W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > May 2020

Re: Enterprise customers and monitoring

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 09:08:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxzFCOB1xxVbR3BAgvd6+uq6Z8XotFZv5S-pJHv33UE3_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: Jennifer Chadwick <jcha@siteimprove.com>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Katie writes:

> I am not sure that the AG is the place, as its aim is authors to meet the
needs of end users.

With the decision to move from static Pass/Fail to a numeric "score", we as
a Working Group took the decision to have a more granular scoring and
reporting scheme, and will now need concrete and measurable means of
calculating that score for those authors-to-end-users, which tool vendors
can then port to their tool-set.

Silver will have a broader scope than WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. The Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are scoped to Web and to Content. Silver is
being designed to be able to include:


   - *Support for the Technologies that Impact Accessibility*: Advice for *all
   levels of the accessibility technology stack* who wish to support the
   Silver core Guidelines

 (source: https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#scope)


This decision, which I think we all agree is the right one, now also places
responsibility on the WG to address the needs of *ALL* stakeholders: users
yes, but also content creators, site owners, and hardware and software
vendors associated with our work-space/domain (especially in the context of
this member-funded consortium).

This working group has also decided to use the ACT Rules format (developed
by multiple tool vendors, including IBM, SiteImprove and Deque) and so at a
minimum I believe it not unreasonable that this WG provide sufficient
scoring metrics so that at a minimum, any tool can calculate the basic
"score" of a site and be accurate.

Like many other tools in many other categories (Chromium browser anyone?),
tool vendors will compete on features, but should be able to replicate
identical scores based upon the rules we develop, especially since this WG
took the decision that this was the path we wanted to pursue.

Improve the ability to support automated testing where appropriate and
provide a procedure for repeatable tests when manual testing is appropriate.

(source:
https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#design_principles)


***********************
Jon writes:

> ...given the different factors, preferences, and changes in technology
there are aspects that we won’t be able to achieve consensus on

Fair enough, but conversely I think we are obliged to try and find as much
consensus as we can.

   - We've already agreed (consensus) to use the ACT Rules format.
   - We've already agreed (consensus) to move to a "score" based
   conformance model (as opposed to a pass/fail model).
   - We've already agreed (consensus) that "*Silver needs a flexible design
   that can be updated as new technologies emerge, assistive technologies
   improve, and changing technologies produce new barriers for people with
   disabilities.*" (
   https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#oppotunities_maintenance
   )
   - We've already agreed (consensus) that "*The creation process for the
   guidelines should... Be data-informed and evidence-based where possible*"
   (source:
   https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#design_principles),
   and we now have data
   <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PgmVS0s8_klxvV2ImZS1GRXHwUgKkoXQ1_y6RBMIZQw/edit#heading=h.s2f3av3tk0j8>
   that is telling us that content creators want a method for ongoing
   monitoring as we move towards a non-static scoring mechanism (and multiple
   tool-vendors are trying to meet that need, including Level Access)

Concern that we may not achieve consensus on *everything* is not, in and of
itself, a reason to not try.

JF

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:41 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> These needs and requests for reporting and data trends from customers of
> testing tools have, in my experience, always been desired and needed.
>
> That though seems to be a task of the tool makers, and does not
> necessarily meet the needs of end users. Other than perhaps identifying
> where resources should be shifted to more adequately address conformance
> gaps in their organizations.
>
> I am not sure that the AG is the place, as its aim is authors to meet the
> needs of end users. Perhaps we could go back and restart the WAI Evaluation
> & Repair Tools WG.
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:15 PM Jennifer Chadwick <jcha@siteimprove.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, John.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll chime in from Siteimprove.  The same needs and requests abound.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jenn
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Perfect Your Digital Presence]
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jennifer Chadwick, CPACC, CUA*
>> Lead Accessibility Strategist and Product Expert, North America
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Siteimprove] <http://www.siteimprove.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> 110 Yonge Street, Suite 700   |   Toronto, Ontario M5C 1T4
>> Direct +1 647 952 0364  |  Mobile +1 905 483 9139 |  jcha@siteimprove.com
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Member of World Wide Web Consortium W 3 C] <https://www.w3.org/>
>> [image: member of the International Association of Accessibility
>> Professionals] <https://www.accessibilityassociation.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: register now for our Digital Global Accessibility Awareness Day
>> celebration on May 21st.]
>> <https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/3415888660209/WN_bN-pxiQlRtKBraUJJnUvmQ>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2020 5:11 PM
>> *To:* Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Fwd: Enterprise customers and monitoring
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Someone has privately suggested to me that my current focus on Dashboards
>> as part of the scoring discussion is driven by Deque's business needs.
>> While I can freely admit that I am indeed watching out for the interests of
>> my employer (you don't?), the need for this type of scoring ability is not
>> being heard exclusively by Deque.
>>
>>
>>
>> In chatting with Karl Groves (Tenon.io) he indicated that his company is
>> receiving the same kind of requests/requirements from their enterprise
>> clients. Karl has granted me permission to share this email with the group
>> as more data and evidence of this need.
>>
>>
>>
>> JF
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: *Karl Groves* <karl@tenon.io>
>> Date: Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:48 PM
>> Subject: Enterprise customers and monitoring
>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> I'm glad we got to talk today. We don't talk enough and I particularly
>> missed seeing you at CSUN.   Hopefully this time next year the
>> discussion will be about how fun it was to catch up in person.
>>
>> One of the things we talked about was reporting and monitoring and
>> despite the fact that you work for a competitor, it is absolutely no
>> secret that customers *really* want the ability to report on their
>> performance.
>>
>> In fact, Tenon's current dashboard is the result of a customer
>> (Microsoft) wanting such data. Shortly after Tenon went into open
>> beta, Jeff Petty at Microsoft reached out to us to purchase a SaaS
>> plan on Tenon and very specific requests around the types of data he'd
>> like to see in a Dashboard.   Because all of those ideas made sense,
>> we added them.  Specifically, the dashboard includes
>>
>>    - Summary
>>    - Top Issues
>>    - Worst Performing Pages
>>    - Issues by Content Type
>>    - Issues by WCAG SC
>>
>>
>> Tenon's Dashboard can also be filtered by Start & End date which can
>> be changed to get a "Snapshot" from a given period of time.
>>
>> Among our Enterprise customers, there's one desire that's nearly
>>
>> universal among them: wanting at-a-glance insights into how they're
>> doing. Frankly, I've always personally felt that the testing
>> capabilities of the tool is most important, but when it comes to our
>> largest purchasers of product, they're focused more on reporting.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Groves
>> @karlgroves
>> Phone: +1 443.875.7343
>>
>> www.tenon.io
>> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tenon.io%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjcha%40siteimprove.com%7Cdd913fdfded346af68a108d7f6b92e7a%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C637249147522410660&sdata=k%2FuJsTDzkU4QJan%2FIUk165T71ng0cJLLak9nh3EDf9A%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> Book a meeting with me: https://meetings.hubspot.com/karl-groves/meet
>> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmeetings.hubspot.com%2Fkarl-groves%2Fmeet&data=02%7C01%7Cjcha%40siteimprove.com%7Cdd913fdfded346af68a108d7f6b92e7a%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C637249147522420656&sdata=GI%2FKnTrsgt9pKSm%2FKnOyi0W9lfpgJ9nLpp26sE6AOHQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC
>> Representative
>> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
>> deque.com
>> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeque.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjcha%40siteimprove.com%7Cdd913fdfded346af68a108d7f6b92e7a%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C637249147522420656&sdata=K9k41gm%2BHohwdYZVXeErvbHezdUxnNyRGxsulQEy2Gg%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
>> Pascal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2020 14:09:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 13 May 2020 14:09:31 UTC