IRC log of wcag3-protocols on 2022-03-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

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