13:49:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:49:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/04-wcag3-protocols-irc
13:50:46 <Rachael> agenda+ Pick 2-3 protocols to work with
13:51:07 <Rachael> agenda+ How to evaluate whether the protocol was done
13:52:00 <Rachael> agenda+ How well the protocol was followed
13:52:28 <Rachael> agenda+ How to evaluate the quality of the results (if possible)
13:54:34 <Rachael> present+
14:01:59 <JakeAbma_> JakeAbma_ has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:03:03 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:03:22 <ShawnT> present+
14:03:28 <MichaelC> present+
14:03:39 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
14:03:39 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Pick 2-3 protocols to work with -- taken up [from Rachael]
14:03:42 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:03:44 <julierawe> present+
14:05:19 <JakeAbma_> scribe: JakeAbma
14:05:44 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/edit#slide=id.p
14:06:16 <Rachael> agenda?
14:06:42 <JakeAbma_> RM: start with couple of ideas on what a protocol might be, maybe 1, 2, or 3
14:06:53 <JakeAbma_> RM: try to evaluate them
14:07:14 <JakeAbma_> RM: see if it works, and if not why?
14:07:18 <ShawnT> +1
14:08:00 <Rachael> Rachael: What protocols?
14:08:18 <Rachael> Jake: Not really new. Not for me and not as an approach. Its been discussed for years in the Netherlands.
14:09:27 <Rachael> Jake: The fastest way to explain it is if we can do a mapping in the way you might embed a protocol. It is up to the organization who makes the claim. So if we start from that approach. Then figure out if we think differently. Similar to maturing or approaching from protocol perspective.
14:09:47 <Rachael> ...We might for instance say "material Design" or "BBC Gel design" or "Engineering Culture document"
14:10:07 <Rachael> ...One guidance document (material design)
14:10:08 <Rachael> q+
14:11:06 <Rachael> ...Something completely different and bigger and more structured. More ways to annotate design in the BBC Gel. And within our company, an internal week old engineering culture document. Or an ISO standard or internal standard. There is a broad perspective.
14:11:35 <Rachael> ...Do you need to use your own protocol or use an existing one.
14:12:15 <MichaelC> q+ to say we need to define what makes a good protocol before we tell others to start doing it
14:12:20 <ShawnT> +1 to plain language
14:12:27 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:12:29 <Rachael> ack Rachael
14:12:32 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
14:12:32 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we need to define what makes a good protocol before we tell others to start doing it
14:13:06 <Rachael> ack JakeAbma_
14:13:23 <Rachael> Current options: Plain Language, Material Design, BBC Gel, Engineering Culture
14:14:07 <MichaelC> q+
14:14:08 <Rachael> Jake: Chicken and Egg problem. What is the definition? Are we hijacking the word "protocol?" If we define its easy. A "protocol" can be anything.
14:14:12 <jennifer_> jennifer_ has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:14:15 <jennifer_> present+
14:14:27 <jennifer_> was in the wrong irc, #wcag-protocols
14:14:35 <Rachael> ...I think its very complicated if we narrow it down. Then its up to us to define which is and which isn't a protocol.
14:14:40 <Rachael> q+
14:15:59 <Rachael> If we have a way to measure it, then suddenly that measurement doesn't count anymore. It fits in the other spectrum because we have the regular WCAG 3 way of measuring. I don't think we have a consensus. Clear words? The document proposed here in this group is different than arabic or from netherlands. Its a very local thing.
14:16:38 <Rachael> ...for specifically for US. I know that last year I had questions about clear words.
14:17:26 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
14:18:34 <jennifer_> +1 MichaelC
14:18:38 <Rachael> ack Rachael
14:18:42 <Rachael> Current options: Plain Language, Material Design, BBC Gel, Engineering Culture
14:19:30 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:19:37 <Rachael> ack JakeAbma_
14:19:37 <jennifer_> Plain Language, BBC Gel, and then no vote for the other two
14:20:42 <JakeAbma_> Plain Language, Material
14:20:47 <Rachael> JakeAbma_: I forgot exercise. Rachael reviewed
14:21:12 <jennifer_> q+
14:21:14 <ShawnT> Plain Language
14:21:17 <Rachael> Rachael: Plain Language, Material, BBC Gel
14:21:27 <Rachael> ack jennifer_
14:21:47 <Rachael> Rachael revised: Plain Language, BBC Gel
14:22:24 <JakeAbma_> another example
14:22:24 <JakeAbma_> https://ux.visma.com/ux-in-visma/ux-best-practices/
14:22:44 <Rachael> +1 to adding UX
14:22:49 <ShawnT> Could we put the links for all of them? I can do it and share right now
14:22:53 <jennifer_> q+
14:23:16 <jennifer_> https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel
14:23:17 <Rachael> Jake: Suggests another option.
14:23:24 <ShawnT> [BBC GEL | Homepage](https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel)
14:23:29 <jennifer_> https://material.io/design
14:23:30 <julierawe> q+
14:23:31 <Jaunita_George> Jaunita_George has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:23:34 <Jaunita_George> Present+
14:23:54 <Rachael> Proposal: Plain Language, BBC Gel, UX Best Practices
14:24:08 <Rachael> ack jennifer_
14:24:14 <MichaelC> +1, any decision is the best decision :)
14:24:44 <MichaelC> q+
14:24:55 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:25:00 <Rachael> Key question: Is a protocol a document, part of hte document, and how do we handle overlap with WCAG
14:25:16 <Rachael> ack julierawe
14:25:54 <jennifer_> For example, for BBC Gel, this is the section that I would propose: https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel/guidelines/how-to-design-for-accessibility
14:26:00 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
14:26:17 <Jaunita_George> q+
14:26:35 <ShawnT> An alt Decision Tree?
14:26:37 <Rachael> ack JakeAbma_
14:26:49 <ShawnT> https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decision-tree/
14:28:40 <Rachael> JakeAbma_: Agree. Important point. UX might be too big. Gel may be too big. Maybe we should use inclusive design principles. Its small.
14:28:45 <JakeAbma_> https://inclusivedesignprinciples.org/
14:28:50 <jennifer_> https://inclusivedesignprinciples.org
14:28:59 <Rachael> Proposal: Plain Language, Inclusive Design Princples, UX Best Practices
14:29:14 <Rachael> ack Jaunita_George
14:29:43 <JakeAbma_> JG: lots of guidance already has WCAG parts
14:30:51 <Rachael> Option 1: Plain language, UX Best Practices
14:30:59 <Rachael> Option 2: Plain language, BBC Gel
14:31:05 <jennifer_> 2
14:31:08 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:31:08 <Rachael> Option 2: Plain language, BBC Gel, UX Best Practices
14:31:26 <jennifer_> (but specific to the accessibility area of BBC Gel)
14:31:28 <JakeAbma_> Inclusive Design Principles
14:31:50 <Rachael> https://ux.visma.com/ux-in-visma/ux-best-practices/
14:32:11 <Rachael> https://inclusivedesignprinciples.org
14:32:20 <Rachael> https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel/guidelines/how-to-design-for-accessibility
14:32:41 <Rachael> Please write your preference for the second document
14:33:15 <MichaelC> UX
14:33:20 <Jaunita_George> +1 to UX
14:33:30 <jennifer_> I voted for #2, and scoped Gel to just the a11y section
14:34:03 <Rachael> UX
14:34:40 <Rachael> proposed proposals: Plain Language, Visma UX
14:34:55 <Rachael> proposed proposals: Plain Language, Visma UX, (BBC Gel A11y section if 3rd is needed)
14:35:11 <Rachael> proposed protocols for use in exercise: Plain Language, Visma UX, (BBC Gel A11y section if 3rd is needed)
14:35:23 <Jaunita_George> +1
14:35:23 <jennifer_> +1
14:35:41 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
14:35:41 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Rachael
14:35:45 <Rachael> q?
14:35:49 <Rachael> ack JakeAbma_
14:36:07 <Rachael> zakim, take up next item
14:36:07 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- How to evaluate whether the protocol was done -- taken up [from Rachael]
14:36:22 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:36:42 <Rachael> ack JakeAbma_
14:38:44 <Rachael> JakeAbma_: Explain emails. First question is do you apply to WCAG? Answer is no. Been a no for the last 12 years. Now need to say whether you comply with EN 301 509 but if not, you have to do something about it. You have to make sure that you work on something to make sure your product will become more accessible.
14:39:01 <Rachael> ...instead of saying you ahve to do this or that.  There is a set of extra rules to follow. Its left open.
14:39:39 <Jaunita_George> q+
14:40:55 <Rachael> ...Its up to org to say what to do. But its completely open. The government says you need to tell us what protocol. MAke a statement that you do not comply, state what protocol you took, also must provide proof. Example: You say you follow material design, state % teams that follow material design, what improvement, and by what date.
14:41:22 <Rachael> ...you say what you follow and provide proof.  What part of protocol did you follow? How is that embeded? ?How can we see it? By what date?
14:41:32 <Rachael> q+
14:41:53 <Rachael> ack Jaunita_George
14:42:01 <Rachael> Jaunita_George: akin to a VPAT in US.
14:42:17 <MichaelC> q+
14:42:29 <JakeAbma_> JG: not sure if it works in US
14:43:02 <JakeAbma_> JG: no one will ever get to the point that they have to prove
14:43:50 <MichaelC> q+ to say following a protocol is continuous; measurement is discrete; protocol might define measurement frequency and acceptable improvement between measurements
14:43:56 <JakeAbma_> JG: we need to build in objectivity
14:44:04 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:44:38 <Rachael> ack Rachael
14:44:38 <JakeAbma_> JG: otherwise it might become something like a VPAT which does not work well
14:46:48 <Rachael> agenda?
14:47:02 <Rachael> What part of protocol did you follow? How is that embeded? ?How can we see it? By what date?
14:47:19 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
14:47:19 <Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say following a protocol is continuous; measurement is discrete; protocol might define measurement frequency and acceptable improvement between measurements
14:48:20 <JakeAbma_> MC: your measureing effort for a protocol, not wcag compliance
14:48:20 <Jaunita_George> an "as of" date would be fine MichaelC
14:48:52 <Rachael> ack JakeAbma_
14:49:46 <Rachael> Jake: Purpose of protocols is for use on more subjective content.
14:50:37 <Rachael> ...Jeanne spoke 3-4 years ago with lawyers there was the possibility to add more subjectiveness. I'm not sure that's true or not. Its about measuring the effort.
14:50:56 <Jaunita_George> q+
14:52:22 <JakeAbma_> JG: don't want protocols to move us backwards
14:52:38 <MichaelC> q+
14:52:40 <MichaelC> ack j
14:52:50 <JakeAbma_> JG: if we introduce subjectivity, it feels like it might collapse
14:52:58 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:53:19 <Rachael> ack MichaelC
14:53:20 <MichaelC> ack me
14:53:29 <JakeAbma_> JG: would like to see contact with people who know about how far we can introduce subjectivity
14:53:43 <Jaunita_George> +1 to MichaelC
14:53:54 <Rachael> q+
14:54:04 <Rachael> ack JakeAbma_
14:55:02 <Rachael> JakeAbma_: I have read different blog posts about law suites. One of hte most well known was target. My recollection was it was not specifically that they complied with WCAG 100% but refused to do the effort of adding accessible names to images. They just refused to fix it.
14:55:18 <Jaunita_George> q+
14:55:20 <Rachael> ...they were blamed for that. If that is the case, then it is about effort and willingness to do something.
14:55:57 <Rachael> ...very objective, but often about the effort and willing to do adjustments.
14:56:06 <Rachael> ack Jaunita_George
14:56:48 <MichaelC> i/+1 to MichaelC/mc: protocols can have non-subjective measures, such as % of FTE; having subjective measures as well goes beyond what I considered but it´s interesting to explore
14:57:15 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:00:19 <Rachael> Suggestions for evaluating whether the protocol was done: What part of protocol did you follow? How is that embeded in content or organization? ?How can we see it? By what date?
15:00:35 <Rachael> zakim, make minutes
15:00:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', Rachael
15:00:42 <Rachael> rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/04-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Rachael
15:00:58 <Rachael> rrsagent, make log world
15:02:19 <Rachael> zakim, end meeting
15:02:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Rachael, ShawnT, MichaelC, julierawe, jennifer_, Jaunita_George
15:02:21 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/04-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Zakim
15:02:24 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Rachael; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:02:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag3-protocols
15:24:38 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols
15:37:37 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:02:12 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols