Re: People for the "spike"

I  thought we determined in day 1 that any use of flows  or paths was not something we wanted to pursue.  That allowing conformance to paths or to component types meant that we believed that people with disabilities did not need to have access to everything that people without disabilities had access to. 

We did say that it could be useful in talking about where to start.  But that would be for a) educational - where to start  or  b) in the policy document about where to start and how to being when handling large bolluses or acquisitions - not for conformance.    And not for scoping.  

On day 2 we talked about following up on two ideas -  with the suggestion that they needed to be developed further and then represesnted after the ideas were tested and the details worked out to see if the ideas held up when trying to apply them to all of the provisions.

Both ideas were focused on creating ways to make it easier to track progress than have an all or none conformance as only measure of progress.

1) was the idea of having more levels so people could have more steps.  It was not determined if that meant  more beyond basic or it meant levels below and above basic confomrnace.

2) was the idea, that alongside of conformace,  a mechanism measuring progress could be created  - a “Progress toward conformance” measure”

and two teams were called on to refine and test and show exactly how the concepts might work - testing the ideas on the full set of guidelines (to see if they worked or collapsed when actually tried with more than a select sample) 


at least that is my recollection. 

Best

Gregg 

> On May 13, 2026, at 3:02 PM, Abou-Zahra, Shadi <sabouzah@amazon.at> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alastair,
> 
> I have slightly different recollection but maybe I misunderstood. I believe there was also an agreement on day one to further explore task flows. On day two, I believe that one of the agreements was to explore multiple levels of conformance. I had raised the idea that this might be done through a combination of task flows and assigning provisions to levels, not only by assigning provisions to levels. Can you/Adam clarify the scope of #1?
> 
> Thanks,
>   Shadi
> 
> ---
> Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Amazon Devices and Services
> Principal Accessibility Standards and Policy Manager
> ---
> From: Alastair Campbell <alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com <mailto:alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 22:39
> To: Abou-Zahra, Shadi <sabouzah@amazon.at <mailto:sabouzah@amazon.at>>; Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>; Hidde de Vries <hidde@hiddedevries.nl <mailto:hidde@hiddedevries.nl>>; Adam Page <adam.page@hilton.com <mailto:adam.page@hilton.com>>
> Cc: AGWG Chairs <group-ag-chairs@w3.org <mailto:group-ag-chairs@w3.org>>; John Kirkwood <kirkwood@citymouse.com <mailto:kirkwood@citymouse.com>>; Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com <mailto:lisa1seeman@gmail.com>>; Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us <mailto:jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>>; Jeroen Hulscher <jlhulscher@gmail.com <mailto:jlhulscher@gmail.com>>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <andrew.kirkpatrick@evinced.com <mailto:andrew.kirkpatrick@evinced.com>>; WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] People for the "spike"
>  
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> And sorry for the subject line, no physical spikes are involved! (But did it get your attention?)
> 
> As discussed in the conformance meeting on Tuesday, we’d like to put together a couple of groups to focus on two particular problems:
> 
> How to assign provisions to many levels. 
> How to create a "progress towards conformance" score.
> 
> There is more to both proposals than just those aspects, but these are core issues that need to be addressed in order for the fuller proposals to be feasible.
> 
> 1) For the first group, Adam has volunteered to run/support things from a chair point of view. The obvious other people to join are Shadi and Hidde (who volunteered in the meeting). If there are others who would like to join, please email me. However, 3 is enough if Shadi and Hidde have time in the next couple of weeks. If we get a lot of people we might separate it and have multiple groups working in parallel.
> 
> I suggest you make a copy of the provision management sheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V7u1tjVsxL9NgN9ySoUtt0gmYReXSs0Y9Bc_R2RByzg/edit?gid=0#gid=0>, save it into the conformance folder <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1n7Jso4p5wQ9ItSiS3aHPNyjN6tZy5a_R>, remove the sheets/columns you don’t need, and go from there. The deliverables would be a list of provisions in their levels, the criteria used, and a short presentation or bit of text on how it went and any thoughts for the group.
> 
> 
> 2) For the second group, I’ll run/support as a chair, and the obvious other person to join is Gregg (I didn’t see any other volunteers from the meetings). If there are others who would like to join, please email me. 
> 
> We can use the provision management sheet, and also some of the previous proposals <https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/wiki/Conformance-Proposals-2018-to-present> included scoring mechanisms. We can also use previous test materials to show how the scoring would work for different types of site, criteria used, and short presentation.
> 
> This is intended to be short: Group 2 will report back on May 26th, group 1 on June 9th.
> 
> Kind regards,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
> -- 
>  
> alastairc.uk <https://alastairc.uk/> / www.thisisgain.com <http://www.nomensa.com/>
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon Development Center Austria GmbH
> Brueckenkopfgasse 1
> 8020 Graz
> Oesterreich
> Sitz in Graz
> Firmenbuchnummer: FN 439453 f
> Firmenbuchgericht: Landesgericht fuer Zivilrechtssachen Graz