Protocols Sub Group - Dec 10, 2021

10 December 2021


Jaunita_George, jeanne, Jennifer, JF, Mary_Jo_Mueller, ShawnT

Meeting minutes

<JF> https://jamboard.google.com/d/1U17jOitr4CyCrmaQtv6KU93thhHLzSVQAHUqb9HUDeE/viewer?f=0

<JF> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7/20211105T090000

<JF> https://jamboard.google.com/d/1U17jOitr4CyCrmaQtv6KU93thhHLzSVQAHUqb9HUDeE/viewer?f=0

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://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/mobile/

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://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/03.02.01_60/en_301549v030201p.pdf

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://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/non-web-ict/

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://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/

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


<Mary_Jo_Mueller> +1

<JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#objective-1-help-users-understand-what-things-are-and-how-to-use-them

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

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Maybe present: JG, JS, JSt, MJM, ST