICT design, development, and testing across the > ICT portfolio > - remediation of existing products, applications, and websites has > started > > > - training on ICT development lifecycle accessibility, relevant to > each individual’s position, has started. > > The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that: > > - there’s an ICT development accessibility thought leader at the > organization who adheres to a structural, standardized, and reporting > approach > - design specifications include accessibility guidance, developers > consistently create accessible User Interfaces (UI), manual and automated > accessibility testing is performed during development, and automated > accessibility testing is incorporated into Continuous > Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) build pipelines > - release management includes gates for accessibility quality > - maintenance releases are re-inspected for accessibility > - ACRs are updated and made available, as needed, for procurable ICT > - research deliberately seeks out and evaluates input from users with > disabilities > > > - ICT development lifecycle accessibility training, relevant to each > individual’s position, is required, measured, and monitored for improvement. > > > > Proof Points > > > > None > > > > Personnel > > > > The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that: > > - employees with disabilities are leveraged throughout the organization > <https://w3c.github.io/maturity-model/#dfn-organization> to achieve > full ICT accessibility maturity > - organization-wide, disability inclusion staffing efforts are > well-defined, evaluated, remediated, and integrated with ICT accessibility > efforts and goals across the organization > - employees with disabilities hold critical decision-making positions > and are included in all areas of the organization to drive accessibility in > every facet of the business > - the disability employee resource group (ERG) is leveraged to inform > accessibility decision-making > - employees with disabilities are leveraged to audit accessibility > - employees with disabilities are leveraged for product development > - employees with disabilities are leveraged for the development of > accessible services. > > Proof Points > > > > *3.5.2.1 Recruiting* > > - established goals for recruiting employees with disabilities > - hiring announcements with diversity statements encouraging and > attracting applications from people with disabilities > - a gap analysis or needs assessment to understand where the business > is falling short of including applicants with disabilities > - preferential hiring initiatives to recruit employees with > disabilities, where not prohibited by law > > Procurement > > > > The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that: > > - full and consistent use of accessibility processes, criteria, > contract language, and decision-making to procure and maintain accessible > products and services throughout the procurement life cycles > - procurement processes are regularly reviewed and refined as needed > - training on accessibility procurement knowledge and skills relevant > to each individual’s position is required, and improvement is measured and > monitored. > > > > Proof Points > > > > *3.6.2.5 Accessibility in Procurement Program Management* > > - an accessibility audit to determine where the procurement program > system is not meeting accessibility requirements has been conducted > - lifecycle of procurement contracts has a defined, documented, and > tracked lifecycle > - procurement-related accessibility metrics are tracked and documented > - a defined process for identifying and addressing complaints > > > > Culture > > > > The level is in *Integrate* when proof points demonstrate that: > > - cultural programs have been created and initially deployed > - metrics have been established, and hiring practices have been > implemented > - policies are in place with partial execution > - diversity and inclusion are promoted, but no action plan has been > developed > - communities of practice have been established > > > - training on accessibility culture knowledge and skills relevant to > each individual’s position has started. > > The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that: > > - there’s a strong cultural awareness, appreciation, sensitivity, and > support for all aspects of ICT accessibility and people with disabilities > - policies, processes, and practices are in place, used consistently, > and regularly reviewed and refined as needed > - all employees understand and are sensitive to the importance of ICT > accessibility and how it fits within their roles and responsibilities. They > also appreciate the value of a diverse population within and outside the > organization <https://w3c.github.io/maturity-model/#dfn-organization> > - training on accessibility culture knowledge and skills relevant to > each individual’s position is required, measured, and monitored for > improvement > > > > Proof Points > > > > *3.7.2.1 Organizational Culture of Disability Inclusion* > > - executive sponsor for digital accessibility > - executive-level digital accessibility program leadership > - executive statement of the organization’s commitment to digital > accessibility > - IT accessibility policy in place and implemented > - a proactive approach to digital accessibility included in business > strategy > - digital accessibility promotion as a market differentiator included > in business strategy > - core values incorporate digital accessibility as a necessity for > disability inclusion > - code of conduct includes digital accessibility > - diversity, equity, and inclusion activities include a disability > focus > - communities of practice include a digital accessibility focus > - ICT accessibility criteria are integrated into employee/officer > performance plans (if relevant) > - mandated and monitored employee support for digital accessibility > and disability inclusion > - monitoring and improvement of digital accessibility program > - accessibility and disability inclusion-specific questions included > in regular employee satisfaction surveys > - defined and documented process for employee feedback on > accessibility and disability-inclusion efforts > > > > > > *From: *Jeff Kline <jeffrey.l.kline@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 5, 2024 at 9:48 AM > *To: *Susana Pallero <susipalleroarguello@gmail.com>, Maturity Model TF < > public-maturity@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, David Fazio < > dfazio@helixopp.com> > *Subject: *Re: Minutes: [Maturity] Model Task Force 06-05-24 Meeting > Agenda > > > > David, > > > > Thanks for the discussion today on how to integrate Metrics and goals into > the model. > > > > For next week’s call, I would to propose that the *other members of the > team the team share their thoughts on the topic / implementation and how / > where include this in the model.* > > > > On further investigation using the latest (Stacey document) language in > the Procurement Dimension, there is currently a proof point here: > > *3.6.2.5 Accessibility in Procurement Program Management* > > · an accessibility audit to determine where the procurement > program system is not meeting accessibility requirements has been conducted > > · lifecycle of procurement contracts has a defined, documented, > and tracked lifecycle > > · procurement-related accessibility metrics are tracked and > documented > > · a defined process for identifying and addressing complaints > > > > but it is sort of buried there. To ensure higher prominence and indication > of importance, I think it would be best to remove the proof point from that > subsection and put in a new, separate proof point subsection such as: > > > > *3.6.2.5 Procurement Metrics and Goals* > > · Establish appropriate / meaningful goals and metrics the > procurement organization, to measure and track progress towards achieving > those goals. > > > > If that makes sense, we would then to review the other dimensions for > similar proofpoints already included, and handle the same as the above > example, ensuring consistency across all of the dimensions. > > > > Again, using Procrement as an example, I would also argue that such a new > proofpoint can easily be subject to all 4 of the maturity stages, not just > “integrate” and Optimize”. See the latest language in Stacey’s document > below: > > _____________________________________ > > *3.6.1 How to Evaluate Procurement Maturity Level* > > 1. Download the maturity model spreadsheet > <https://www.w3.org/TR/maturity-model/#assessment-template-excel>. > > 2. List all the organization’s current “Procurement” efforts. > > 3. Compare the list to the spreadsheet to decide which proof points > will be used to assess your organization’s “Procurement” accessibility > maturity. Not all proof points will be used for every business or > organization. The proof points in section 3.6.2 are non-exhaustive examples > of criteria. > > The level is *Inactive* when proof points demonstrate that: > > · no effort has been made or only isolated efforts have been > identified. > > The level is in *Launch* when proof points demonstrate that: > > · work has been initiated to identify and integrate accessibility > into procurement processes and accessibility language into all ICT-related > solicitation and contract documents and vendor responses throughout the > procurement life cycle > > · some plans are in place for providing accessibility procurement > knowledge and skills relevant to each individual’s position. > > The level is in *Integrate* when proof points demonstrate that: > > · solicitation and contract language are complete, and responses > have been analyzed by accessibility or trained procurement professionals > > · vendors are required to submit accessibility documentation to > be evaluated as part of the overall vendor assessment > > · a communications mechanism has been put in place to inform > vendors of accessibility requirements > > · accessibility is a monitored element of the procurement life > cycle > > · accessibility criteria are included in contract renewal > negotiations > > · training on accessibility procurement knowledge and skills > relevant to each individual’s position has started. > > The level is in *Optimize* when proof points demonstrate that: > > · full and consistent use of accessibility processes, criteria, > contract language, and decision-making to procure and maintain accessible > products and services throughout the procurement life cycles > > · procurement processes are regularly reviewed and refined as > needed > > · training on accessibility procurement knowledge and skills > relevant to each individual’s position is required, and improvement is > measured and monitored. > > > > Looking forward to the continued discussion and resolution. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > [image: A picture containing text, black, clock Description automatically > generated] <http://strategicaccessibility.com/> > > Jeff@strategicaccessibility.com > > 5 1 2 . 4 2 6 . 9 7 7 9 > > > > *From: *Susana Pallero <susipalleroarguello@gmail.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 5, 2024 at 11:06 AM > *To: *Maturity Model TF <public-maturity@w3.org>, Janina Sajka < > janina@rednote.net>, David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> > *Subject: *Minutes: [Maturity] Model Task Force 06-05-24 Meeting Agenda > > Hola a todos, > > > > Please find attached the link for the minutes: > https://www.w3.org/2024/06/05-maturity-minutes.html > > > > -- > > *Susana Pallero* >
Attachments
- image/png attachment: image001.png
- image/png attachment: 02-image001.png
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2024 11:49:07 UTC