13:54:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #silver-protocols
13:54:35 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/21-silver-protocols-irc
13:54:37 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:54:38 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JF
13:54:59 <JF> meeting: Protocols Sub Team - Jan 21, 2022
13:55:20 <JF> Agenda+ Continue brainstorming the protocols that we believe would be applicable
13:55:32 <JF> Agenda+ Other Business
13:55:42 <JF> Agenda+ Be Done
13:55:47 <JF> Present+
13:56:51 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #silver-protocols
13:58:28 <Chuck> present+
14:02:42 <JF> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7/20211105T090000
14:03:26 <Rachael> present+
14:05:59 <jenniferS> jenniferS has joined #silver-protocols
14:06:04 <jenniferS> present+
14:07:08 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #silver-protocols
14:07:41 <MichaelC> q+
14:08:31 <MichaelC> q+ to say protocols define procedural steps, in the same way methods define actions
14:09:10 <JF> RESOLUTION: sub-team to present to AG WG on Feb. 8th
14:09:22 <Chuck> ack Mi
14:09:22 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say protocols define procedural steps, in the same way methods define actions
14:10:13 <MichaelC> q+ to say protocols provide way to test adherence to steps, quantitively and qualitatively, to evaluate
14:10:19 <JF> Q+
14:10:21 <Chuck> q+ to ask Rachael if she has updated our agenda page, and to suggest we scribe this (formally start call)
14:10:21 <JF> ack m
14:10:22 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say protocols provide way to test adherence to steps, quantitively and qualitatively, to evaluate
14:10:49 <Chuck> ack JF
14:11:34 <MichaelC> q+
14:11:49 <MichaelC> q+ to disentangle definitions
14:12:09 <Chuck> exactly, I'm in queue to move that we formally start the meeting
14:12:57 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:12:57 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Rachael if she has updated our agenda page, and to suggest we scribe this (formally start call)
14:13:25 <MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
14:13:36 <Chuck> q?
14:13:44 <JF> zakim, take up item 1
14:13:44 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Continue brainstorming the protocols that we believe would be applicable -- taken up [from JF]
14:13:56 <MichaelC> mc: protocols define procedural steps, in the same way methods define actions
14:14:04 <MichaelC> protocols provide way to test adherence to steps, quantitively and qualitatively, to evaluate
14:14:17 <MichaelC> jf: looking at examples, not sure they´re steps
14:15:02 <Chuck> jf:  good summary for where we were, with addition of...  I've been attempting to find examples of guidance in wild, and to see if that fits our concepts.
14:15:13 <Chuck> jf:  "making content usable" is one candidate for me.
14:15:15 <MichaelC> ack me
14:15:15 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to disentangle definitions
14:15:17 <Chuck> ack mc
14:15:20 <jaunita_george> q+
14:15:45 <Chuck> mc:  I don't consider content usable a protocol.  It's an outcome.  we need a protocol to determine how we achieve that outcome.  I don't want to get tangled in specific words.
14:15:57 <JF> Q+
14:16:16 <Chuck> mc:  protocols in wild that aren't exactly what we are looking for, we need to define the thing we are creating.  I keep coming back to "steps", maybe including following guidance.
14:16:25 <Chuck> mc scribe to you
14:16:27 <JakeAbma> JakeAbma has joined #silver-protocols
14:16:31 <JakeAbma> present+
14:16:59 <MichaelC> jg: +1; having part of the protocols able to measure adherence to the protocols allows showing you´ve achieved outcome
14:17:00 <Chuck> q?
14:17:04 <Chuck> ack jau
14:17:11 <Chuck> ack JF
14:17:12 <JF> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#testing-each-pattern
14:18:36 <MichaelC> jf: Content usable has testing steps
14:18:58 <MichaelC> it has user stories, we tell them what the expectation is
14:18:59 <MichaelC> q+
14:19:19 <MichaelC> but the outcome is hard to measure
14:19:23 <Chuck> q?
14:19:28 <MichaelC> ack me
14:19:54 <Chuck> mc:  A protocol could say "follow the guidance of content usable, follow those procedures".  I think it needs to say how much effort you put into it.
14:20:29 <Chuck> mc:  It could say "try following...."  the protocol for wcag 3 conformance is still the doc that says to meet these protocols, here are these outcomes.  Closely coupled to something like content usable.
14:20:37 <JakeAbma> q+
14:20:44 <Chuck> mc:  successful protocols will be successful if they model how orgs adopt protocols.
14:20:58 <Chuck> mc:  ...as you follow the steps of this protocol, here's what you should be looking at.
14:21:00 <Chuck> q?
14:21:05 <Chuck> ack Jake
14:21:07 <Rachael> q+ to say we are assuming a protocol is a document referenced at a high level vs a small subset
14:21:17 <JF> Q+
14:21:51 <JF> Capturing "Proof points"
14:22:11 <jaunita_gerorge> jaunita_gerorge has joined #silver-protocols
14:22:16 <jaunita_gerorge> present+
14:22:23 <MichaelC> ja: can be like maturity model, you have steps in the protocol, and ways of describing how you address them
14:22:27 <Chuck> ack ra
14:22:27 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say we are assuming a protocol is a document referenced at a high level vs a small subset
14:22:58 <Chuck> q?
14:23:00 <Chuck> ack JF
14:23:02 <MichaelC> rbm: hear an assumption that protocols are documents, but I think they can be small sets of steps that fit under something else
14:23:49 <Rachael> I'm not sure I fully understand "proof points:
14:23:54 <Chuck> mc:  I think I need a better description.
14:23:56 <Chuck> q?
14:23:59 <MichaelC> jf: proposed, protocols is a collection of ¨proof points¨
14:24:33 <MichaelC> in content usable, there are ¨I need to¨ statements
14:24:40 <MichaelC> those can translate to proof points
14:24:50 <MichaelC> e.g., ¨does the web site do X¨
14:24:54 <MichaelC> q+
14:24:56 <jenniferS> q+
14:25:24 <Chuck> ack mic
14:26:02 <Chuck> mc:  My understanding of problem we are solving is that we need protocols because we can't measure some proof points.  Protocols evaluation needs to have ways to evaluate that you are trying to achieve the outcomes.
14:26:10 <Chuck> mc:  I don't think it can go to that level because it would be a method.
14:26:12 <Chuck> q?
14:26:33 <Chuck> jennifers:  proof point idea bothers me, not very plain language.
14:26:35 <MichaelC> js: find ¨proof point¨ a difficult term
14:26:54 <JakeAbma> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-maturity-model/index.html#proof-points
14:27:25 <JF> Q+
14:27:32 <JF> ack jen
14:27:53 <Chuck> q+ to say that we are trying to follow queue, and see if Jake wants to respond.
14:27:58 <MichaelC> want to use plain language terms
14:28:38 <MichaelC> don´t think outcomes from protocols are repeatable
14:29:26 <jaunita_gerorge> q+
14:29:29 <JF> Capturing "Evaluatge your work by"
14:29:42 <JF> s/Evaluatge/Evaluating
14:29:45 <MichaelC> protocol should be about your due diligence, and evaluate that
14:29:47 <Chuck> ack me
14:29:47 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that we are trying to follow queue, and see if Jake wants to respond.
14:30:16 <MichaelC> ja: if we´re interested in proof points, we should look further, see if it fits or not
14:30:29 <MichaelC> maturity model has been using multiple names
14:30:38 <Chuck> q+ to say and explain that we are trying to more formally follow the queue process.
14:30:57 <MichaelC> the concept of something to prove that you at least started, and how mature
14:31:56 <MichaelC> orgs commonly adopt protocols for how they address things whose outcomes can´t be measured
14:32:39 <MichaelC> the protocol demonstrates that you´re on the way to following whatever guidance it is such as content usable
14:32:56 <Chuck> q?
14:33:10 <Chuck> ack JF
14:33:52 <MichaelC> jf: think there´s alignment on that, I liked ¨evaluate your work by¨
14:34:15 <Rachael> Are "proof points" = options for meeting a goal/outcome with evidence to show the option was applied?
14:34:16 <MichaelC> for protocols to work, they require a formal statement
14:34:48 <MichaelC> in a targeting scenario, methods aim right for the target, protocols aim for reasonable near it
14:35:43 <MichaelC> whether a protocol is a set of steps or a mental checklist, you´re following steps towards the goal
14:36:03 <MichaelC> q+ to talk about conformance levels
14:36:22 <MichaelC> q+ to say quality of outcome is higher level of the protocol
14:36:26 <Chuck> ack Jau
14:37:15 <MichaelC> jg: concerned WCAG 3 won´t have the level of repeatability as WCAG 2
14:37:17 <JF> Q+
14:37:28 <MichaelC> if so, legal pressure to adopt could relax
14:37:49 <MichaelC> we need something orgs can be held accountable to
14:37:55 <jenniferS> q+
14:38:11 <MichaelC> if there isn´t consistent measurement, there will be weak claims
14:38:15 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:38:15 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say and explain that we are trying to more formally follow the queue process.
14:39:05 <Chuck> ack Mich
14:39:06 <MichaelC> ack me
14:39:06 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about conformance levels and to say quality of outcome is higher level of the protocol
14:39:44 <Chuck> mc:  Some of the questions I heard JF and Jaunita bring up, the idea that protocols should feed into wcag 3 conformance levels.  At bronze, it's about "are you following..."
14:39:52 <Chuck> mc:  At gold there could be a quality component.
14:40:17 <Chuck> mc:  At least at bronze I would agree with Jaunita is it needs to be measurable and repeatable.  Measuring steps would be a way.
14:40:22 <Chuck> q?
14:40:24 <Chuck> ack JF
14:40:38 <MichaelC> jf: +1 on adoption concern
14:41:14 <MichaelC> but right now, US federal sites have to use plain language, but how is that measured?
14:41:26 <MichaelC> plainlanguage.gov has 8 outcomes
14:42:05 <MichaelC> q+ to say if we can measure outcomes, it´s a method
14:42:22 <jenniferS> * Queue Jaunita, please
14:42:35 <Chuck> q?
14:42:46 <Chuck> q+ Jaunita
14:42:48 <MichaelC> these outcomes are subjective, but we can evaluate to some level
14:42:48 <JF> Q+ Juanitra
14:43:02 <Chuck> ack Juanitra
14:43:05 <Chuck> ack jenn
14:43:05 <JF> ack Juanitra
14:43:10 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #silver-protocols
14:43:42 <MichaelC> jg: my understanding is protocols are for things that are not testable, measurable, repeatable
14:43:56 <MichaelC> they provide an objective basis against which to show your homework
14:44:06 <MichaelC> in your effort to meet the outcomes
14:44:42 <MichaelC> re US plain language requirements, there is very low compliance right now
14:44:51 <JF> Q+
14:44:53 <MichaelC> many don´t even know of it
14:44:58 <Chuck> q?
14:45:05 <MichaelC> a protocol gives us ¨something¨
14:45:19 <MichaelC> rather than let litigation wind through to a precedent
14:45:20 <Chuck> q+ Jake
14:45:23 <MichaelC> ack me
14:45:23 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say if we can measure outcomes, it´s a method
14:45:25 <Chuck> ack Mic
14:45:52 <Chuck> mc:  Attempting to be clear.  If we measure at outcome, it's a method not a protocol.
14:46:57 <Chuck> mc:  We have protocols for cases where we can't measure outcome.  At higher conformance levels, protocol should include outcome measurement that is the fuzzy near target results
14:47:04 <Chuck> mc:  That could be a good case for a higher conformance level.
14:47:17 <Chuck> mc:  Still the case that protocol is distinct from method.
14:47:25 <Chuck> mc:  It would define its measurement.
14:47:26 <Chuck> q?
14:47:30 <Chuck> ack Jau
14:47:55 <MichaelC> jg: the legal structure in the US for private companies is ADA
14:48:36 <MichaelC> only recently was WCAG 2 adopted for ADA
14:49:07 <MichaelC> if WCAG 3 includes measurable outcomes as part of protocols, it might be considered unadoptable by the courts
14:49:20 <Chuck> q?
14:49:23 <Chuck> ack JF
14:49:46 <MichaelC> q+
14:49:59 <MichaelC> jf: we shouldn´t be talking about conformance and scoring yet
14:50:29 <MichaelC> ¨methods evaluate outcomes, protocols evaluate objectives¨ seems to be a distinction
14:51:28 <MichaelC> there are other objectives we want to accomplish
14:51:42 <MichaelC> we want actual outcomes, which we can approximately recognize
14:51:52 <Rachael> q+ to suggest capturing 1. Protocols may define their own measurement and 2. Integrating protocols should be done in a way that encourages adoption by legal community
14:51:56 <Chuck> ack Jake
14:52:04 <Chuck> q+ Jau
14:52:06 <Chuck> ack Jau
14:52:13 <Chuck> q+ Jaunita
14:52:36 <JF> zakim, close the q
14:52:36 <Zakim> I don't understand 'close the q', JF
14:52:46 <JF> zakim, please close the queue
14:52:46 <Zakim> ok, JF, the speaker queue is closed
14:53:01 <JF> +1 Jake
14:53:24 <MichaelC> ja: the idea of the measuring system in outcomes and methods was to allow reaching additional outcomes
14:53:48 <MichaelC> I see WCAG 3 as its own protocol
14:54:15 <Chuck> q?
14:54:18 <MichaelC> We provide ways to measure inside it
14:54:55 <MichaelC> proof points, methods, whatever, they mean we´re measuring something
14:54:58 <Chuck> q?
14:55:22 <Chuck> ack Mich
14:55:45 <Chuck> mc:  I understand that we shouldn't be talking conformance in this group, but the motivation is to address issues that don't fit in conformance.
14:55:49 <Chuck> ack Rach
14:55:49 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest capturing 1. Protocols may define their own measurement and 2. Integrating protocols should be done in a way that encourages adoption by legal
14:55:50 <jaunita_george> +1 to michael
14:55:53 <Zakim> ... community
14:56:01 <Chuck> rachael:  encourage us to capture some important things.
14:56:18 <Chuck> rachael:  Protocols may define their own measurements, and we should encourage adoption by legal community.
14:56:18 <jaunita_george> +1
14:56:21 <Chuck> q?
14:56:34 <Chuck> ack Jau
14:56:46 <MichaelC> jg: agree with RBM and MC
14:56:55 <MichaelC> jf: +1 to RBM
14:57:14 <MichaelC> any disagreement?
14:57:22 <MichaelC> question: Protocols may define their own measurement
14:57:28 <JF> Draft Decision: Protocols may define their own measurement
14:58:10 <MichaelC> ja: if WCAG 3 is protocol, shouldn´t it handle stuff like ref to content usable
14:58:28 <MichaelC> jf: <something about big project>
14:58:46 <MichaelC> js: protocol is tool to measure WCAG subjective outcomes
14:59:04 <Chuck> mc:  Let's address next week.
14:59:17 <JF> zakim, end this meeting
14:59:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been JF, Chuck, Rachael, jenniferS, JakeAbma, jaunita_gerorge
14:59:19 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:59:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/21-silver-protocols-minutes.html Zakim
14:59:22 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
14:59:27 <Zakim> Zakim has left #silver-protocols
14:59:34 <JF> rrsagent, make logs public
14:59:42 <JF> rrsagent, please part
14:59:42 <RRSAgent> I see no action items