IRC log of silver-protocols on 2021-12-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:56:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #silver-protocols
13:56:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/17-silver-protocols-irc
13:56:09 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:56:11 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JF
13:56:29 [JF]
meeting: Protocols Sub Team - Dec. 17, 2021
13:56:48 [JF]
Agenda+ Continue brainstorming the protocols that we believe would be applicable
13:56:57 [JF]
agenda?
13:57:11 [JF]
zakim, remove item 4
13:57:11 [Zakim]
agendum 4, Continue brainstorming the protocols that we believe would be applicable, dropped
13:57:21 [JF]
agenda?
14:01:01 [Chuck_]
Chuck_ has joined #silver-protocols
14:01:06 [JF]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols#10_December_2021
14:04:02 [Chuck_]
present+
14:06:24 [JF]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols#10_December_2021
14:06:39 [JF]
https://www.w3.org/2021/12/10-silver-protocols-minutes.html
14:07:04 [MichaelC]
MichaelC has joined #silver-protocols
14:07:23 [Jaunita_George]
Jaunita_George has joined #silver-protocols
14:07:30 [Jaunita_George]
present+
14:11:51 [JF]
https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/
14:12:48 [micro]
micro has joined #silver-protocols
14:15:54 [Chuck_]
suggested short topic: What's our calendar for the rest of this year and into next year?
14:16:15 [Chuck_]
q+
14:16:21 [Chuck_]
ack Je
14:16:21 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to say that there are volunteers who are testing experts to help make them testable
14:16:57 [MichaelC]
q+
14:17:43 [MichaelC]
q+ to talk about documenting, following, qa, and auditing of protocol
14:19:05 [JF]
[discussion about 'repeatable']
14:19:11 [JF]
ack ch
14:19:37 [Chuck_]
ack MichaelC
14:19:37 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to talk about documenting, following, qa, and auditing of protocol
14:20:28 [JF]
MC: question around quality assurance
14:20:52 [JF]
MC: also questions around auditing
14:21:06 [JF]
who has responsibility for what?
14:21:26 [JF]
JG: thinking about orgs - holding partners and suppliers to the same standard
14:22:08 [JF]
we need a means to generally measure some type of compliance
14:22:20 [JF]
Q+
14:22:23 [MichaelC]
q+ to separate auditing adherence to protocol from auditing success of protocol
14:22:41 [Chuck_]
ack JF
14:24:22 [MichaelC]
q+ to define ¨following¨
14:25:26 [JF]
Q+ Jaunita
14:25:27 [MichaelC]
ack me
14:25:28 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to separate auditing adherence to protocol from auditing success of protocol and to define ¨following¨
14:25:30 [JF]
ack m
14:26:12 [JF]
MC: what is being audited is the "steps that the protocol requires"
14:27:09 [JF]
Q+
14:27:11 [Chuck_]
q+ to say that in order to be crisp... we need an agreed upon defintion
14:27:29 [Chuck_]
ack Juan
14:27:32 [JF]
ack jua
14:27:40 [Chuck_]
ack Jau
14:27:46 [JF]
ack Jau
14:28:08 [Chuck_]
ack JF
14:29:07 [Jaunita_George]
If we're using protocols to define adherence to a standard, then we need to have a way to ensure someone is meeting the spirit of the standard in a way that's measurable and repeatable
14:29:11 [MichaelC]
q+ to realize implementers might use multiple protocols, not ¨a protocol¨?
14:29:18 [Jaunita_George]
+1 for decision trees
14:30:21 [MichaelC]
q+ to introduce ¨evaluatable¨ alongside ¨testable¨
14:30:28 [Jaunita_George]
q+
14:30:35 [JF]
ack ch
14:30:35 [Zakim]
Chuck_, you wanted to say that in order to be crisp... we need an agreed upon defintion
14:31:10 [Chuck_]
ack Mich
14:31:10 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to realize implementers might use multiple protocols, not ¨a protocol¨? and to introduce ¨evaluatable¨ alongside ¨testable¨
14:32:07 [JF]
Q+
14:32:59 [JF]
ack jau
14:33:50 [Chuck_]
ack JF
14:34:08 [Chuck_]
jf: I've referenced 3: alt text tree, plain language, content usable.
14:34:22 [Chuck_]
+1 to stating the unstated assumptions!
14:34:43 [Jaunita_George]
+1 for adding protocols to MM
14:35:01 [Chuck_]
q?
14:36:09 [Jaunita_George]
We need to write a definition of "protocol," how we will use it and intended outcomes of using it
14:36:47 [Jaunita_George]
Protocols would allow someone to conform to a guideline
14:36:58 [Chuck_]
mc: Protocols need measurable steps that can be audited.
14:37:01 [JF]
Protocols need measurable steps to use for auditing
14:37:13 [JenniferS]
JenniferS has joined #silver-protocols
14:37:23 [JenniferS]
present+
14:37:27 [Chuck_]
mc: "Verifiable" that the steps are being followed.
14:37:38 [Jaunita_George]
Conformance with the protocol should be measurable
14:37:41 [Chuck_]
jf: Making content usable, they don't have steps, they have user stories.
14:37:41 [JF]
Verifiable that you are following the steps
14:38:10 [Chuck_]
mc: protocol is like "%" of web dev resources to implementing guidance, or you are making sure developers have read doc, ensure that the guidance gets meaningfully followed.
14:38:21 [Jaunita_George]
+1
14:38:30 [JF]
MC: that would be why Making Content cannot be a Protocol (no steps), but the process and policy that ensures that guidance is meaningfully follwoed
14:38:45 [Chuck_]
jf: I like that we can.... to use a doc and build a protocol around a doc.
14:38:52 [Chuck_]
mc: That's an example of what we might do.
14:39:02 [Jaunita_George]
Protocols can take the form of decision trees, perhaps? That was mentioned before
14:39:07 [Chuck_]
jf: You've tapped into something. Process and policy that ensures guidance is followed, that's what we want.
14:39:28 [Chuck_]
jf: Part of it was making the public declaration. You've put a "stick in stand", saying you are doing. But doing what?
14:39:48 [Chuck_]
jf: In maturity model, we can define the process and policy for making content usable. If you implement that doc, here's the process and policy.
14:40:00 [Chuck_]
jf: It's demonstrating that you understand the thrust of the doc.
14:40:14 [Jaunita_George]
Process for adopting policy -- that's a great idea. Can be a supplement to a document like "content usable"
14:40:15 [Chuck_]
mc: There can be different process and policies. Training... audit points, testing points.
14:40:29 [Chuck_]
mc: There could be different protocols for achieving the same guidance.
14:40:40 [Chuck_]
mc: Measurable steps of protocol are what you are following.
14:40:57 [Chuck_]
jf: The steps themselves, the outcomes is what you can't accurately measure.
14:41:05 [Chuck_]
mc: And that's where we get into evaluation.
14:41:36 [Chuck_]
mc: I had in mind a user testing example, with steps such as "here's some abilities that need to be included". We should be able to define to get meaningful results.
14:42:03 [Chuck_]
mc: A public statement... following a protocol requires a statement, I don't think a public statement is required.
14:42:10 [Chuck_]
jf: I'll push back on "public statement".
14:42:11 [Jaunita_George]
q+
14:42:32 [Chuck_]
jf: The public statement piece is how we work it into scoring and conformance. That is what contributes to bronze/silver/gold.
14:42:39 [Chuck_]
mc: If for conformance.
14:42:50 [Chuck_]
jf: If we don't get legislatures behind us, we will not go anywhere.
14:43:38 [Chuck_]
Juanita: A supplement maybe to content usable for example. If there are multiple protocols, we need something in the definition that all protocols are of equal quality.
14:43:44 [JF]
Q+
14:43:53 [MichaelC]
q+ to s/equal/sufficient/ quality
14:43:55 [Chuck_]
Juanita: So that there aren't 2 protocols where one is easier but doesn't achieve same quality.
14:43:59 [Chuck_]
ack Juan
14:44:08 [Chuck_]
q+ to say lets talk about our calendar
14:44:14 [Chuck_]
ack Jau
14:44:16 [Chuck_]
ack JF
14:44:43 [Chuck_]
jf: I think that there may be 2 separate protocols that get us to where we want to be. Plain language, there's something in US and equiv in EU.
14:45:04 [Jaunita_George]
+1
14:45:08 [Chuck_]
jf: From my perspective as a Canadian, either one would suffice.
14:45:20 [Chuck_]
jf: There may be times we have more than one protocol that drives to a single outcome.
14:45:29 [MichaelC]
q+ to ask if we want to gatekeep protocols, or set requirements for them? ref techniques
14:45:36 [Chuck_]
Jaunita: Can we come up with draft defintion?
14:45:44 [Chuck_]
ack Mich
14:45:44 [Zakim]
MichaelC, you wanted to s/equal/sufficient/ quality and to ask if we want to gatekeep protocols, or set requirements for them? ref techniques
14:46:12 [Chuck_]
mc: We can move to a more formal doc. Equal quality, I prefer "sufficient". A very high quality protocol and a good enough quality.
14:46:42 [Chuck_]
mc: Need a minimum quality. We can't require them to be equal. We might circle back to later. Should W3C be a gate keeper?
14:47:08 [Chuck_]
mc: I think a lot of big orgs would prefer to develop their own in-house protocols. In such case we need a defined set of requirements.
14:47:15 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #silver-protocols
14:47:18 [Chuck_]
mc: That's a bigger conversation, but I want to put a finger on it.
14:47:33 [Chuck_]
ack Ch
14:47:33 [Zakim]
Chuck_, you wanted to say lets talk about our calendar
14:48:12 [Chuck_]
jf: In my original preso, I accounted for multiple protocols, vetted and non-vetted. The idea I had included a scoring piece, where different protocols would accumulate points.
14:48:23 [Chuck_]
jf: vetted protocols would get more points than non-vetted.
14:48:44 [Chuck_]
jf: Accumulating multiple protocols builds points.
14:49:07 [Chuck_]
jf: Jaunita - we've more ideas on table. We left last week with very broad definition.
14:49:15 [Chuck_]
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols#10_December_2021
14:49:34 [Chuck_]
jf: Are we happy with that as a starting point that we can add to?
14:50:07 [Chuck_]
Jaunita: <screen sharing>
14:52:34 [Chuck_]
scribe note: rapid brainstorming occuring
14:53:50 [Chuck_]
q+ to say it's adoption is measurable
14:54:21 [Chuck_]
ack Ch
14:54:22 [Zakim]
Chuck_, you wanted to say it's adoption is measurable
14:54:33 [JenniferS]
Q+
14:55:42 [Chuck_]
ack Jenn
14:56:15 [Chuck_]
JenniferS: If a protocol is used, I expect the user to show their homework.
14:58:19 [Chuck_]
q+ to say some of us need to jump over to silver.
14:58:41 [Chuck_]
jf: Concerned with including "legal scrutiny" into the requirements.
14:58:53 [Chuck_]
jennifers: I'm ok with pushback.
14:59:37 [Chuck_]
ack Ch
14:59:37 [Zakim]
Chuck_, you wanted to say some of us need to jump over to silver.
15:00:03 [Chuck_]
Twas the night before chrismas, and all through the house, not a standard was stiring, not even WCAG
15:00:55 [JF]
zakim, end this meeting
15:00:55 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been JF, Mary_Jo_Mueller, ShawnT, jeanne, Jaunita_George, Jennifer, Chuck_, JenniferS
15:00:57 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:00:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/17-silver-protocols-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:00 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
15:01:04 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #silver-protocols
15:01:35 [JF]
rrsagent, please part
15:01:35 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items