Meeting minutes
MC: I am concerned that people will game the system by claiming a protocol with no measurement. I would not want people to be able to declasre that they are conformant on something that isn't measureable
JS: that's why I am recommending that Bronze be measureable guideline level and Silver level be a different currancy where we require Bronze level and give points toward the Silver level by a declaration of adopting the protocol
JF: I object because it makes a protocol AAA, it is optional.
JS: But it is a like ISO9001 where people are declaring because they want to declare a higher level than bronze.
JF: I don't want to declare what regulators have to do
MC: But we have many group members who want language that can be used in regulatory environment.
JF: I want to try and figure out how we make the Content Usable fully part of WCAG3
MC: We could measure the inputs to the protocol -- Do they have the training, personnel, and the tools to implement the protocol?
… You are making sure that certain things can be verified that they are following the steps needed for achieving the output
JF: Looking at COGA - Help users identify mistakes and avoid them. That's a clear command, but I don't know how to measure it.
MC: If we are solving with a protocol, then we are using procedures that are like: train your staff in identifying where mistakes can be made, run it through a readability checker.
JF: We can measure the evidence without measuring the outcome
JS: It fits what I'm proposing in the Validating section
JF: How do we measure the evidence and how rigorous is it?
… in the conformance model, the digital property has a conformance statement
… to make entities accountable to these protocols, we need a statement
JS: What about in a accessibility statement?
MC: It could be either. We can come back to a statement and whether it is machine readable. There are other issues that are more urgent
MC: There could be a training protocol where you provide a list of necessary training, you could have a checklist protocol for developers that they have to follow and then measure whether they follow that protocol
JF: We have the text alternative decision tree. That would be a valuable document
MC: Take that example: the protocol is to walk the decision tree and check it off;
… simply to say that for this category of issue, follow this set of good ideas
JS: You could have a measurement that there is training, there is a plan for training new employess, that the devs have a copy of the decision tree, and that there is management or peer review of the code that show that the decision tree has been followed.
MC: That is too broad, we need to start more narrow. We would need a training protocol for that.
JF: Both Android and iOS have guidelines that have specific guidelines for accessible mobile platforms
… we could give points for that
MC: I am looking at an abstract level -- that each protocol would have its own conformance definition and we would refer to it.
JF: Each protocol is responsible for defining how to measure success
… we could put that in the rules for each protocol
MC: Or we could define that each require a list of checklist items and how to meet them and measure it.
JS: That is a lot more work than we want to do.
… we want to be able to point to a document and say "do that"
MC: I don't think we want to start with a document like Content Usable to start - we should look at a document that is more designed as a protocol
JF: COntent Usable has good objectives, and how to meet it
JS: What about BBC Mobile Guidelines? They are widely accepted, they are a checklist of how to measure it.
MC: We could have a protocol that wraps Content Usable to give measurement.
… how to ensure that Content Usable is followed with appropriate training and effort.
JF: When I look at good potential protocols, they give good instruction and how to measure it.
MC: So we should start with them
JF: Maybe we should call them guidance documents instead of a protocol.