12:43:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:43:44 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/11-wcag3-protocols-irc
13:22:56 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:51:25 <Rachael> agenda+  Explore ways to evaluate whether the protocol was done https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gT2DV8x5Y_m_j3TwoM8VaIMRmS5biAyGUTgJLtMDW64/edit#
13:51:37 <Rachael> agenda+ Explore ways to evaluate how well the protocol was followed
13:51:46 <Rachael> agenda+ x agenda+ Explore ways to evaluate the quality of the results
13:51:59 <Rachael> agenda?
13:52:06 <Rachael> agenda- 3
13:52:17 <Rachael> agenda+ Explore ways to evaluate the quality of the results
13:59:04 <jennifer> jennifer has joined #wcag3-protocols
13:59:09 <jennifer> present+
14:00:09 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:00:12 <Chuck> agenda?
14:00:13 <Rachael> zakim, take up item 1
14:00:17 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Explore ways to evaluate whether the protocol was done https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gT2DV8x5Y_m_j3TwoM8VaIMRmS5biAyGUTgJLtMDW64/edit# -- taken up [from Rachael]
14:00:18 <Chuck> present+
14:00:23 <Rachael> present+
14:00:28 <ShawnT> present+
14:01:16 <JakeAbma_> JakeAbma_ has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:01:21 <JakeAbma_> present+
14:02:01 <shadi> shadi has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:02:11 <shadi> present+
14:02:14 <shadi> scribe: shadi
14:03:27 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gT2DV8x5Y_m_j3TwoM8VaIMRmS5biAyGUTgJLtMDW64/edit#
14:03:31 <shadi> RMB: last week we looked at ways to evaluate protocols
14:03:53 <shadi> ...agreed on examplars such as plain language
14:04:04 <shadi> ...not coming up with a protocol yet
14:04:12 <shadi> ...or any fixed answer
14:04:21 <shadi> ...just working through one to explore
14:04:46 <shadi> ...Jake's proposal for organizations to state the protocols used
14:04:56 <shadi> ...John also suggested a compliance report
14:05:17 <Chuck> q?
14:05:23 <shadi> ...for someone external to evaluate how a protocol was done
14:05:45 <jennifer> q+
14:05:50 <shadi> JG: thinking each protocol would define criteria
14:06:00 <shadi> ...detailed criteria for compliance
14:06:18 <shadi> ...that would be requirement for protocol
14:06:21 <Chuck> q+ to ask "minimum viable protocol"?
14:06:35 <Chuck> ack Jennifer
14:06:36 <jaunita_george> jaunita_george has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:06:55 <shadi> JS: what is it we want to do during today's call?
14:07:57 <shadi> CA: my understanding is that thought exercise is open
14:08:05 <shadi> ...but not necessarily need to go deep
14:08:24 <shadi> ...might be early to develop specific criteria at this stage
14:08:27 <Chuck> q?
14:08:28 <jennifer> It's my understanding that we are doing the exercise to collect information, and afterwards we would go into the actual trying to define it.
14:08:29 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:08:29 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask "minimum viable protocol"?
14:08:42 <shadi> ...are you suggesting a minimal viable protocol?
14:08:49 <shadi> JG: yes, along these lines
14:09:07 <shadi> JS: agree with that approach
14:09:18 <Chuck> q?
14:09:21 <shadi> ...need to keep an open time at this stage
14:09:32 <shadi> s/open time/open mind
14:09:47 <Rachael> q+ to ask clarifying question
14:09:47 <Rachael> q-
14:09:47 <Rachael> q+ to ask clarifying question
14:10:03 <shadi> RMB: might want to get back to criteria when assessing the quality of protocols
14:10:09 <Rachael> q-
14:10:33 <shadi> ...don't want to lose that thought
14:11:10 <shadi> CA: step 1 we could call complete
14:11:13 <Chuck> q?
14:11:40 <shadi> CA: step 2 could be around process
14:11:47 <Chuck> q?
14:11:53 <shadi> ...how well the process is implemented
14:12:17 <jaunita_george> q+
14:12:21 <shadi> RMB: done step 1
14:12:22 <Chuck> ack Jau
14:12:55 <Chuck> q+
14:13:00 <Chuck> ack ch
14:13:06 <shadi> JG: how effective is a protocol if the process is not adequately followed?
14:13:18 <shadi> CA: trying to channel John
14:13:45 <shadi> ...thinking trying to give us a structure to address the non-measurable
14:14:20 <shadi> ...my opinion is that there would be separate guidance
14:14:21 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:14:33 <Chuck> ack Jake
14:14:42 <shadi> ...maybe protocols themselves don't need to house the guidance as well
14:14:59 <Chuck> q?
14:15:20 <shadi> JA: exactly that void
14:15:30 <shadi> ...to measure the end-result
14:15:41 <MichaelC> q+
14:15:45 <jennifer> +1 to JakeAbma
14:15:53 <shadi> ...it is often about the effort and demonstrating intent and such
14:16:03 <shadi> ...not really about the end-results
14:16:41 <shadi> ...for example, when organizations do more than the WCAG criteria only
14:16:47 <shadi> ...like training etc.
14:17:02 <shadi> ...maturing the adoption of inclusive practices
14:17:08 <jaunita_george> +1 to Jake about having it relate to the program
14:17:43 <Rachael> q+  https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport
14:17:50 <Chuck> q+ to say I don't support the idea, but I think it should be listed
14:17:51 <jaunita_george> I'd feel more comfortable if it's more "extra credit" or related to the maturity model work
14:17:52 <Rachael> q- https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport
14:17:56 <Rachael> q+ to say https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport
14:18:13 <shadi> ...giving space for the more subjective requirements to be also on the agenda
14:18:37 <shadi> ...but if we can't check the end-result per se
14:18:57 <shadi> ...then would be good to get the companies to speak about them at least
14:19:23 <shadi> ...seeing explosive growth of improvements in The Netherlands
14:19:36 <Chuck> q?
14:19:38 <Chuck> ack Michael
14:19:43 <shadi> ...including people getting more involved and excited
14:19:51 <shadi> ...going in the right direction
14:19:52 <jaunita_george> +1 to having it "in addition to" more objective standards
14:20:06 <jennifer> +1 to Rachael's Department of Labor link above.
14:20:22 <shadi> MC: might be moving away from the intended exercise
14:20:39 <shadi> ...suggest not trying to define a protocol at this stage
14:21:00 <shadi> ...could be as simple as company saying the follow some guidance
14:21:20 <shadi> ...but doesn't have to be so binary, could be more nuanced
14:21:27 <jennifer> q+
14:21:36 <shadi> ...maybe have different levels of adhering to a protocol
14:21:48 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:21:48 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't support the idea, but I think it should be listed
14:22:15 <shadi> CA: maybe stay more on brainstorming level
14:22:19 <jaunita_george> Can we use a pinup board?
14:22:31 <shadi> ...not judge any ideas at this stage
14:22:33 <Chuck> q?
14:22:37 <Chuck> ack Rach
14:22:37 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport
14:22:38 <jaunita_george> https://pinup.com/hkh5VWnQJ
14:22:38 <shadi> ...just get them out there for now
14:22:54 <jaunita_george> q+
14:22:59 <shadi> RMB: could shift from discussion to brainstorm
14:23:48 <Chuck> agenda?
14:23:58 <Chuck> zakim, take up item 2
14:23:58 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Explore ways to evaluate how well the protocol was followed -- taken up [from Rachael]
14:24:11 <shadi> RMB: John had referred to plain language, for example
14:24:29 <shadi> ...this has organizational points
14:24:38 <Chuck> q?
14:24:41 <Chuck> ack Jenn
14:24:51 <shadi> ...could help define different levels of implementation
14:24:59 <Chuck> q+ to ask "what does it look like when trying to do it"?
14:26:09 <shadi> JS: evaluator documents assessment in a report
14:26:21 <shadi> ...another evaluator might have a very different assessment
14:26:30 <Chuck> q+ to ask "what is a public statement"?
14:26:58 <shadi> ...suggest going through the exercise of trying it out
14:27:15 <shadi> ...trying too hard to make things failure proof
14:27:30 <shadi> ...thereby moving away from the issue itself
14:27:48 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:27:58 <shadi> ...try out sample pages and compare our own results
14:29:13 <Chuck> ack Jaun
14:29:15 <shadi> ...comfortable with the ambiguity and worried about trying to remove that
14:29:42 <Chuck> Poll: Can we use a pinnup?
14:29:57 <shadi> JG: [demonstrates use of pinup tool]
14:30:01 <Chuck> +.5
14:30:03 <Rachael> 0
14:30:07 <jennifer> Need clarity on what a pinup tool is.
14:30:33 <jennifer> Is it like Mural or Miro or Jamboard?
14:30:38 <jennifer> Google has Jamboard.
14:31:06 <shadi> JG: yes
14:31:07 <jennifer> I think we can use the Google doc, just as well.
14:31:25 <ShawnT> 0
14:31:31 <jaunita_george> https://pinup.com/hkh5VWnQJ
14:31:32 <Chuck> q?
14:31:55 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:31:55 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask "what does it look like when trying to do it"? and to ask "what is a public statement"?
14:32:31 <shadi> CA: speaking about ways of how a protocol was done
14:32:53 <shadi> ...sometimes we talk about a public statement
14:33:04 <shadi> ...but I don't know what a public assertion is
14:33:09 <Chuck> q?
14:33:10 <ShawnT> q+
14:33:13 <Chuck> ack Jake
14:33:40 <shadi> JA: seems inline with what Michael was saying
14:33:49 <shadi> ...first step is to say you've done it
14:33:55 <shadi> ...then add more levels to that
14:35:21 <Chuck> q?
14:35:38 <julierawe> julierawe has joined #wcag3-protocols
14:35:42 <julierawe> present+
14:36:24 <julierawe> Hi, folks, joining late—interested to hear how your experiment is going!
14:36:56 <Chuck> q+ to ask Jennifer about "just do it"
14:36:59 <shadi> ...not easy to create a framework
14:37:22 <Chuck> ack Shawn
14:37:31 <shadi> ...define activities that could be part of the statement
14:37:45 <shadi> ST: is this similar to VPAT?
14:37:54 <JakeAbma_> q+
14:38:04 <shadi> ...if so, is this something we want to look into?
14:38:09 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:38:09 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Jennifer about "just do it"
14:38:44 <shadi> CA: should we try out a specific example?
14:39:18 <Chuck> q?
14:39:23 <jaunita_george> Present+
14:39:31 <Chuck> ack Jake
14:40:16 <shadi> JA: I had suggested an approach in a previous email
14:40:23 <Rachael> q+ to dive into vpat example as interesting line of thought.
14:40:24 <shadi> ...not about product assessment
14:41:07 <shadi> ...filling the gap between WCAG and VPAT
14:41:09 <jaunita_george> Evaluating a program Jake?
14:41:16 <shadi> ...positive-driven approach
14:41:37 <Chuck> agenda?
14:41:50 <Chuck> q?
14:41:53 <Chuck> ack Rach
14:41:53 <Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to dive into vpat example as interesting line of thought.
14:42:22 <shadi> RMB: issue with the VPAT is the "partially comply"
14:42:31 <Chuck> q?
14:42:32 <shadi> ...could mean many different things
14:42:37 <Chuck> q+ Chu
14:42:42 <JakeAbma_> https://www.nascio.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NASCIO_-Accessability_In_IT_Procurment_Part_2a.pdf
14:42:48 <shadi> ...trying to avoid that pitfall here
14:43:16 <JakeAbma_> https://mn.gov/mnit/assets/Policy%20Driven%20Adoption%20for%20Accessibility%20%28PDAA%29%20CSUN-Public_tcm38-61817.pdf
14:43:30 <JakeAbma_> https://mn.gov/mnit/about-mnit/accessibility/pdaa-faq-government-agencies.jsp#:~:text=What%20is%20PDAA%3F,accessibility%20best%20practices%20within%20operations.
14:43:39 <shadi> CA: should we try out a specific example?
14:43:48 <shadi> ...helps me understand best
14:43:54 <Chuck> q?
14:43:56 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:44:32 <ShawnT> Can we do a poll on @jennifer's idea "just to it"?
14:45:55 <Rachael> q+ that we shoudl start a new google doc if we want to use it as a brainstorm
14:46:06 <Chuck> q?
14:46:13 <Rachael> q+
14:46:49 <jaunita_george> q+
14:47:00 <shadi> JS: agree to just try it out
14:47:08 <shadi> ...might each come to different results
14:47:18 <shadi> ...would help us understand what to do
14:48:24 <Chuck> ack Rach
14:48:51 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oQT-ttvcLwN4E0ABjsMXzRPEQDhOMT8_Gc78N_8QZzw/edit#
14:48:55 <shadi> RMB: might need a different document for an open brainstorm
14:49:00 <Chuck> q?
14:49:03 <Chuck> q?
14:49:04 <shadi> ...this was more for meeting summary
14:49:06 <Chuck> ack Jau
14:49:32 <shadi> JG: not sure how much we should tie this to courts
14:49:50 <shadi> ...possibly create lots of loopholes
14:50:06 <shadi> ...advocating for lower barrier to entry
14:50:19 <shadi> ...John was speaking of extra credit
14:50:38 <shadi> ...or very narrowly defined aspects
14:50:50 <Chuck> q?
14:52:00 <shadi> CA: suggest a poll
14:52:04 <Chuck> Poll:  PIck a site and a protocol and go through the exercise of evaluating
14:52:13 <ShawnT> +1
14:52:19 <Rachael> 0
14:52:25 <Chuck> +.5
14:52:25 <jaunita_george> +1
14:52:29 <jennifer> +1
14:52:53 <julierawe> +1
14:53:17 <shadi> RA: happy either way
14:54:23 <jaunita_george> +1
14:54:27 <shadi> CA: plain language and department of labor?
14:54:42 <shadi> ...no objections, so let's try that
14:54:46 <shadi> agenda?
14:54:57 <shadi> Topic: Next Meeting
14:55:01 <shadi> CSUN next week
14:55:02 <Chuck> poll:  skip next week?
14:55:06 <jaunita_george> +1
14:55:06 <Chuck> +1
14:55:10 <jaunita_george> Also at CSUN
14:55:10 <ShawnT> +1
14:55:14 <jennifer> +1
14:55:31 <julierawe> I'm OOO the week following as well (3/25)
14:55:33 <shadi> q+
14:55:43 <Chuck> ack Sha
14:56:54 <Chuck> shadi:  It's an outsourcing of requirements we are not able to write.  Today's discussion are things that exist in the maturity model.  Unclear how that maps in.
14:57:29 <Chuck> shadi:  shouldn't spend to much time trying to define what it is, but in terms of communication, every time I hear protocols described, its a different description.  It makes it hard for somebody to be involved and help.
14:57:31 <Chuck> q+
14:57:32 <Rachael> q+
14:57:58 <shadi> CA: yes, going through the exercise
14:58:10 <Chuck> ack Ch
14:58:12 <shadi> ...trying to define what a protocol is
14:58:34 <shadi> RA: sounds like switching gears
14:59:51 <shadi> zakim, end meeting
14:59:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jennifer, Chuck, Rachael, ShawnT, JakeAbma_, shadi, .5, julierawe, jaunita_george
14:59:53 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
14:59:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/11-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Zakim
14:59:57 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, shadi; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:00:01 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag3-protocols
15:01:45 <shadi> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:10:56 <ShawnT> ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols