13:58:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:58:57 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/25-wcag3-protocols-irc
13:59:01 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make log world
13:59:02 <MichaelC> present+
13:59:14 <MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
13:59:57 <MichaelC> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2022Feb/0040.html
14:00:13 <Chuck> agenda?
14:00:14 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:01:15 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #WCAG3-protocols
14:02:55 <jennifer> jennifer has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:03:00 <jennifer> present+
14:03:20 <ShawnT> present+
14:03:28 <MichaelC> zakim, next item
14:03:28 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- announcements -- taken up [from Chuck]
14:04:37 <MichaelC> ca: JF away for indeterminate time
14:04:54 <MichaelC> have asked Jaunita George to step in as subgroup lead
14:05:27 <MichaelC> needs a different time
14:05:50 <MichaelC> what´s good for people?
14:06:08 <MichaelC> for me, Friday afternoons Mountain are good
14:06:18 <ShawnT> I'm good at any time
14:06:24 <MichaelC> mc: Friday after noon Eastern best
14:07:39 <Rachael> Friday afternoons often work for me.
14:08:40 <MichaelC> js: later Friday afternoon Eastern better
14:08:53 <MichaelC> ca: will start a schedule poll based on that input
14:09:01 <ShawnT> 4ish is tough for me
14:09:06 <MichaelC> zakim, next item
14:09:06 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Review https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/edit#slide=id.g115901c77f1_0_218 -- taken up [from Chuck]
14:10:15 <MichaelC> rbm: <shares screen to present, scribing only non-slide content>
14:10:51 <MichaelC> want to present this to AG tuesday
14:11:18 <MichaelC> make sure different voices represented
14:11:22 <MichaelC> so want input here
14:14:02 <Chuck> q+
14:14:06 <MichaelC> on slide 5, we have the need to go beyond WCAG 2 scope yet ensure things testable at pass / fail level
14:14:26 <MichaelC> note the terminology is placeholder, focus on the concepts
14:14:46 <MichaelC> ca: I´ve heard that we want tests that are beyond pass / fail
14:14:56 <MichaelC> use rubriks etc. to convert to test scores
14:15:14 <MichaelC> so different evaluation methods can convert to pass / fail?
14:15:18 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:15:18 <MichaelC> not contradictory?]
14:15:25 <MichaelC> rbm: agree, not contradictory
14:15:43 <MichaelC> one idea is to report on measurements, with a sliding scale
14:15:48 <MichaelC> another is to @@
14:16:05 <MichaelC> third is to move the sliding scale down to the rubrik level
14:16:25 <Chuck> q?
14:16:25 <MichaelC> ca: that may address some concerns we have
14:16:52 <MichaelC> rbm: slide 6, there are 4 concepts of scope for tests
14:18:53 <MichaelC> 4 types of tests slides 7 - 10
14:19:33 <MichaelC> constant tests and condition tests have similarities, but think it´s useful to differentiate them
14:20:02 <MichaelC> ca: seems to describe what we´ve done
14:20:46 <MichaelC> example: text alternatives has 2 types of test, the constant test about providing it, and the condition test about its quality
14:21:04 <MichaelC> meaningful sequence is one that´s mostly just condition test
14:21:23 <MichaelC> s/example:/rbm: example:/
14:24:15 <MichaelC> slide 9, test case as used here is a new concept to us
14:24:38 <MichaelC> instead of defining conditions for test, it defines the type of conditions to set
14:25:09 <MichaelC> this is similar to how requirements for tests are defined in software engineering
14:25:34 <MichaelC> should address the ¨you know it when you see it but can´t define it¨ situation
14:25:36 <ShawnT> q+
14:25:58 <MichaelC> there can be known failures
14:26:37 <Chuck> ack Shawn
14:26:37 <MichaelC> this can be use for e.g., content usable testing, where it´s a lot about consistency
14:26:45 <MichaelC> st: definition of affordance?
14:26:59 <MichaelC> q+
14:27:16 <MichaelC> rbm: it is the visual indication of what something does
14:27:49 <Chuck> MichaelC:  Been told by usability that this is something that can cause concerns.  The affordance is what the object can do, and the perceived affordance is a person's awareness of that.
14:28:19 <Chuck> MichaelC:  We may get debate if we use that definition.  I want to not use just visual indication.  The indication of its ability can happen in any appropriate channel.
14:28:59 <Chuck> Rachael:  Alternatives of what we can call it?
14:29:01 <MichaelC> rbm: chose the common usage of that term, but know it´s debated, let´s sub
14:29:09 <MichaelC> js: indicator, cue?
14:29:09 <Chuck> Jennifer:  Indicator/cue of usage.
14:29:37 <MichaelC> ack me
14:29:47 <MichaelC> rbm: good enough for now
14:29:56 <MichaelC> ca: yeah, no wordsmithing!
14:30:42 <MichaelC> rbm: down the road we´ll need to look at editorial consistency
14:30:50 <MichaelC> that will be a kind of wordsmithing project...
14:32:14 <Chuck> +1 with slide
14:32:16 <MichaelC> <general acceptance of the swap for now>
14:32:40 <MichaelC> rbm: slide 10, this is protocols, tests whether a process was completed
14:33:15 <Jaunita_George> Present+
14:33:28 <MichaelC> this doesn´t assess quality per se, it just assesses that the protocol was followed
14:33:29 <MichaelC> q+
14:33:56 <MichaelC> I see these as broad reviews against a process that can´t be evaluated quantitatively
14:34:31 <Chuck> MichaelC:  Not sure if my thought fits under this, way I've been thinking of it is that they do everything you described, and additionally it has procedures for evaluating or ensuring that you are doing well, not just going through the motions.
14:34:58 <Chuck> MichaelC:  That would still have to be...  there may be some quantitative tests.  It would be a protocol because there would be a qualitative test.
14:35:18 <Chuck> MichaelC:  At conformance levels you adopt the protocol and follow the words, at a higher level you evaluate that the protocol is yielding positive results.
14:35:31 <Chuck> MichaelC:  Not sure if it needs to be looked at separately or be included.
14:35:39 <Chuck> ack Mich
14:35:57 <ShawnT> q+
14:36:22 <Chuck> MichaelC:  Measurement procedures for both following the protocol and quality of results.
14:36:56 <Chuck> MichaelC:  Protocol would define procedures.  In sub-bullets, something about report on internal measurement, on qualitative measurements.
14:36:57 <jennifer> The report would indicate the passing quality of the protocol guidance.
14:38:15 <Jaunita_George> q+
14:38:42 <MichaelC> <wording slide to incorporate>
14:39:51 <MichaelC> mc: +1 to how it looks now
14:40:12 <Chuck> ack Jau
14:40:13 <Chuck> q?
14:40:24 <Chuck> q+ Jaunita_George
14:40:51 <Chuck> q+
14:40:53 <MichaelC> st: will there be a list of protocols?
14:40:56 <Chuck> ack Shawn
14:41:00 <MichaelC> mc: think they would be like methods and listed similarly
14:41:07 <MichaelC> st: mention that here?
14:41:12 <MichaelC> rbm: capture for future work
14:41:55 <Chuck> ack Jaun
14:42:46 <MichaelC> jg: would we define requirements for a protocol that organizations can take up, or define our own protocols?
14:42:57 <MichaelC> the former is more complex, the latter requires us to maintain more
14:43:13 <MichaelC> keeping in mind that lay people should be able to conform, meaning should be able to follow a protocol
14:43:31 <MichaelC> need some objective standards for how that works
14:43:45 <MichaelC> rbm: added
14:43:53 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:44:20 <MichaelC> ca: I would like for protocols to be flexible enough that orgs can craft their own
14:44:37 <Jaunita_George> +1 it would be great if they could apply
14:44:44 <MichaelC> mc: +1, we can´t not let orgs define protocols, we can´t manage
14:45:07 <Chuck> q?
14:45:26 <MichaelC> jg: lagniappe if org protocols are shareable for other orgs as well
14:46:12 <ShawnT> I'm pushing for my organization to create protocols to add to the list in the future
14:46:34 <MichaelC> rbm: various edits, take a look
14:46:45 <MichaelC> jg: also looking at repeatability
14:46:52 <MichaelC> rbm: setting that aside for this presentation
14:47:04 <jennifer> q+
14:47:08 <MichaelC> if we can agree on these basics, it will be easier to address questions like that
14:47:16 <Chuck> q+ to aks about "The report would indicate the passing quality of the protocol guidance."
14:47:30 <MichaelC> ack j
14:47:31 <Chuck> ack Jen
14:47:57 <MichaelC> js: until larger group has established conformance levels, we should defer that aspect
14:48:18 <Chuck> q?
14:48:27 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:48:27 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to aks about "The report would indicate the passing quality of the protocol guidance."
14:48:59 <MichaelC> ca: looking for ^ seems to have gone missing
14:49:53 <MichaelC> mc: seems covered in rewording
14:50:02 <MichaelC> ca, js: ok, seems there
14:50:20 <Chuck> q?
14:51:10 <Chuck> q+
14:51:12 <MichaelC> slide 11, grid the test objects with the test types
14:52:37 <MichaelC> effectively goes from most precise in origin (smallest unit, constant tests) to least precise in end (aggregate, protocol) as a continuum
14:53:05 <MichaelC> js: looking at machine testable stuff
14:53:08 <Chuck> q?
14:53:34 <MichaelC> rbm: currently machine testable is close to the origin, over time we expect it to move further in the table
14:54:05 <MichaelC> ca: this slide puts it all together for me
14:54:40 <MichaelC> think we can look at machine testing as adding test types it can cover
14:55:11 <Chuck> q?
14:55:13 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:55:28 <MichaelC> rbm: edits bullet
14:55:33 <MichaelC> js: +1
14:56:21 <MichaelC> rbm: slide 12, the @@ group tried this breakdown
14:56:49 <MichaelC> it helped me to see that the needs for a given outcome span various parts of that matrix
14:57:29 <Chuck> q?
14:58:15 <jennifer> q+
14:58:19 <MichaelC> jg: should we leave it to orgs to sort out how to apply?
14:58:21 <MichaelC> q+
14:58:22 <Chuck> ack Jenn
14:58:48 <MichaelC> js: original vision was not to have to submit to wcag, just document what they did
14:59:01 <Chuck> ack Mich
14:59:01 <MichaelC> ack me
15:00:32 <jennifer> We could design a process of putting a Github ticket in. to pick up later!
15:00:53 <MichaelC> mc: if we define requirements for protocols, any protocol that meets requirements should be allowed
15:01:47 <MichaelC> would like us to include a protocol for protocol results to allow conformance calculation and sharing
15:02:50 <MichaelC> as we work on things, we can differentiate between identifying ¨protocols are needed here¨ vs ¨our guidance is not complete until we have a provided a protocol¨
15:03:00 <MichaelC> chair: Chuck
15:03:06 <MichaelC> scribeOptions: -final
15:03:13 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
15:03:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/25-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html MichaelC
15:05:39 <MichaelC> present+ Chuck, Rachael
15:05:48 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
15:05:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/25-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html MichaelC
15:05:54 <MichaelC> rrsagent, bye
15:05:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items