Re: Spreadsheet Issue Nov 20 2024 Meeting

David,

I’m not sure why all this is coming up now, but  I’m happy to see it opened as a github issue.

With regard to your note and in support of the new github issue, please see my inline comments encapsulated  within  <jk> <jk>

Regards,


[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: David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
Date: Thursday, November 21, 2024 at 11:37 PM
To: Maturity Model TF <public-maturity@w3.org>
Subject: Spreadsheet Issue Nov 20 2024 Meeting
In response to our lengthy discussion about including a disclaimer in the document that the single source of truth<jk> I’m not sure this terminology applies to a model that can be modified by users for their own initiatives <jk>.   is the assessment tool, so every change to the tool doesn't require a document change I filed the following Github issue: https://github.com/w3c/maturity-model/issues/232.


There was back and forth about whether or not we are publishing a tool, and what is the purpose of the spreadsheet. I found the source of the discrepancy. The spreadsheet was always intended, by our group, to be an example of implementation.

<jk> I do not recall any such discussion or agreement in any of the meeting minutes over the past several years. Please provide the reference information for such agreement <jk>

In August of this year we agreed to add instructions on how to use the example spreadsheet. However, those instructions ended up getting incorporated into every single maturity model dimension, as a how to use the publication. This is not something that we agreed on, and it fundamentally alters the publication.

<jk>If I recall correctly, the instructions were added as part of the significant revisions that Stacy was generous enough to write for the group sometime around January 2024 per my records. The language was discussed and reviewed multiple times and pushed to the MM document with little to no contention. <jk>

We will revert this change and reference the spreadsheet as an example, as we have in all previous iterations.

<jk> We need to discuss. Upon reviewing our document, I see that removing this content from all the dimensions would require significant rewrite to the MM document, which has been publicly available for quite some time with no issues identified regarding the text or the inclusion of the tool…not to mention further delaying publication<jk>

We will continue working on a scoring method and can use the spreadsheet as a so called sanity check, as Janina puts it.

<jk>Again, I see no evidence that the tool was ever intended to be a “sanity check” or even an “example”. Please provide reference information. Given the level of effort and intellectual capital that that has gone into the tool by the contributors in the Task Force, and its integration into the MM document language it is difficult to see how it was ever assumed that the tool was just nice to have as a “sanity check”, or some minor element of the work. <jk>

<jk>I must reiterate that the tool is and has been for some time integral to the model… a critical component, if not the most critical / useful component of the model. Without the tool, all we have is a nice white paper for people to read but little in the way of helping guide organizations to plan, implement, and measure progress in reaching accessibility maturity.<jk>