13:56:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:56:39 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/01/28-wcag3-protocols-irc
13:56:46 <JF> zakim, start this meeting
13:56:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:56:47 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JF
13:57:06 <JF> meeting: Protocols Sub Group - Jan 28, 2022
13:57:27 <JF> Agenda+ Continue brainstorming the protocols that we believe would be applicable
13:57:40 <JF> Agenda+ Preparing for larger presentation to #AG February 8th
13:57:51 <JF> Agenda+ Be Done
13:57:54 <JF> Present+
13:58:50 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:59:09 <Chuck> present+
13:59:40 <Rachael> Rachael has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:59:44 <JF> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7/20211105T090000
13:59:57 <Rachael> present+
14:00:46 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:00:52 <ShawnT> present+
14:02:41 <Jaunita_george> Jaunita_george has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:02:49 <Jaunita_george> Present+
14:03:15 <JF> Regrets+ Jake
14:04:01 <MichaelC> present+
14:04:08 <Jaunita_george> Scribe: Jaunita
14:04:31 <Chuck> agenda?
14:05:31 <JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols#Meeting_Minutes
14:06:13 <Jaunita_george> JF: I have gone through the various meeting minutes. In the past two weeks, we have arrived at a few statements. Do we agree on these?
14:07:22 <Jaunita_george> ...I want to verify if we have consensus on any of these statements
14:08:01 <Jaunita_george> ...We want to explain the consensus we came to and what we still have to discuss
14:08:10 <Chuck> +1 on approach
14:08:14 <Jaunita_george> +1
14:08:21 <Chuck> Jaunita:  Can we paste the statements into IRC?
14:09:21 <Chuck> statements made in prior calls
14:09:22 <Chuck> "...the point of protocols is to achieve outcomes that we don't know how to measure."
14:09:30 <Chuck> "...protocols are about procedures you use to meet an outcome that is not easily measurable"
14:09:33 <JF> two statements: "...the point of protocols is to achieve outcomes that we don't know how to measure." "...protocols are about procedures you use to meet an outcome that is not easily measurable"
14:09:37 <Chuck> "...Methods are specific tests looking for specific outcomes. Protocols are about following a process or procedure."
14:09:43 <Chuck> "...Protocols evaluate process; Methods measure implementations..."
14:10:04 <Jaunita_george> JF: Do we have a preference of doing one over the other
14:10:33 <Jaunita_george> JF: MichaelC?
14:10:55 <Rachael> I like both, 1 as a clarification of 2
14:11:37 <Jaunita_george> MichaelC: I lean towards the first
14:12:25 <Jaunita_george> JF: Do we pick one over the other? Use both?
14:12:39 <Jaunita_george> Shawn: I like both of them
14:12:43 <jenniferS> jenniferS has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:12:47 <jenniferS> present+
14:13:32 <Jaunita_george> Chuck: I like the first one, and like having the first as a sub-bullet of the second
14:13:56 <Chuck> s/and like having the first as a sub-bullet of the second/and I like having the second as a sub-bullet of the first/
14:15:10 <Chuck> Jaunita:  There were 2 proposals for adoption of a protocol that might need to be captured in this discussion.  A checklist...
14:15:24 <Chuck> Jaunita:  A public facing conformance statement.
14:16:09 <Jaunita_george> JF: One of our larger struggles is how to integrate it into WCAG 3
14:17:42 <Jaunita_george> JF: What I'm trying to drill into is whether or not any of these statements is stronger
14:17:43 <jenniferS> I don't believe that all protocols will be "scorable" — rather it is about showing the effort to ensure the outcome is accessible, inclusive.
14:18:35 <thompsonS> +1 to jenniferS
14:18:57 <Jaunita_george> jenniferS: My impression is that not all protocols are scorable, but protocols offer a way to show effort
14:19:38 <Chuck> After reviewing the 2 statements on "repeat" (over and over), I now like second statement as primary and first statement as bullet.
14:19:42 <Jaunita_george> ...everyone has done accessibility testing and sometimes it's a gut feeling
14:20:13 <Jaunita_george> JF: I like the concept of "showing your homework"
14:21:39 <Jaunita_george> ...The protocol was proof point, and we're giving some guidance to show effort
14:22:27 <Jaunita_george> jenniferS: The protocols are about having empathy for the user to implement more of the subjective criteria
14:22:29 <JF> Capturing framework, empathy
14:23:10 <Chuck> Jaunita:  If you don't have structure around it, it might get abused.
14:23:13 <JF> Questions to ask so that you can apply empathy
14:23:41 <Chuck> Jaunita:  If you have a statement or saying "following such and such process", and many people can follow in different ways, there could be a method of following that could lead to a less accessible outcome.
14:24:10 <Chuck> Jaunita:  And least level of effort.  Folks that might not have the budget or are trying to do a lot with few resources might not follow the path that it was intended for.
14:25:32 <Jaunita_george> jenniferS: I agree that we don't want to do this at the expense of outcomes
14:25:52 <Jaunita_george> JF: The problem is that there is no definitive answer
14:26:25 <Chuck> q?
14:26:57 <Jaunita_george> JF: With alt text for example, we can't measure the outcome, but we know it when we see it
14:27:52 <Jaunita_george> ...plain language is another example
14:28:17 <Jaunita_george> ...it has to be accessible to the intended audience
14:28:20 <Chuck> q?
14:28:20 <Jaunita_george> q+
14:28:52 <Chuck> Jaunita:  The point I'm struggling with is how you prove that.  Do you require a write out of a thesis of how it was achieved?
14:29:16 <thompsonS> q+
14:29:20 <Chuck> Jaunita:  A conformance report can say "I did this", but how do you show that you "did it"?  I want to caution about being able to say so w/o any accountability.
14:29:36 <Chuck> ack Jau
14:29:46 <jenniferS> My vision was that it would be similar to a VPAT — a report, statement.
14:29:53 <Jaunita_george> JF: There is a level of trust here
14:30:21 <JF> Q?
14:30:35 <Chuck> scribe:  Chuck
14:30:56 <Jaunita_george> Shawn: I want to say that we have the same issue with VPATs, echoing Jennifer's concern
14:31:00 <Chuck> Shawn:  We have same issue with vpat.  You trust the statements in a vpat.  No different for protocols.
14:31:50 <Chuck> JF:  I don't know how we get around it.  The goal is not to get a bullseye, goal is to get on the dart board.
14:32:09 <Chuck> JF:  Trust is going to have to be a part of it.  To me the act of making a public statement that says "we have adopted..."  there is a risk attached.
14:32:14 <Chuck> q?
14:32:16 <Chuck> ack tho
14:32:59 <Chuck> JF:  One thing that informed me is ISO 9000 series.  I drove by a business that had a banner making the claim of being ISO 9000 conformant.  They went that far to make a declaration.
14:33:06 <Jaunita_george> q+
14:33:20 <Chuck> JF:  I considered that if I went into the business I would see ways that they met ISO 9000.
14:33:52 <Chuck> JF:  They published, so there is some level of truth.  And if they mention the protocol, the protocol can be followed and the process used can be evaluated.
14:34:14 <Chuck> Jaunita:  My question is, how would you get them to "prove" that?  How would you hold them accountable?
14:34:38 <Chuck> Jaunita:  Not sure how legal system works in Canada or EU, but I imagine that if there were an effort to hold them accountable, wouldn't necessarily get to court.
14:35:01 <thompsonS> q+
14:35:08 <Chuck> Jaunita:  You wouldn't actually answer the question.  I'm concerned that people might take the risk like they do with VPAT, and if anybody questions it, it is low to prove to the contrary.
14:35:16 <Chuck> JF:  Any different from where we are today?
14:36:05 <Chuck> Jaunita:  There's enough to go off of and determine if someone isn't conformance.  If we are using this as part of a measuring system of sorts, and we intend it to replace WCAG 2.x, we have enough to hang our hat on and hold people accountable.  At least providing a sufficient level of outcome that we would want.
14:36:06 <Chuck> q+
14:36:11 <Chuck> ack Jaun
14:36:23 <Chuck> q+ to ask that this is an example
14:36:44 <Chuck> ack Tho
14:36:54 <Chuck> Shawn:  Where would they state that they are following these protocols?
14:37:35 <Chuck> JF:  A whole other conversation, I did have a proposal.  Inside W3C, there is something EARL.  It's being used in another protocol.  W3C already has a mechanism of making conformance reports.
14:38:01 <Chuck> JF:  I proposed we would generate a conformance report using this mechanism.
14:38:22 <thompsonS> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/earl/
14:38:24 <Chuck> JF:  Safe surf, early to mid 2000s, a mechanism for specifying parental guidance ratings on web content.
14:38:39 <Chuck> JF:  You would make this declarative statement, and link to website.
14:39:01 <Chuck> Shawn:  In Canada we are pushing for an accessibility statement on the website.
14:39:18 <Chuck> Shawn:  Is that something that we could recommend?  Say what protocol you are following.
14:39:24 <Chuck> JF:  Broadly yes, that's the idea.
14:39:44 <Chuck> JF:  Whether or not mandated by Canadian govt...
14:40:27 <Chuck> JF:  Would be one way of doing it programmatically.  I envisioned a meta data statement.  We have to make sure it works for all types of content.
14:40:37 <Chuck> JF:  May vary based on content.  PDF, XR for examples.
14:41:02 <Chuck> JF:  But you can link one thing to another.  If we can live with "you will have a linked statement" that is probably close enough.
14:41:06 <Chuck> q?
14:41:11 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:41:11 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask that this is an example
14:42:06 <JF> Q?
14:42:19 <Jaunita_george> Scribe: Jaunita
14:42:36 <Jaunita_george> JF: We have a number of statements, and I'm not sure we agree
14:42:56 <Jaunita_george> ...Let's get some agreement/disagreement
14:44:22 <Jaunita_george> JF: I think we're struggling with semantics a buit
14:44:34 <Jaunita_george> s/buit/bit
14:45:19 <Jaunita_george> JF: Are we in agreement with this statement
14:45:21 <JF> "...methods evaluate outcomes, protocols evaluate objectives¨ seems to be a distinction..."
14:45:39 <JF> Straw Poll: "...methods evaluate outcomes, protocols evaluate objectives¨
14:45:43 <JF> +1 if you agree
14:48:54 <Jaunita_george> JF: Not all of the outcomes have been created to WCAG 3.0, protocols could get us closer
14:49:25 <thompsonS> q+ to say it describes it for me
14:50:21 <Jaunita_george> ...Protocols need to add to your total score. We're trying to evaluate the subjective criteria. It will be a robust discussion when we decide how to add this to WCAG 3.0 because we don't quite have a scoring model yet
14:52:34 <Jaunita_george> thompsonS: I just can't +1 because we don't have a definition of objectives vs. outcomes
14:53:14 <Jaunita_george> ...It's all the same it seems like.
14:53:55 <Jaunita_george> JF: We haven't gotten to a definition for what a protocol is
14:55:01 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:55:34 <Jaunita_george> ...for experts it's instinctive
14:55:57 <Jaunita_george> ...protocols offer guidance for non-experts
14:56:32 <Chuck> +1 to poll via email
14:56:37 <Jaunita_george> +1
14:57:05 <Chuck> Jaunita:  I agree with that approach.  We could also...  bring to larger group even with unanswered questions.
14:58:57 <JF> request from AG chairs a block of time for deeper discussion
14:59:35 <JF> rragent, make logs public
14:59:43 <JF> rrsagent, make logs public
14:59:50 <JF> zakim, end this meeting
14:59:50 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been JF, Chuck, Rachael, ShawnT, Jaunita_george, MichaelC, jenniferS
14:59:52 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:59:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/01/28-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Zakim
14:59:55 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, JF; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
14:59:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag3-protocols
15:00:06 <JF> rrsagent, please part
15:00:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items