Meeting minutes
<JF> https://
<JF> https://
<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?
<Jaunita_george> ...I want to verify if we have consensus on any of these statements
<Jaunita_george> ...We want to explain the consensus we came to and what we still have to discuss
<Chuck> +1 on approach
<Jaunita_george> +1
<Chuck> Jaunita: Can we paste the statements into IRC?
<Chuck> statements made in prior calls
<Chuck> "...the point of protocols is to achieve outcomes that we don't know how to measure."
<Chuck> "...protocols are about procedures you use to meet an outcome that is not easily measurable"
<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"
<Chuck> "...Methods are specific tests looking for specific outcomes. Protocols are about following a process or procedure."
<Chuck> "...Protocols evaluate process; Methods measure implementations..."
<Jaunita_george> JF: Do we have a preference of doing one over the other
<Jaunita_george> JF: MichaelC?
<Rachael> I like both, 1 as a clarification of 2
<Jaunita_george> MichaelC: I lean towards the first
<Jaunita_george> JF: Do we pick one over the other? Use both?
<Jaunita_george> Shawn: I like both of them
<Jaunita_george> Chuck: I like the first one, and I like having the second as a sub-bullet of the first
<Chuck> Jaunita: There were 2 proposals for adoption of a protocol that might need to be captured in this discussion. A checklist...
<Chuck> Jaunita: A public facing conformance statement.
<Jaunita_george> JF: One of our larger struggles is how to integrate it into WCAG 3
<Jaunita_george> JF: What I'm trying to drill into is whether or not any of these statements is stronger
<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.
<thompsonS> +1 to jenniferS
<Jaunita_george> jenniferS: My impression is that not all protocols are scorable, but protocols offer a way to show effort
<Chuck> After reviewing the 2 statements on "repeat" (over and over), I now like second statement as primary and first statement as bullet.
<Jaunita_george> ...everyone has done accessibility testing and sometimes it's a gut feeling
<Jaunita_george> JF: I like the concept of "showing your homework"
<Jaunita_george> ...The protocol was proof point, and we're giving some guidance to show effort
<Jaunita_george> jenniferS: The protocols are about having empathy for the user to implement more of the subjective criteria
<JF> Capturing framework, empathy
<Chuck> Jaunita: If you don't have structure around it, it might get abused.
<JF> Questions to ask so that you can apply empathy
<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.
<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.
<Jaunita_george> jenniferS: I agree that we don't want to do this at the expense of outcomes
<Jaunita_george> JF: The problem is that there is no definitive answer
<Jaunita_george> JF: With alt text for example, we can't measure the outcome, but we know it when we see it
<Jaunita_george> ...plain language is another example
<Jaunita_george> ...it has to be accessible to the intended audience
<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?
<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.
<jenniferS> My vision was that it would be similar to a VPAT — a report, statement.
<Jaunita_george> JF: There is a level of trust here
<Jaunita_george> Shawn: I want to say that we have the same issue with VPATs, echoing Jennifer's concern
Shawn: We have same issue with vpat. You trust the statements in a vpat. No different for protocols.
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.
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.
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.
JF: I considered that if I went into the business I would see ways that they met ISO 9000.
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.
Jaunita: My question is, how would you get them to "prove" that? How would you hold them accountable?
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.
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.
JF: Any different from where we are today?
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.
Shawn: Where would they state that they are following these protocols?
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.
JF: I proposed we would generate a conformance report using this mechanism.
<thompsonS> https://
JF: Safe surf, early to mid 2000s, a mechanism for specifying parental guidance ratings on web content.
JF: You would make this declarative statement, and link to website.
Shawn: In Canada we are pushing for an accessibility statement on the website.
Shawn: Is that something that we could recommend? Say what protocol you are following.
JF: Broadly yes, that's the idea.
JF: Whether or not mandated by Canadian govt...
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.
JF: May vary based on content. PDF, XR for examples.
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.
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask that this is an example
<Jaunita_george> JF: We have a number of statements, and I'm not sure we agree
<Jaunita_george> ...Let's get some agreement/disagreement
<Jaunita_george> JF: I think we're struggling with semantics a bit
<Jaunita_george> JF: Are we in agreement with this statement
<JF> "...methods evaluate outcomes, protocols evaluate objectives¨ seems to be a distinction..."
<JF> Straw Poll: "...methods evaluate outcomes, protocols evaluate objectives¨
<JF> +1 if you agree
<Jaunita_george> JF: Not all of the outcomes have been created to WCAG 3.0, protocols could get us closer
<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
<Jaunita_george> thompsonS: I just can't +1 because we don't have a definition of objectives vs. outcomes
<Jaunita_george> ...It's all the same it seems like.
<Jaunita_george> JF: We haven't gotten to a definition for what a protocol is
<Jaunita_george> ...for experts it's instinctive
<Jaunita_george> ...protocols offer guidance for non-experts
<Chuck> +1 to poll via email
<Jaunita_george> +1
<Chuck> Jaunita: I agree with that approach. We could also... bring to larger group even with unanswered questions.
<JF> request from AG chairs a block of time for deeper discussion
<JF> rragent, make logs public