Meeting minutes
Explore ways to evaluate whether the protocol was done https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gT2DV8x5Y_m_j3TwoM8VaIMRmS5biAyGUTgJLtMDW64/edit#
<Rachael> https://
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://
<jaunita_george> https://
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://
<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://
RMB: trying to avoid that pitfall here
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://
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