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