Silver Task Force & Community Group

04 February 2022


Azlan, Chuck_, janina, jemma, JenniferS, kirkwood, lauriat, Makoto, Rachael, sarahhorton, shadi, SuzanneTaylor

Meeting minutes

<Lauriat> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Scribe_List

TPAC 2022

shawNotes TPAC 2022 is announced

shawWill be a hybrid event; physical and virtual

shawVancouver, BC; September 12-16

shawStill getting organized; but save the dates!

Update on rechartering discussion from Tuesday

lauriat: Notes rechartering conversation; update for now ...

lauriat: Discussion raised in Tuesday AGWG; good participation; and a distribution of responses of how to go forward--so no clear consensus yet

Chuck_: Chairs are reviewing feedback; notes chairs also not yet in consensus on best approach either

Chuck_: So, conversation currently is how best to engage and move forward?

Update on Protocols

Lauriat: Regretably, FJ unavailable last minute

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tAv4PT8vsyMWNTw_-9r0HyBuDrP7vhR_4l6oXWtuovs/edit#

Rachael: Notes nothing finalized; this is just a progress update

Rachael: Reactions very welcome, however

Rachael: Point is achieve outcomes we don't know how to measure

Rachael: Trying to find a way to do that

Rachael: About procedures to reach an outcome

Rachael: protocols evaluate objective

Rachael: ex: we know we want plain language; but how to evaluate?

Lauriat: Asks how protocols might shift in the future?

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to ask about how protocol-type things might shift as we figure out how to more concretely measure the outcomes

Lauriat: If we find a more concrete way to measure in the future, how and what happens?

Rachael: good question!

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to answer Shawn's question

Chuck_: We do have the general goal that WCAG3 should be more nimble and able to update

Chuck_: but we're still not clear what a protocol is

SuzanneTaylor: Would like to see another point added

SuzanneTaylor: Suggest can group higher levels, e.g. AAA, in a way that helps decisioning; e.g. in an educational environment

SuzanneTaylor: Believes audience specific application could help different audience groups

SuzanneTaylor: Notes Childrens CG seemed an appropriate audience for this approach

Rachael: Key question will be how to score, or whether to

Rachael: also, do they define their own mechanism for measurement? Will measures vary by protocol?

Rachael: Content Usable, Plan Language .gov is another possible ...

Rachael: granularity level is another question

Rachael: Michael created a proposal ...

Chuck_: We'd like to work from real world examples that "felt" like what could be helpful; would guide us in the definition

Chuck_: Believe we're getting there, but not quite there yet

Chuck_: Also noting an open welcome for more participants!

<kirkwood> i’d be interested

Lauriat: Looking at possible examples ... html validation; aria practices; etc

Lauriat: might be a better way for what's robust

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to note the HTML, ARIA, Apple Human Interface Guidelines notes as potential protocols

Lauriat: so a way for accounting for something that jight be off spec, but doesn't break a11y

<kirkwood> +1 to Shawn, very good point!

sarahhorton: wondering difference outcomes and objectives; is that Outcomes as in the normative WCAG3 spec?

<Lauriat> Protocols/Protocols Proposal link referenced <-- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols/Protocols_Proposal_2022-01

Rachael: need to better define, of course

sarahhorton: also evaluate a bit confusing

<Chuck_> Janina: Ask about the other end of the scale. Note track publication. We've got one fairly close to being done, that will say "you have these tolerances when you combine different media..."

<Chuck_> Janina: Are you going to build into specs? Are protocols specifically for addressing things we do not know how to measure?

<Chuck_> Rachael: If I understand the question, yes, it's about things we don't know how to measure otherwise.

janina: Just clarifying that any Note that provides specific parameters would be handled more traditionally, in WCAG3 normative guidance itself

<Chuck_> Rachael: <Reads from Michael's proposal> confirming.

<Rachael> janina: Ask about the other end of the scale. If we get a W3C note track publication that can be testable, would it still be a protocol?

<kirkwood> great plain language explanation by MC

Jem: trying to understand how aria best practices would be used as a protocol

Jem: We create examples to clarify the spec; aria in our case

<Lauriat> ARIA-AT may make a better fit than APG?

Jem: so we should consider examples where we don't know how to measure something we want to achieve?

<Rachael> the driving reason to create Protocols is to address accessibility outcomes for which we do not know how to define testable methods

Lauriat: would aria at make a better protocol than apg?

jem aria at project?

Lauriat: yes

Jem: aria at validates examples with different screen readers

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to answer the question of what may make better examples

Chuck_: examples for us are an attempt to discover what seems to fit; to get a better understanding of what the opportunity is

Rachael: Rachael: so if we look at apg; might it perhaps illustrate what is not a good example?

Jem: notes it's a very specific testing procedure

<Jem> https://aria-at.w3.org/reports/281/targets/13#result-MDI0YeyIxMiI6NDF9zA1OG

Lauriat: so perhaps testing, but also expected outcomes

Jem: notes it's very granular

<Jem> https://aria-at.w3.org/reports/281

sarahhorton: had thought it might include process like Maturity Model?

<Chuck_> +1 to Sarah's point that protocols COULD include maturity model or other processes

sarahhorton: or perhaps protocols for 3rd party?

JenniferS: Recalls early idea included some non W3C, IEEE, or BBC, ...

<Jem> The first literal definitions of "protocol" is "the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions."

JenniferS: providing good guidelines for making decisions

<Jem> another definition of protocol is "a formal or official record of scientific experimental observations."

JenniferS: Could include things that aren't easily quantified, else would be easily incorporated in WCAG

Lauriat: +1 to looking at what is best guidance that we want to support; we see this as our contribution to what regulators could use

Lauriat: but some might not yet be as clear as would be desired there

<kirkwood> one most important is that it’s enforceable for ‘regulation’

Chuck_: notes that the concept of processes inspired us to consider protocols topic

<Rachael> Thank you all for taking the time to give feedback!

Jem: notes definition copied in above ...

Jem: asks whether it tracks

Chuck_: grappling with it

Rachael: reminds we don't yet have a definition

Rachael: points discussed will help us get one

<Lauriat> +1 to Suzanne, that matches the impression I have for how this might work

WCAG 2.x to WCAG 3 Migration process gap to fill: research

<Lauriat> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCRXrtmnSSTso-6S_IO9GQ3AKTB4FYt9k92eT_1PWX4/edit#heading=h.usv6j46q7db

Lauriat: to recap ... above is getting old, but may not a revisit

Lauriat: our thought was grouping SC by fundamental user needs

Lauriat: notes groupings in above doc

Lauriat: first is images of various kinds

Lauriat: then how best to validate user needs are met;

Lauriat: now believe we missed a step ...

Lauriat: we didn't look at foundational research that lead to user needs

Lauriat: believe the research will help us show evidence based approach

Lauriat: asks whether that sounds correct? rather than going directly from SC plus Understanding docs

Lauriat: how difficult might it be to find the research behind the SC/Understanding docs?

Chuck_: not sure; participants on this call not likely the ones to ask, though

Chuck_: believe others might know

sarahhorton: also don't know; but noting errors group did not start from this doc; used more like an ideation process

sarahhorton: believe that starting from user needs was fruitful

sarahhorton: "content template" ... something like that?

SuzanneTaylor: was an interesting process; though with some risk

SuzanneTaylor: it's thorough; can identify best solutions

SuzanneTaylor: would want to give more credit to better UI to begin with

<sarahhorton> Google doc with user need process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfYAiV2Z-FA_kEHYlLV32J8ClNEGPxRgSIohu3gUHEA/edit#heading=h.s6cmfinlgb3q

SuzanneTaylor: but we don't credit doing it correctly; could we write a guideline to point to better solution?

SuzanneTaylor: found myself conjecturing sometimes

Lauriat: that's why it's a design; because there's just so much research

sarahhorton: agree about risk; perhaps we look at user needs as candidate proposal for community response/feedback before we go further with it

sarahhorton: iterative interaction with communities of interest might produce best outcomes

Lauriat: exactly, looking for good structure for making progress; so not just our opinions in isolation

<SuzanneTaylor> (on agendum 3: "protocol" may refer to an intermediary process/document that helps to connect WCAG to the "protocol" documents and standards so this use of "protocol" might make sense with the definition that Jemma brought up)

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/shadi/lauriat

Succeeded 2 times: s/shadi/lauriat/G

Succeeded: s/happy/grappling/

Maybe present: Jem