Protocols Sub Group

24 September 2021


JakeAbma, jeanne, JF, Rachael
JA perhaps mispoke, protocls are side-by-side, jeanne, JF

Meeting minutes

Topic+ Protocols Sub Group

Title+ Protocols Sub Group


Intros & Administrivia

wiki page for group is https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols

JF: We will be storing our work items on this page

JF: What is a protocol? is a key item.
… to my mind, Content Usable from COGA is a good example of a protocol
… how does each group member defines protocol?
… why did you join?

ST: To design something compelling that would inspire groups to improve accessi bility.
… example is a memory group home that writes up a list of best practices for org that would want to share it.

JG: I joined to find ways to provide more helpful guidance
… Content Usable is a good example of a protocol and flesh out more in the same vein

GV: I am looking up the definition of a protocol, but can't find one applicable
… I think it is for giving guidance where the measurable and testing are not really possible.
… THinking about sentences where something incomprehesible passes and clear plain language can fail
… I joined the group because I am upset where people can't get their needs met, but we haven't found a path for doing that

… I joined to find a path if there is one.

JA: For this group I took John's idea of putting a protocol as additional guidance to show or put in a conformance statement
… you are working toward a specific protocol
… there are protocols for writing
… very concrete approach
… Maturity Model has proof points where you show that you are following a protocol
… it's not something completely separate
… In the EU there will be monitoring for private websites
… govt agencies must publish an accessibility statement for what they follow and measures to improve accessiiblity including planning
… not only could apply WCAG, but what other processes are being implemented and planned.
… I think the protocols has the ability to implement that.

<JF> GV: think the goal is to incorporate the two as tightly as possible. If it is off to the side it would be ignored

JF: Should protocols be "extra" -- should it sit on top of other protocols

JF: Bruce Bailey had the idea of different currencies - one measure for regulatory and another measure for best practices\

<Rachael> presen+

JA: In Netherlands, when you put in an accessibility statement, you have to put process, but they don't proscribe what to do and what the timeline is.

JF: A question I had early on, are their specific protocols that have been defined?

JA: It depends on our definition of protocols.

JA: We don't have guidelines or critiera, but we are using the COGA protocol in our definition
… should we have set of well-known protocols to be used, like ISO standards

<SuzanneTaylor> jeanne: I think this has the potentially to solve a key issue in silver.

<SuzanneTaylor> ... initially Bronze was going to be something like WCAG 2.0 AA

<SuzanneTaylor> ... silver would be Bronze + usability

<SuzanneTaylor> ... gold would be maturity model

<SuzanneTaylor> ... we struggled with what silver would be

<SuzanneTaylor> ... and JF's suggestion could take in APA's user requirements documents, etc

<SuzanneTaylor> ... aria authoring practices, W3C technical reports and spec

<SuzanneTaylor> ... it would be a good thing to be able to reward people for following these

<SuzanneTaylor> ... it could be a middle place for more advanced accessibility

<SuzanneTaylor> ... that is how I see it, but I'm flexible

<SuzanneTaylor> ... I think it would be helpful to start by making a list of acceptable protocols would be

<SuzanneTaylor> ... I have some concerns about custom protocols

JF: I think the starting points is defining what a protocol is.
… where do protocols start to show up in the larger context?
… I wouild rather see protocols be integrated across the board
… I want to see protocols integrated at bronze levels
… Lainey Feingold Structured Negotiation shows that "we know we know where you want to be, but know what we need to do to get there."
… we know that we give people a way to conform if they aren't perfect.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest we document options for where to integrate with pros and cons

<GreggVan> +1 to that

RBM: Sometimes coming in with a final decision doesn't work with the entire group because AGWG doesn't understand the undkerlying arguments
… I recommend we make a list of the options with the pros and cons to seed the richness of conversation that we want to have over the next 9 months
… we can stay in line with AGWG

JF: Are we just going to develop a guided framework?

<SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: really like idea of documenting the options/thinking

<GreggVan> we might structure our report along something like Goal, hopes, concerns, constraints, ideas, options --- all for discussion.

RBM: We don't want to have a hard and fast decision -- with more

GV: Goals, Hopes, Constraints, Options

GV: Concern that COGA would not lkike that non-testable would not fit at the required level. It would be a problem if it issn't required

JF: I think that if Protocols aren't at the regulatory level, then people will not do them
… they aren't critical to meeting the broader goal
… We might have protocols that aren't testable, measurable and repeatable
… how do we fit that into the WCAG3 framework?

JA: I want to answer the question we started with. You have the option of defining and telling which prootcol will fit.
… that planes a lot of burden on your shoulders
… we don't write the protocols, we don't control if they change, they may vary from country to contry. That would be very hard.
… we had the conversations with the Ministry of Affairs, what measures need to be in planning? Your measures nad your planning is ocmpletley up to you. The Dutch govt does not want to say which protocol you have to do.
… why should you use a protocol, and the matureity of the protocol -- like building your own car won't be a good as the car company
… maybe it is good to have a discussion on that.

JF: Do you have any documentation on the Netherlands regulations?

<JakeAbma> https://www.digitoegankelijk.nl/toegankelijkheidsverklaring

JA: It's a page for your Accessibility Statement
… there is an accessiiblity statement generator with reporting of what you can do.
… it's simply written so the translation should be good.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that if bronze supports regulatory, then putting non-testable items in bronze might not fit the regulatoruy model.

<SuzanneTaylor> jeanne: I wanted to mention early that if we say that Bronze supports regulatory, then putting protocols in Bronze might conflict with regulatory - we have to have that conversation with regulators, maybe starting with Bruce

JS: I worry about gaming and our requirement of regulatory use

<Zakim> SuzanneTaylor, you wanted to suggest that untestable collections of guidance encapsulated in just 10 ir 20 percent of the score might be acceptable in a regulatory environment

ST: I thought that 20% of your score could be protocols and help reach gold, but I was wrong, that it could be anywhere. In the 10-20% might not be regulatory. There are so many banks that are WCAG 2.1 compliant, but the PwD can't use them. Then they could be required to accommodate people with disabillities because it could be encapsulated -- did you do the protocol or did you


JF: I like GV's suggestion of defining Goals, Hopes, COnstraints


<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest making a list of acceptable protocols and see the common themes

<SuzanneTaylor> Jeanne: just wanted to suggested a list of acceptable protocols and common characteristics as a place to begin

JF: That would be a good homework task for the group. Point to examples. COntent Uaable and Plainlanguage.gov
… Plainlanguage.gov has guidelines and the government requires it.


<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

JF: We have the wiki which is a useful place to start putting ideas
… Please put info in the wiki
… concern for gaming -- is there a place of entities creaating private protocols? Should nations be able to create protocols?

+1 that I like allowing nations to publish protocols?

'JF: What about large organizations? COuld we make stanards for protocols? Should W3C vet them?

JA: COncern for European Accessibility Act that forced harmonization across nations having their own rules
… the more you allow others to contribute to protocols, the less harmonization. You could have rubbish protocols
… If 200 countries have 10 protocols each, we have 2000 protocols. No harmonization.

GV: We are not appointed by the world to do anything. To do that would require bringing people into the W3C. We can only talk about the framework for a protocol

JF: I reference PlainLanguage.gov as a US example, EU has a similar requirement.

JF: Homework assignment: think about the definition of prootcol and point to examples.

JF: My goal is to have a working definition and key components of a protocol for next week.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).


Maybe present: 'JF, GV, JA, JG, JS, RBM, ST