13:00:49 RRSAgent has joined #silver-protocols 13:00:49 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/10/15-silver-protocols-irc 13:01:07 zakim, start this meeting 13:01:07 RRSAgent, make logs Public 13:01:08 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JF 13:01:12 jeanne has joined #silver-protocols 13:01:20 Meeting: Protocols subgroup 13:01:32 zakim, who is here? 13:01:32 Present: (no one) 13:01:34 On IRC I see jeanne, RRSAgent, Zakim, JF, Fazio, GreggVan, Rachael 13:01:38 Present+ 13:01:38 present+ 13:01:45 present+ 13:03:14 present+ 13:08:52 scribe: jeanne 13:09:51 JF: no agenda this week. I want to continue last week's agenda by trying to define protocols 13:10:04 ... it could be processes. There are different types of processes. 13:10:46 ... Outcome-based processes gains momentum 13:11:02 ... we don't want it to be too broad, but it should lead toward better outcomes 13:11:14 ... I want to test that concensus 13:11:49 JA: Whatt we want to achieve is to design content that improves testability 13:12:02 ... COGA document we agree should be a protocol 13:12:14 ... there are other documents that might be protocols 13:12:35 q+ to suggest a narrower scope than a broad definition of protocols 13:13:15 ... we know Inclusive Design, BBC guidelines, they are all documents that are broadly used and improve accessible 13:13:44 ... are they too small, are they not protocols? Or are we looking at ISO standards? 13:14:38 q+ 13:14:40 JF: We need to decide if external protocols are in scope. What specific things must a protocol include to assess it? 13:14:48 ack jean 13:14:48 jeanne, you wanted to suggest a narrower scope than a broad definition of protocols 13:14:51 scribe: JF 13:15:01 Jeanne: want to suggest a multiple part process 13:15:20 ...let's look only at W3C protocols - go through process on how to handle and score 13:15:55 ...then next step: what did we learn? Apply to "what ar the considerations of a protocol to make it more broad" 13:16:03 ack je 13:16:05 scribe: jeanne 13:16:10 ack gr 13:16:33 MichaelC has joined #silver-protocols 13:16:42 q+ to suggest requirements for protocols 13:16:46 Q+ 13:16:59 GV: If it has an outcome, it has to be measurable. If the outcome is measurable, it is accessible. If everyone comes out with the same outcome than it is reliably measurable. 13:17:13 ... I want to ask for examples for a process of steps. 13:17:31 ... I don't think tthe COGA document is a process, it is advice 13:18:06 ... Protocols is equal to guidelines, because what was mentioned were guidelines 13:18:21 ... I thought a protocol was more tightly defined 13:18:41 ... how would we be using them if protocols are a group of recommendations? 13:19:01 ... If you have certain things you have to do and get credit for doing more, then that makes sense 13:19:29 ... What are our examples? Start talking about it in the abstract and trying it in reality 13:19:49 ... then we can see what works and what doesn't and make progress 13:20:35 q+ 13:20:41 ack m 13:20:41 MichaelC, you wanted to suggest requirements for protocols 13:20:50 MC: I suggest a hybrid of what we are hearing, which is that this group develop a list of requirements 13:21:19 jeanne: -1 for us developong a protocol, rather than approving existing protocols 13:22:10 MC: I think this group could develop a W3C protocol 13:22:30 JF: My mental model would be COGA Content Usable and Plain Language.gov 13:23:17 ... there are two types of guidance, Testable, measureable, repeatable and guidance that is less measurable 13:23:55 ... that is the origin of Content Usable, because they couldn't write testable, measureable, repeatable true/false statements 13:24:05 ... scoring is off the table 13:24:13 ack j 13:24:16 ack g 13:24:26 Q+ 13:24:27 ... unfortunate, because scoring is integral 13:24:56 GV: Even if we only decide internal vs. external, we have to decide how we are going to use it. 13:25:16 ... how do we incorporate really good non-measurable advice? 13:25:49 ... if you can reliable score, then you have measurability and testability, then that is guidelines 13:26:13 ... if you can score, then it is testable, and that doesn't address this problem 13:26:28 ... there is a lot of good advice for making things more accessible that are not measurable 13:26:42 ... how are we going to use this? 13:27:08 ... these appears to be that we can't get important things into measurable form 13:27:29 ... we require the things we can require, and we give extra credit to people who try to do more 13:28:18 ... I don't know if we can require extra credit. COGA would object, because they don't want their needs to be optional. 13:28:34 JakeAbma has joined #silver-protocols 13:28:35 JF: We encourage people to do it, by making it worth their while 13:28:38 presdent+ 13:28:48 q+ 13:28:58 ... proposal is entitled "Protocols and Assertions" 13:28:59 q+ to talk about assertions 13:29:01 ack JF 13:29:35 ... ePub has a manifest file with meta-declarations, which include assertions of the accessibility 13:30:03 ... the digital entity could have a meta data document -- a declaration of adopting this 13:30:39 ... "I promise to use the COGA document while developing content". Then people can see whether they are following the COGA document 13:30:51 ... it is subject, so we can't measure it reliably 13:31:38 ... "we know it when we see it" but it is difficult to measure 13:32:02 ... WCAG3 is moving toward ACT true/false statements, so it is no longer guidelines, it is testable statements 13:32:24 ack ja 13:32:30 ... [scribe missed final statement} 13:33:03 Q+ 13:33:06 JA: We in the Netherlands have a model where if you don't comply to WCAG, you have to state what you are doing to mature in your process. 13:33:21 ... you are judged by what you are doing 13:33:50 ... the UN using a similar process, you must provide reasonable accommodations. You have to make a statement on what you are doing. 13:34:07 ... be judged by the public 13:34:09 +1 to Jake - this is the mental model I had too 13:34:35 ... in social media, in the public view, and maybe in court 13:34:44 ack g 13:34:44 GreggVan, you wanted to talk about assertions 13:35:55 scribe: JF 13:36:06 GV: speaks to history of assertions in the past 13:36:07 GV: It is fine to make a claim, but then they aren't going to claim that they meet WCAG because of the legal oblications. The VPAT doesn't say you meet WCAG, but that you support it. It has no legal meaning 13:36:29 jenniferS has joined #silver-protocols 13:36:38 GV: may have a path forward however 13:36:42 present+ 13:36:43 ... I see a path, that the Netherlands don't have the same legal system where you could be in court and have to show that you meet the guidelines 13:37:12 ... if there was a way perhaps that you do the testable and then consider or incorporate the stuff that you can't meet but you have to use 13:37:23 ... like take a COGA and push it out in your organization 13:39:17 q? 13:40:26 DFR: talks about ISO 9000 - "Say what you do, and do what you mean" 13:40:50 it's a framework for policy adoption - voluntarily 13:41:30 s/"Say what you do, and do what you mean"/"Say what you mean, and do what you do" 13:42:31 q+ 13:42:39 ack jf 13:42:42 ack g 13:42:55 So how do we award a point? 13:43:22 what does a point mean? 13:43:25 ISO 9000 https://www.iso.org/iso-9001-quality-management.html 13:44:27 q+ to propose that we put Protocols at Silver level and we don't give points, we just say "implement 2 or more protocols from this list" 13:45:21 GV: ongoing concerns about measurability and points 13:46:11 scribe: Rachael 13:46:38 Jeanne: Really good discussion. Influencing my ideas of how we can do this. 13:47:45 Q+ 13:47:50 ack je 13:47:50 jeanne, you wanted to propose that we put Protocols at Silver level and we don't give points, we just say "implement 2 or more protocols from this list" 13:48:12 ...when we originally looked at the silver architecture and, instead of making SC A, AA, or AAA took the totality of what can be measured and allowed pieces of it to meet different levels (bronze, silver, gold). The silver and gold were intended/discussed as going beyond the testable. I was thinking of protocols as points but Gregg's argument is a good oe. 13:48:34 q+ 13:48:59 ...what if we use protocols as the silver level? You must use at least 2 of the following protocols to claim silver. If you want to claim silver, then you should... 13:49:09 q+ 13:49:12 q+ to ask if we are capturing hte pros and cons of the options? 13:50:01 JF: I want to push back a bit. If I can get to bronze without protocols, then why bother?I would like protocols to be part of the score regardless of level. 13:50:56 ...I am thinking about the netherlands. We may not be where we want to be today but we commit to doing this. We let people be bronze because they adopt a protocol. I think that is a way to normalize protocols. Avoid putting them in the rare level. 13:50:57 ack JF 13:50:57 ack me 13:51:01 ack JakeAbma 13:52:01 JakeAbma: We talk a bit about measuring. I hope you the point. Measuring for the BBC has never been their priority. Instead they care about accessibility. They create protocols and following them and because of that they become known for their accessibility. 13:53:12 +1 to Jake - this is *exactly* how I was envisioning this activity going forward 13:53:26 ...In the NEtherlands, the director changed the system. Following WCAG didn't work because noone could pass it. People didn't feel motivated to work on accessibility. Now Its not that bad if you don't score 100% on WCAG, just tell us what you do and place it in a public statement. The groups that care about accessibility has never been bigger. Changing the goal increased the participation. That moved the needle. I care about the 13:53:26 measuring but it doesn't move the needle. 13:53:51 ...that has been proven many times. Not measurable stuff. Crediting that you do your best. 13:53:55 ack GreggVan 13:54:30 GreggVan: Jeanne, what you were talking about was really good. You said if they implement a protocol. What does implement mean and what is enough? When do you get to check it off? 13:54:53 ...you mentioned Lainey and use of milestones. If you look at them, they are very measurable. This % done by this date. Interesting but still measureable 13:55:54 ...goal is to get to required but not measurable. Problem, you can't do it. I do want to think about what Jake just said. I want to think about, can we have both these levels and points. Some things are important and some are not. If people are not going to get 100% of WCAG which they don't, how do we ensure they get the really important ones. 13:56:58 Rachael: Someone needs to take all this and put it in a wiki. Capture the main points along with the pros and cons. 13:57:10 JF: I agree. Have a wiki. Teased out a lot of good points. 13:57:19 ...we've teased out a lot of good points. 13:58:02 present+ 13:58:04 zakim, end meeting 13:58:04 As of this point the attendees have been JF, jeanne, Fazio, Rachael, jenniferS, GreggVan 13:58:06 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 13:58:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/15-silver-protocols-minutes.html Zakim 13:58:09 I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 13:58:13 Zakim has left #silver-protocols 13:58:53 rrsagent, please part 13:58:53 I see no action items