Meeting minutes
<JF> https://
<JF> https://
<JF> https://
JG: Does plain language apply internationally?
JS: The group is working on that, there are international resources for plain language.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that MC didn't recommend Content Usable
JS: I think we need to start with something simpler than Content Usable
JF: I still think that we need measurable.
JF: I think Content Usable is the ideal content
<ShawnT> +1 on jeanne
+1 - that's a great one
JG: Can we have technology specific guidelines?
ST: I think we should have a protocol for validating for HTML
<Jaunita_George> https://
JS: WHy don't we make a list of propotols and then debate pros and cons.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest we start with ARIA Authoring guide
JG: Mobile Accessibility at W3C as a protocol
<ShawnT> I like the idea of creating a list of protocols now, can we start a Google docs or sheets?
<Jaunita_George> +1 to using Google docs
JF: IS that a protocol? We want something to that you know it when you see it.
JS: Google doc with some prior meeting work on brainstorming protocols
JS: let's brainstorm protocols and add them to the list from the prior meeting
JG: Are protocols normative?
JS: Let's defer that discussion
JF: I don't think they can be normative because they aren't measurable
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say what about BBC Mobile Accessibility?
<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to defining protocol before making a list
<Jaunita_George> https://
ST: I want to define protocols first, instead of making a list and then defining
JF: the decision tree for alt text is a good example of a protocol
<ShawnT> https://
JG: What about Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services?
MJM: That's a standard, not a protocol
… it includes WCAG
JF: It's mostly measurable
MJM: In the video ICT capabilities
JF: the section on captioning position has no measurable requirements
… If it cannot be measured against a benchmark, then it should be a protocol.
<JF> Poll: A defining feature of a protocol is that it cannot be consistently measured against a benchmark, but it can use a benchmark as a reference
<Jaunita_George> +1
<ShawnT> +1
JS: I don't understand "it can use a benchmark as a reference"
<JF> https://
JF: In content usable, there are 8 outcomes
<JF> New Poll: A defining feature of a protocol is that it cannot be consistently measured against a benchmark
+1
<Mary_Jo_Mueller> +1
ST: Will people understand what a benchmark is?
JF: The Content Usable objectives are a benchmark
JF: What about "outcome"?
MJM: It could be confusing with normative Outcomes in WCAG3
… when people come to the documentation and resources, will they understand what they have to do and what they don't? It coiuld muddy the water.
JG: Can we use "result"?
<JF> A defining feature of a protocol is that it cannot be consistently measured against an (outcome | result)
MJM: an expected result
JF: It has to be a reaction that meets our expectation
<Mary_Jo_Mueller> perhaps "desired result"?
JSt: A list of questions to ask oneself while they are working. People - devs - often complain that Outcomes are subjective. One auditor gives one answer, and one gives another.
<ShawnT> +1 Jennifer
JSt: there are questions you can ask to clarify the experience of what people with disabilitiess need.
JSt: We have to figure out how we experts make decisions so that can be documented and passed on to others
… we should send a survey out to our broader community to ask: What are the questions you ask yourself to make sure it is accessible.
JF: It's too broad, we need to chop it into smaller pieces.
ST: in COGA we are looking at tools of how the Content Usable Outcomes can be met
ST: I am reaching out to colleagues on how to test them
… consistency between auditors is important
… it seems very subjective
JF: I think they will never be able to find a tool to evaluate plain language
… but we can evaluate if the principles have been followed