- From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:59:35 -0500
- To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Formatted version of minutes: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html Text of Minutes: [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ Silver Task Force Teleconference 12 Dec 2016 [2]Agenda [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Meetings/FtF_Dec_2016 See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-irc Attendees Present Shawn_Lauriat, Sarah_Horton, Jeanne_Spellman, Michael_Cooper Regrets Chair Jeanne, Shawn Scribe jeanne, MichaelC, Lauriat Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]agenda discussion 2. [6]Roles of stakeholders 3. [7]I need guidelines for... 4. [8]Roles for Stakeholder Map, Part 2 5. [9]Follow-up from morning exercise 6. [10]Recruiting: how many people, what outreach 7. [11]Liaisons to other organizations * [12]Summary of Action Items * [13]Summary of Resolutions __________________________________________________________ <MichaelC> meeting: Silver FtF Day 1 <jeanne> Trackbot, start meeting <trackbot> Meeting: Silver Task Force Teleconference <trackbot> Date: 12 December 2016 <MichaelC> meeting: Silver FtF Day 1 agenda discussion <jeanne> Edits to the agenda are on the wiki <- [14]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Meetings/ FtF_Dec_2016#Agenda [14] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Meetings/FtF_Dec_2016#Agenda <jeanne> Sarah: I would like to have 2 hours to do a RACI diagram: What Roles, Who is Accountable, Who do we need to Consult, who do we need to keep Informed. <jeanne> scribe: jeanne Sarah: Overview, identify roles, then map people to roles. ... start with an Activity ... make provisional personas for that role. Who the person is, why they need accessibility guidelines ... later on we will prioritize and group them ... created a stakeholder results form, with separate columns for the roles. SL: [reads list of stakeholders from the Design document. ] <Lauriat> [15]https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Design_Pl an_for_Silver#Stakeholder_Map [15] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Design_Plan_for_Silver#Stakeholder_Map Michael: One of the things that the WCAG WG brings is the institutional memory. We need to be aware of the compromises made in the past. Jeanne: [reads the list of roles from the submission form] Roles of stakeholders Person with Disability scribe: Sites are accessible ... find sites that are accessibile ... the standard exist DIsability organization scribe: inform the standards ... provides structure ... institutionailzed advocacy Thought leader in accessibility scribe: Where is the industry going? ... overlap with disability organization ... having the standard allows thought leader to build on the standard Influencer in disability scribe: floor for disabilities to build ... identify new technology with new disability needs ... identify new disabilities not covered by standards Accessibility Professional scribe: the standard by which you know you are doing what is needed ... may also be someone who works with people with disabilities Accessibility Developer/Designer scribe: point of reference for building software Accessibility specialist scribe: someone who works with people with disabilitities - day to day helpers or training helpers ... point of reference for how things should work ... report problems to vendors of software and assistive technology ... guidelines and sjupporting materials help them identify how to help their clients ... learning materials Researchers scribe: guidelines can be a topic of study ... use it as a measure in their research ... gap analysis of the guidelines as a topic of research ... could help prioritize research Instructors/Professors scribe: teaching coding - same as accessibility professionals ... working with people with disabilities, working from the other side ... point of reference ... curriculum basis Accessibility advisor or consultant-type role scribe: accessibility audit, gaps in process and development, knows accessibility needs and solutions. ... knows the guidelines, communicating about how the guideline applies to a specific situations ... gives perceived legitimacy and a framework for the communication QA Professional scribe: manual testing, writing test plans ... automation side writes the tooling and validate the tooling ... goal is that the product conforms to the guidelines and validating the product conforms Designers scribe: to design products that conform to guidelines ... understand constraints of guidelines ... must have creativity within the constraints of the guidelines ... guidelines provide a boundary ... the boundary cannot be a so small that it becomes a constraints. ... must have language in the guidelines that they can understand Developers scribe: using the guidelines to know how to write the software ... a specification book (for Designers, more than developers) ... must solve the problems even the designers overlooked. ... developer executes the design ... validating designs they get ... validating that what they have made is correct ... source of solutions of problems -- what is an accessible data picker? AWK: I'm worried about haviing so many different stakeholer groups. I think that we are making it less defined. I worry that we will not be able to map person-to-role mapping. I see 3 different levels: person with disability, content developers, intermediaries Product Manager - the person who owns the product and has to make it successful scribe: more indirect: prioritization of whatever has to be done in their product ... use the guidelines to understand the issues that their product has to meet ... and understand the impact of their product lacks ... helps set and communicate expectations Product Manager Project Manager scribe: help designers understand scope ... help developers prioritize ... scoping, timeframes of what peeople want to do. Content providers, producers and editors scribe: similar to designers ... need to know boundaries within they can work ... depends on the type of content creators ... informs a style guide ... creative solutions to accessibility needs ... awareness I need guidelines for... Researcher: For a thesis statement Influencer: to be creditble QA: Know what bugs to write Developer: Avoid creating bugs Instructor: have topics for my class Disability organization: Advocate toward a stable standard reference Person with a disability: Use technology Accessibility helper: understand how to do my job Accessibility/designer developer: tell people what to do Accessibility advisor consultant: tell people what to do. Designer: know what to do Product manager: Priorize adding new features Content: make accessible content Accessibility Influencers: be credible Disability Influencers: identify gaps Project manager: allocate time /wrangling Roles for Stakeholder Map, Part 2 Policymaker (govt) scribe: define the policies that others need to work against ... they need guidelines to set policy ... they need international guidelines for harmonization with other countries Policymaker (organization and corporations) scribe: internal policies match exteral (when applicable) or to meet customer needs and goals ... sometimes to demonstrate compliance ... risk limiting factor -- meeting the guidelines mitigate risk, even if all customer needs aren't met. Web browser and platform developer (extensions, ECHO platform, hardware input output, native apps) scribe: need standards to insure their platforms enable software to meet the standards ... platform itself needs to meet guidelines Assistive Technology developer scribe: follow their side of the guidelines so the AT works with conforming platforms and software ... capitalize on the guidelines -- build increased functionality that is based on the guidelines ... meet the needs of the audience with the specific disability they are addressing Authoring Tool Developers scribe: software needs to meet the guidelines so people with disabilities can use it ... create application, content and interactivity that is accessible ... the border between content creation and programming is blurring. It will be a challenge to Silver ... help you author accessible content and reduce the way to make inaccessible content Evaluation Tool Developers scribe: something to evaluate, test cases ... automatic and semi automatic tests, they need guidelines that are implementable to them. Lawyers scribe: communicate definitively ... define the terms of case settlements ... demonstrate non-compliance Accessibility Advocates scribe: educating people on need for accessibility ... persuading and validating a position Innovators (not necessarily accessibility related) scribe: when innovations are deployed, the guidelines address the requirements of those technologies Industry Association scribe: and Professional Associations ... certificationfor memebers - training and testing Creating Training Materials scribe: topics and explanation of concepts CTO - IT Managers scribe: prioritization ... compliance with standards ... establish accountability for compliance Call Center scribe: indirect. Need to know how it is implemented on the products they are responsible for. ... similar to the accessibility specialist Standards Organizations scribe: coordination with their own standards WCAG WG scribe: so the web will be more accessible ... to address all the needs of everyone else. The guidelines are the way the working uses to meet all those needs. ... standards that are reasonable with their jurisdictions ... harmonized with other juristictions ... useful and up to date (despite unpredictable timelines) <MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC Follow-up from morning exercise sh: let's make sense of the roles what do they need what are they looking for what do we want from them what are their commonalities we want to prioritize them sl: group sh: I did abstractions for us to work with sl: group first will help with the following conceptualization based on the needs for the staeholders sh: so we have all the buckets for group e.g. if we´re interested in design decision types we might look at AT devs, PMs, designers <discussion of ways to group> sl: some groups might be technical, others not allows us to tailor surveys sh: I use accessibility guidelines to make policy * gov * org policy * disability orgs sh: I use accessibility guidelines to use policy * lawyers * disability orgs * a11y consultant sh: is there difference between make and use policy? sl: yes, though interactions similar sh: make design decisions js: (for content) * eval tool * authoring tool js: make content * project manager * product manager * developers * designers * QA * content producers * accessibility development / design * IT managers js: Standards orgs * standards developers * WCAG WG <scribe decides the moving around of post-it notes has exceeded the potential of linear scribing> sl: policy sometimes grouped into sub-categories sometimes not sh: is grouping not helpful? sl: it is but not 1:1 sh: does it help us? e.g., researchers might go in multiple buckets sl: goal to come up with stakeholder gap with gaps identified and plan to fill the gaps sh: @@ sl: @@ sh: this grouping helps understand the roles mc: grouping make fewer types of roles we need to treat separately sh: I want the provisional personas put attributes on the roles so we can see the overlaps better sl: what do we accomplish by grouping? surveys and stakeholder interviews we´ll handle later sh: what roles critical to meet the goal of supporting PWD? sl: depends on which specific exercise we´re doing right now priority to identify gaps js: let´s look at how many people we have in the categories sl: easier for the ones we had in the survey note accessibility professionals is a big bucket greater flexibility is a big priority let´s look at roles that seem sparsely populated WGAG WG participants, standards orgs though WG easier to reach out to we have lots of people from a11y orgs though there may gaps in types we´ll want to fill in 24 marked as policy makers sh: ask people to self-categorize? mc: we don´t want to make too much noise with these people sl: we probably need more in the lawyers category 12 web browser developer 73 web content developers 9 AT developers think we need emphasis on diversity within this category as well e.g., no screen reader developer mc: that´s been a difficult group for us to reach <scribe> ACTION: jeanne to cast about for screen reader developer names [recorded in [16]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action01] [16] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Cast about for screen reader developer names [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2016-12-19]. sl: from some of the sparse categories, we could ask the people already in them for recommendations of others <scribe> ACTION: jeanne to ask Lainey for other lawyer names [recorded in [17]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action02] [17] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action02] <trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Ask lainey for other lawyer names [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2016-12-19]. sl: many of these are ¨know accessbility¨ types need to also explicitly try to reach ¨don´t know accessibility¨ types js: AWK suggested alistapart outreach <scribe> ACTION: andrew to do outreach to alistapart for non-a11y people [recorded in [18]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action03] [18] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action03] <trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Do outreach to alistapart for non-a11y people [on Andrew Kirkpatrick - due 2016-12-19]. mc: let´s be very deliberate on that type of public outreach sl: content orgs, want to get lots of very different types of content js: @@ sl: games, lots of authoring tool overlap google docs audio interfaces <scribe> ACTION: jeanne to contact ian hamilton for game developer frameworks [recorded in [19]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action04] [19] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action04] <trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Contact ian hamilton for game developer frameworks [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2016-12-19]. sl: need to brainstorm a list of content types we want to capture likewise on platforms, want diverse set of platforms don´t think we have mobile, VR right now mc: want to get vehicles, web of things js: Mike Elledge for former, Dave Raggett for latter Alan Bird may have connections as well mc: +1 to broad brainstorm here sl: also diversity in general within the groups international, types of org, etc. sh: what is platform? better word js: hardware, os, extension sl: everything between content and person except AT js: and maybe even that sl: sometimes mc: is this a sufficient grouping axis? sl: good for now just want to make sure we haven´t missed a group e.g., content creators we didn´t reach out for js: at least outside a11y community sl: which filtered our resuts sh: <summarizes the groups> sl: we need to expand people with disabilities <SarahHorton> Thank you :) mc: for disability categorization <SarahHorton> Here's a start on the roles and activites inventory: [20]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XK_evYulIaLsYOlMjuD OC763xWL2TOM9SvPjRX_d9ag/edit?usp=sharing [20] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XK_evYulIaLsYOlMjuDOC763xWL2TOM9SvPjRX_d9ag/edit?usp=sharing blind and visually impaired deaf and hearing impaired mobility impaired cognitive impaired learning disabilities and multiple disabilities which is often overlooked sl: deaf-blind <jeanne> JS: disabled veterans organizations sh: let´s fill in roles and activities <fiddling on the columns in the spreadsheet> <and filling in the cells, not scribed> <unofficial break> sl: some roles we won´t need to go into as much depth as others sh: today sl: forseeable future sh: what will future look like if future succeeds? js: significant step towards unicorns and rainbows easier for people to get information on making their products and services accessible sl: everybody can do what they´re trying to do more easily mc: people can get the info they need sooner to address a11y js: broaden what standards apply to mc: we´d all love a11y to come automatically without thought but Silver won´t make that happen we hope it takes us a step closer but don´t bite off an over-large scope sl: we want to make it easier for people to adapt to technology change and keep a11y right now we´re being aspirational but later we will need to narrow things down mc: WCAG 2 tried to be be-all and end-all for stability of policy led to heistance to change, even create supplementary guidance for silver we want to be able to react to technology change more quickly while remaining viewed as a useful and solid base for policy harmonization sl: @@ ... think for stakeholder map we´ve gotten what we need out of today´s discussion have a starting point for goals, discussions for recruiting do we want to prioritize some of these roles for TF participation? mc: yes sh: how about that stack ranking thing? sl: not out of context of specific activities in specific tasks it will make sense to focus more on different groups we might do prioritization and group of surveys sh: are there roles that our work would fail if we don´t have people from that role? sl: some roles as needing to be involved in the full process rather than as needed? sh: yes mc: pwd critical policy people important for our history js: tool developers sl: can sort by responsibility, accountability, consult, inform <Lauriat> Scribe: Lauriat Recruiting: how many people, what outreach Jeanne: Particularly looking at how many people, what specialties, that sort of thing. Michael: We should talk about the size of the TF. ... a lot of people feel the time expectation is high, which it is, so I want to reconfirm with you the size of the TF and other ways people can participate. ... How restrictive to want to be? ... Then talk about how do we want to go about with active recruiting. Jeanne: We want a larger circle. Research partners, people who contribute heavily, but aren't necessarily part of the TF. Sarah: Does it make sense to talk about the structure of the activity? It seems a bit up in the air. Michael: Part of why I wanted to talk about that after tomorrow's WG Call, as the charter will influence things. ... Maybe talk about how the group would account for things if the decision goes in either direction? Jeanne: I prefer to stay with WCAG, but the advantage of the CG is other people (researchers, etc.) would have different rules around IP, but we could also have a TF and a CG for researchers. ... We have a plan for how to move forward and get started, but the danger is CGs tend to have a high rate of failure without support TF have. Sarah: I don't really know a lot about the internal workings of the W3C. To pick up another point we had started before the break, I think we have some goals in the guidelines being more effective in producing accessible outcomes. ... We do have goals that mean that we will do this effectively. It helps a lot to have an autonomous group that's working on the project, because you're less likely to get sidetracked or bogged down by legacy stuff, and can focus on the attributes of the project you need to. Michael: I agree with that, but I'll argue for having a degree of contact with the WG helps, with validity of the work itself. ... A strong ongoing connection. We need a group that can move fast and do the work, but also have the WG bringing that memory and experience to inform the work. Sarah: Not advocating for one thing or another, since I don't know how these things work. Jeanne: For the next nine months, we won't have a lot of standards work going on, and we'll really need people who know research. ... While we do the research, it'll attract more interest from people who know the standards work. Michael: To a certain extent, we can't control who joins the TF, but we can set expectations and manage things in a way that accounts for that. I want someone in the core group who can provide a bit of a slowdown in terms of perspective and catching things early so that we don't end up with something unusable for one case for whatever reason. Sarah: Someone has said he'd help with research, and managing it. Michael: We probably would want to work with the Research TF in order to form requests correctly to the outside world for research, and then they could do that on their own. They'd have their own timelines and quality requirements that may not match our own, though. ... That can be coordinated by the Research TF or by the CG. Sarah: If someone volunteered to help us with the diary studies, the self-reporting projects. Helping design the studies and evaluate the findings from it. That might end up being a document articulating the things we need to know. Michael: W3C probably couldn't publish the document, for reasons of copyright, but they could publish it and then we could reference, but CG could publish it and then it'd have W3C copyright. Sarah: To review, we sent out a request for research partners. ... People from that will expect a response from us after this week for how we can move forward with that. Michael: The group will need to publish the list of research requests, and the group will need to publish a timeline of these things. Jeanne: We've published the timeline, which does need refining. Michael: We have a core set of people, hopefully under W3C process. Talking about needing to interface with certain external groups, including managing the results and these interfaces. ... When things happen outside of W3C process, we'll need to come up with ways to work with them that don't introduce complications, like IP-related publishing issues. Sarah: If this person joined the TF, we'd need to get Andrew and Josh invite this person to join the WG? Michael: Yes. Sarah: If I, as an outside person, want to contribute for two years but not join the WG, how would that work? Michael: They'd need to communicate things via the public open channels. Sarah: Back to the question of recruiting, we want to focus on people committed to the WG over time and not someone looking to sign up for this one project. ... In the CG path, it's a more fluid engagement, and can come and go depending on the work at hand. Do we need to figure out recruiting for each scenario (TF vs. CG)? Michael: Yes. Jeanne: Once we product a requirements document, we need to figure out what to do with that. If in the WG, it wouldn't be a major battle to get the work chartered to move forward. ... If a CG, we'll need to find a place to put the work. That may mean rechartering the WG, or creating a new one, which would create conflicts. Michael: A major risk: Silver is developed to be great by the people working on it, and the WG doesn't take it seriously. ... it could work as a CG, but it's a risk. ... A CG is technically independent. I would technically be prohibited from working with the CG. Jeanne: Web Platform has a CG, as one exception to that. Michael: Let's move forward with the assumption that the TF will happen. What do we want for that? ... Issues with the 8-hour per week time commitment, other ways to direct people to other channels? Sarah: One way to look at this is to look at the work of the TF, talk about the roles needed on the TF to execute it. ... It may be the case that people come and go from the TF, depending on the work. ... Maybe someone just comes in for the duration of the activity and then backs up again once we move to another phase. Jeanne: I was looking at it from the point of what does it take to work with the W3C. A group less than six isn't really viable. ... I think we should try for eight. Manageable, nimble, and small, but could have the flexibility of something small. ... What kind of persona do we need for the group? We have too many people from TPG on the group, and that will cause problems. We have someone from another place reaching out to join, which is great. ... We have some people (including some research-focused) interested, but very put off by the 8-hour requirement. Michael: Thinking in terms of diversity of the TF. ... Including having at least two disability groups represented. ... We may want to think in terms of concentric circles, where the core puts in 8 hours, and then the next circle out puts in a bit less. Sarah: In the past when you've had a successful project, can you describe the personas of the core people involved? Michael: I think we need people who are organized, keep up on action items, plot their work effort into the future, technically skilled, able to express their opinion and accept other people's opinions. Sarah: These are attributes of a person, which is good. Any other experience, role-based types, maybe people involved in policy for example? Michael: Well, people with disabilities are a must. Sarah: PhD? Jeanne: Certainly not on the TF. Sarah: Jeanne, you mentioned where people work. (Oh! International.) How important are you seeing that? Michael: A little more fluid. If half the TF comes from one company, that'll raise questions. Sarah: I like the idea of concentric circles, bringing certain people into the core for periods of time. ... Should we reach out to specific individuals? Michael: Thinking of specifically two levels of collaboration, the core group and an outer group. ... We'll update the work statement to say that the core group will put in an expected 8 hours per week and then have other contributors, but we don't need to explicitly say that they aren't in a core circle. Sarah: We got a lot of people in the stakeholder responses who want to take part in Silver. Michael: Do we want to just set up a CG now in order to get more participation and interest? Sarah: I like that idea, because we really need to get people involved and bring them along. It allows us to do some of these activities that seem confining within the context of the WG (like the research) that we could do in the CG. ... Having a group around that activity gives it a bit more formality and credibility. Michael: We can set up a mailing list, a wiki, things like that. Andrew: Thinking about the community group aspect, I feel like it's going to be hard to characterize our current state without people pointing out that that's what incubation is. ... We know that there's tight connection that we'll need to have between Silver and the WG. Michael: Maybe plan A will be that we don't talk about the supplementary CG idea yet, and just go ahead with the proposal for the TF. Jeanne: We won't be successful unless we continue with the WG. Sarah: Yeah. Michael: We can be thinking it might happen, but don't have to propose it just yet. <scribe> ACTION: Michael Update work statement to reflect updated work expectations. [recorded in [21]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action05] [21] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action05] <trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Update work statement to reflect updated work expectations. [on Michael Cooper - due 2016-12-19]. Sarah: If you want names of people, let me know. Not-your-usual suspects kind of people. Michael: With this, knowledge of W3C is kind of important. Liaisons to other organizations Michael: I want to cover strategy for liaising with these organizations, and what organizations we want to liaise with. ... We want to avoid misunderstandings about expectations and such. Sarah: Liaising with other standards organizations to let them know about what we're doing? Michael: At least that. ... We want to really not be prohibited from doing this work, but still remain sensitive to their needs. trackbot, make meeting <trackbot> Sorry, Lauriat, I don't understand 'trackbot, make meeting'. Please refer to <[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help. [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc trackbot, end meeting Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: andrew to do outreach to alistapart for non-a11y people [recorded in [23]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action03] [NEW] ACTION: jeanne to ask Lainey for other lawyer names [recorded in [24]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action02] [NEW] ACTION: jeanne to cast about for screen reader developer names [recorded in [25]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action01] [NEW] ACTION: jeanne to contact ian hamilton for game developer frameworks [recorded in [26]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action04] [NEW] ACTION: Michael Update work statement to reflect updated work expectations. [recorded in [27]http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action05] [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action03 [24] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action02 [25] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action01 [26] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action04 [27] http://www.w3.org/2016/12/12-silver-minutes.html#action05 Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 12 December 2016 22:00:19 UTC