– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

Pick 2-3 protocols to work with

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/edit#slide=id.p

RM: start with couple of ideas on what a protocol might be, maybe 1, 2, or 3

RM: try to evaluate them

RM: see if it works, and if not why?

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> Rachael: What protocols?

<Rachael> Jake: Not really new. Not for me and not as an approach. Its been discussed for years in the Netherlands.

<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.

<Rachael> ...We might for instance say "material Design" or "BBC Gel design" or "Engineering Culture document"

<Rachael> ...One guidance document (material design)

<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.

<Rachael> ...Do you need to use your own protocol or use an existing one.

<ShawnT> +1 to plain language

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say we need to define what makes a good protocol before we tell others to start doing it

<Rachael> Current options: Plain Language, Material Design, BBC Gel, Engineering Culture

<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.

<jennifer_> was in the wrong irc, #wcag-protocols

<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.

<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.

<Rachael> ...for specifically for US. I know that last year I had questions about clear words.

<jennifer_> +1 MichaelC

<Rachael> Current options: Plain Language, Material Design, BBC Gel, Engineering Culture

<jennifer_> Plain Language, BBC Gel, and then no vote for the other two

Plain Language, Material

<Rachael> JakeAbma_: I forgot exercise. Rachael reviewed

<ShawnT> Plain Language

<Rachael> Rachael: Plain Language, Material, BBC Gel

<Rachael> Rachael revised: Plain Language, BBC Gel

another example

https://ux.visma.com/ux-in-visma/ux-best-practices/

<Rachael> +1 to adding UX

<ShawnT> Could we put the links for all of them? I can do it and share right now

<jennifer_> https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel

<Rachael> Jake: Suggests another option.

<ShawnT> [BBC GEL | Homepage](https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel)

<jennifer_> https://material.io/design

<Rachael> Proposal: Plain Language, BBC Gel, UX Best Practices

<MichaelC> +1, any decision is the best decision :)

<Rachael> Key question: Is a protocol a document, part of hte document, and how do we handle overlap with WCAG

<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

<ShawnT> An alt Decision Tree?

<ShawnT> https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decision-tree/

<Rachael> JakeAbma_: Agree. Important point. UX might be too big. Gel may be too big. Maybe we should use inclusive design principles. Its small.

https://inclusivedesignprinciples.org/

<jennifer_> https://inclusivedesignprinciples.org

<Rachael> Proposal: Plain Language, Inclusive Design Princples, UX Best Practices

JG: lots of guidance already has WCAG parts

<Rachael> Option 1: Plain language, UX Best Practices

<Rachael> Option 2: Plain language, BBC Gel

<jennifer_> 2

<Rachael> Option 2: Plain language, BBC Gel, UX Best Practices

<jennifer_> (but specific to the accessibility area of BBC Gel)

Inclusive Design Principles

<Rachael> https://ux.visma.com/ux-in-visma/ux-best-practices/

<Rachael> https://inclusivedesignprinciples.org

<Rachael> https://www.bbc.co.uk/gel/guidelines/how-to-design-for-accessibility

<Rachael> Please write your preference for the second document

<MichaelC> UX

<Jaunita_George> +1 to UX

<jennifer_> I voted for #2, and scoped Gel to just the a11y section

<Rachael> UX

<Rachael> proposed proposals: Plain Language, Visma UX

<Rachael> proposed proposals: Plain Language, Visma UX, (BBC Gel A11y section if 3rd is needed)

<Rachael> proposed protocols for use in exercise: Plain Language, Visma UX, (BBC Gel A11y section if 3rd is needed)

<Jaunita_George> +1

<jennifer_> +1

How to evaluate whether the protocol was done

<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.

<Rachael> ...instead of saying you ahve to do this or that. There is a set of extra rules to follow. Its left open.

<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.

<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?

<Rachael> Jaunita_George: akin to a VPAT in US.

JG: not sure if it works in US

JG: no one will ever get to the point that they have to prove

JG: we need to build in objectivity

JG: otherwise it might become something like a VPAT which does not work well

<Rachael> What part of protocol did you follow? How is that embeded? ?How can we see it? By what date?

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say following a protocol is continuous; measurement is discrete; protocol might define measurement frequency and acceptable improvement between measurements

MC: your measureing effort for a protocol, not wcag compliance

<Jaunita_George> an "as of" date would be fine MichaelC

<Rachael> Jake: Purpose of protocols is for use on more subjective content.

<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.

JG: don't want protocols to move us backwards

JG: if we introduce subjectivity, it feels like it might collapse

JG: would like to see contact with people who know about how far we can introduce subjectivity

<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

<Jaunita_George> +1 to MichaelC

<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.

<Rachael> ...they were blamed for that. If that is the case, then it is about effort and willingness to do something.

<Rachael> ...very objective, but often about the effort and willing to do adjustments.

<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?