– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

Explore ways to evaluate whether the protocol was done https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gT2DV8x5Y_m_j3TwoM8VaIMRmS5biAyGUTgJLtMDW64/edit#

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gT2DV8x5Y_m_j3TwoM8VaIMRmS5biAyGUTgJLtMDW64/edit#

RMB: last week we looked at ways to evaluate protocols
… agreed on examplars such as plain language
… not coming up with a protocol yet
… or any fixed answer
… just working through one to explore
… Jake's proposal for organizations to state the protocols used
… John also suggested a compliance report
… for someone external to evaluate how a protocol was done

JG: thinking each protocol would define criteria
… detailed criteria for compliance
… that would be requirement for protocol

JS: what is it we want to do during today's call?

CA: my understanding is that thought exercise is open
… but not necessarily need to go deep
… might be early to develop specific criteria at this stage

<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.

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask "minimum viable protocol"?

CA: are you suggesting a minimal viable protocol?

JG: yes, along these lines

JS: agree with that approach
… need to keep an open mind at this stage

RMB: might want to get back to criteria when assessing the quality of protocols
… don't want to lose that thought

CA: step 1 we could call complete

CA: step 2 could be around process
… how well the process is implemented

RMB: done step 1

JG: how effective is a protocol if the process is not adequately followed?

CA: trying to channel John
… thinking trying to give us a structure to address the non-measurable
… my opinion is that there would be separate guidance
… maybe protocols themselves don't need to house the guidance as well

JA: exactly that void
… to measure the end-result

<jennifer> +1 to JakeAbma

JA: it is often about the effort and demonstrating intent and such
… not really about the end-results
… for example, when organizations do more than the WCAG criteria only
… like training etc.
… maturing the adoption of inclusive practices

<jaunita_george> +1 to Jake about having it relate to the program

<jaunita_george> I'd feel more comfortable if it's more "extra credit" or related to the maturity model work

JA: giving space for the more subjective requirements to be also on the agenda
… but if we can't check the end-result per se
… then would be good to get the companies to speak about them at least
… seeing explosive growth of improvements in The Netherlands
… including people getting more involved and excited
… going in the right direction

<jaunita_george> +1 to having it "in addition to" more objective standards

<jennifer> +1 to Rachael's Department of Labor link above.

MC: might be moving away from the intended exercise
… suggest not trying to define a protocol at this stage
… could be as simple as company saying the follow some guidance
… but doesn't have to be so binary, could be more nuanced
… maybe have different levels of adhering to a protocol

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I don't support the idea, but I think it should be listed

CA: maybe stay more on brainstorming level

<jaunita_george> Can we use a pinup board?

CA: not judge any ideas at this stage

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport

<jaunita_george> https://pinup.com/hkh5VWnQJ

CA: just get them out there for now

RMB: could shift from discussion to brainstorm

Explore ways to evaluate how well the protocol was followed

RMB: John had referred to plain language, for example
… this has organizational points
… could help define different levels of implementation

JS: evaluator documents assessment in a report
… another evaluator might have a very different assessment
… suggest going through the exercise of trying it out
… trying too hard to make things failure proof
… thereby moving away from the issue itself
… try out sample pages and compare our own results
… comfortable with the ambiguity and worried about trying to remove that

<Chuck> Poll: Can we use a pinnup?

JG: [demonstrates use of pinup tool]

<Chuck> +.5

<Rachael> 0

<jennifer> Need clarity on what a pinup tool is.

<jennifer> Is it like Mural or Miro or Jamboard?

<jennifer> Google has Jamboard.

JG: yes

<jennifer> I think we can use the Google doc, just as well.

<ShawnT> 0

<jaunita_george> https://pinup.com/hkh5VWnQJ

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask "what does it look like when trying to do it"? and to ask "what is a public statement"?

CA: speaking about ways of how a protocol was done
… sometimes we talk about a public statement
… but I don't know what a public assertion is

JA: seems inline with what Michael was saying
… first step is to say you've done it
… then add more levels to that

<julierawe> Hi, folks, joining late—interested to hear how your experiment is going!

JA: not easy to create a framework
… define activities that could be part of the statement

ST: is this similar to VPAT?
… if so, is this something we want to look into?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask Jennifer about "just do it"

CA: should we try out a specific example?

JA: I had suggested an approach in a previous email
… not about product assessment
… filling the gap between WCAG and VPAT

<jaunita_george> Evaluating a program Jake?

JA: positive-driven approach

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to dive into vpat example as interesting line of thought.

RMB: issue with the VPAT is the "partially comply"
… could mean many different things

<JakeAbma_> https://www.nascio.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NASCIO_-Accessability_In_IT_Procurment_Part_2a.pdf

RMB: trying to avoid that pitfall here

<JakeAbma_> https://mn.gov/mnit/assets/Policy%20Driven%20Adoption%20for%20Accessibility%20%28PDAA%29%20CSUN-Public_tcm38-61817.pdf

<JakeAbma_> https://mn.gov/mnit/about-mnit/accessibility/pdaa-faq-government-agencies.jsp#:~:text=What%20is%20PDAA%3F,accessibility%20best%20practices%20within%20operations.

CA: should we try out a specific example?
… helps me understand best

<ShawnT> Can we do a poll on @jennifer's idea "just to it"?

JS: agree to just try it out
… might each come to different results
… would help us understand what to do

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oQT-ttvcLwN4E0ABjsMXzRPEQDhOMT8_Gc78N_8QZzw/edit#

RMB: might need a different document for an open brainstorm
… this was more for meeting summary

JG: not sure how much we should tie this to courts
… possibly create lots of loopholes
… advocating for lower barrier to entry
… John was speaking of extra credit
… or very narrowly defined aspects

CA: suggest a poll

<Chuck> Poll: PIck a site and a protocol and go through the exercise of evaluating

<ShawnT> +1

<Rachael> 0

<Chuck> +.5

<jaunita_george> +1

<jennifer> +1

<julierawe> +1

RA: happy either way

<jaunita_george> +1

CA: plain language and department of labor?
… no objections, so let's try that

Next Meeting

CSUN next week

<Chuck> poll: skip next week?

<jaunita_george> +1

<Chuck> +1

<jaunita_george> Also at CSUN

<ShawnT> +1

<jennifer> +1

<julierawe> I'm OOO the week following as well (3/25)

<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.

<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.

CA: yes, going through the exercise
… trying to define what a protocol is

RA: sounds like switching gears