12:58:07 RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols 12:58:07 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/01-wcag3-protocols-irc 12:58:16 rrsagent, make logs world 12:58:23 rrsagent, generate minutes 12:58:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/01-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Chuck_ 12:58:30 chair: Chuck 12:58:38 Zakim, start meeting 12:58:38 RRSAgent, make logs Public 12:58:39 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Chuck_ 12:59:15 meeting: PROTOCOLS-2022-04-01 12:59:22 agenda+ Review Doodle poll results of possible meeting time changes 12:59:29 agenda+ Update from John Foliot by Chuck Adams including sharing his opinions and thoughts 12:59:36 agenda+ Continue review of plain language requirements and government adoption 13:00:53 uxjennifer has joined #wcag3-protocols 13:00:57 present+ 13:00:59 present+ 13:03:05 w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 13:03:14 https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f5c865f3-1549-49c8-bfda-3931b204043a https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols 13:04:48 zakim, pick a scribe 13:04:48 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose uxjennifer 13:05:15 jeanne has joined #wcag3-protocols 13:05:39 scribe: uxjennifer 13:05:52 JakeAbma has joined #wcag3-protocols 13:05:53 present+ 13:05:54 zakim, take up item 1 13:05:54 agendum 1 -- Review Doodle poll results of possible meeting time changes -- taken up [from Chuck_] 13:07:18 Noon to 1pm Eastern is the time that had the most people able to attend 13:08:07 European member, Jake, is not available at that time, however. 13:08:17 May be able to find other times and dates. 13:08:23 proposed RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 12-1 PM PT 13:08:28 +1 13:08:53 Jaunita_George_ has joined #wcag3-protocols 13:09:06 https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f5c865f3-1549-49c8-bfda-3931b204043a https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols 13:09:07 Present+ 13:09:33 https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c845aec-dab5-49c4-8294-86cc0d1b5aac/20220107T090000 13:09:45 q+ 13:10:39 uxjennifer: One concern, Jake is the only representative that is not in North America. That perspective. He's been valuable from the Europe perspective and heavy US perspective. 13:10:49 uxjennifer: We need to weight diversity of input. 13:10:58 +1 to uxjennifer 13:12:21 proposed RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 8-9 AM PT 13:12:29 +1 13:12:34 ? 13:12:57 +1 to ET :) 13:13:02 +1 13:13:04 proposed RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 8-9 AM ET 13:13:09 +1 13:13:09 +1 13:13:09 +1 13:13:11 +1 13:13:17 +1 13:13:52 +1 13:14:12 proposed RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 8-9 AM ET 13:14:20 RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 8-9 AM ET 13:14:52 zakim, take up item 2 13:14:52 agendum 2 -- Update from John Foliot by Chuck Adams including sharing his opinions and thoughts -- taken up [from Chuck_] 13:15:29 JF continues to be unavailable, but hopes to soon. Noted a few concerns with the conversations we've had. 13:15:44 Chuck will channel JF's viewpoints regarding some concerns. 13:16:09 Chuck's proposed definition: A protocol is ANY [formally?] reported activity by that GOES BEYOND laws, regulations, standards and success criteria, and advances Accessibility 13:16:14 Propose specific formal definition to protocol based on JF's above 13:16:54 +1 to the proposal -- I like this 13:17:47 When JF saw references to "measure" it concerned him as it didn't match his original vision. 13:18:07 He understands that if the team wants to go in a different direction, that will be free to happen. 13:18:08 q+ 13:18:13 q+ to state difference between "measuring" and "evaluating" 13:18:14 ack uxjennifer 13:18:40 i.e., car dealerships offer extended warranty, not required by law 13:18:46 what they offer can vary. 13:19:33 these go above and beyond requirements and laws 13:19:55 another example, oracle has a corporate citizenship award 13:20:11 amount of money and schools oracle does to support education around the world. 13:20:31 deque does a similar thing; they built one school online 13:20:43 they offer it for free online to anyone with a disability 13:22:11 3rd biz example, mom & pop shop sells musical instruments 13:22:22 they refurb & donate instruments to local schools 13:22:55 is it less or more value than oracle's that spends kazillion dollars, or deque that spends millions? 13:23:03 the idea here is that a protocol can be anything 13:23:14 above & beyond the regulations or requirements 13:23:18 Q+ 13:23:38 it's incumbent on the person making the claim to document it and decide the value 13:24:05 it's not up to protocols to get between the author and reader to decide good/bad 13:24:26 create a format, like a spat, but it's up to the biz to decide how & what 13:24:36 not spat - VPAT 13:24:43 s/like a spat/like a VPAT 13:24:47 q? 13:24:48 it doesn't get measured, they just make the statement 13:24:59 ack Jake 13:25:13 q+ 13:25:31 Jake thinks from day 1 I 100% agree with everything JF mentioned, approach, varies on the maturity work 13:25:47 Jake - the only thing that's hard or difficult is the word measure 13:26:00 q+ 13:26:16 Jake - re measure, I get it, but I'm not sure or don't agree… we need mutual definitions on the word "measure" 13:26:35 Jake - wilco spoke of everything you go or see you can measure, you can measure everything 13:26:52 q+ to answer "can you evaluate it?" 13:27:01 Jake - so the way he uses 'measure' I think… perhaps 'evaluate'? I'm not sure we use the same def. 13:27:26 Jake - had similar issue in maturity modeling, using diff words for same thing, etc. 13:27:32 ack Rach 13:27:32 Rachael, you wanted to state difference between "measuring" and "evaluating" 13:27:54 Rachael - from my convos with JF he has a different vision of 'measure' - the ability to put numeric value vs the evaluate 13:28:07 Rachael - I think he is fine with the word 'evaluate' 13:28:25 ack ux 13:28:36 Rachael - agree wholeheartedly with Jake 13:29:13 uxjennifer: The one thing that stuck out is "above and beyond regulations and requirements". What WCAG creates are guidelines. We are not creating regs. Regulators do that. 13:29:58 uxjennifer: One thing I saw protocols do was building upon the guidelines to add clarity. I see it as having a potential to even support WCAG work in a co-design colaborative way 13:30:38 uxjennifer: We have these meetings and we are a little ivory tower, but we do have github and email, but its a way for the community of lay and professional folk have a say in influencing the guidelines. 13:30:49 q+ 13:30:53 uxjennifer: We are creating guidelines. 13:30:58 ack Mich 13:31:25 Michael - the big thing I heard from JF's view was 'above & beyond' guidelines, to me that's a diff thing than why we're doing this 13:31:42 q+ to state that we are deliberately postponing decisions about conformance 13:31:45 Michael - this was a way of having documentation in the guidelines that can be evaluated 13:32:21 Michael - WCAG would never have something so broad as 'support education' - we would break down to more specific things, i.e., 2% of revenue to specific things 13:32:35 q? 13:32:37 ack Chu 13:32:37 Chuck_, you wanted to answer "can you evaluate it?" 13:32:46 +1 to Michael's clarirfication "above and beyond what the guidelines currently do" 13:32:54 Michael - not interested in defining specifics, interested in getting in sync on we're working on the same thing 13:33:22 Michael - protocols s/b about meeting the guidance not going above & beyond 13:33:22 key question: Are protocols for going above and beyond guidance or for going above and beyond current guidelines 13:33:46 Chuck - POV is JF is looking for extra credit, and doesn't get evaluated by anybody except person reading the statment 13:34:11 q+ to say that it is too vague to be used in regulatory, which puts it all into AAA 13:34:27 Chuck - i.e., Oracle has a grant that helps students with their education; above & beyond to support a11y. there does seem to be disparity btw original vision and direction Michael is taking. 13:34:32 q? 13:34:36 ack Jaun 13:34:59 JG - support JF's def, takes care of potentially 'watering down' the standards 13:35:09 ack Rach 13:35:09 Rachael, you wanted to state that we are deliberately postponing decisions about conformance 13:35:15 JG - that could potentially create loopholes for companies that don't have best intents 13:35:31 Rachael - concerned we are making conformance decisions in the def of protocols 13:36:13 Rachael - concerned / questions re conformance that we are deliberately postponing; agree it is likely to be 'extra' - don't want to go into it with that assumption 13:36:39 Rachael - want to make protocols as easy to evaluate as possible; later go into how it fits into conformance, def not to water down guidance 13:36:42 q+ to say I thought it was ambivalent to the conformance model. 13:36:43 q? 13:36:46 ack Jeanne 13:36:46 jeanne, you wanted to say that it is too vague to be used in regulatory, which puts it all into AAA 13:37:02 q+ 13:37:19 Jeanne - I do find this puzzling from JF's earlier stance that whatever we did, we should not be creating a new AAA, putting important user needs into an area that's completely optional. 13:37:39 Jeanne - I think this def is sufficiently vague, that it won't advance to getting more user needs met in the long run 13:37:40 q+ 13:38:13 ack Ch 13:38:13 Chuck_, you wanted to say I thought it was ambivalent to the conformance model. 13:38:15 Jeanne - it worries me that it makes it easy to say in a sweeping way, all these COGA needs could be in content usable, and then all these COGA needs could be optional… maybe I'm misunderstanding 13:38:24 +1 to Jeanne's concerns 13:38:39 Alternate proposed definition: A protocol is a reported activity by that is subjective and so must be evaluated rather than measured 13:38:56 Chuck - Rachael, I thought it was ambivalent to the conformance model, that it was above & beyond whatever it happens to be; I can no longer rep JF and don't know the answewr 13:39:27 Chuck - re Jeanne, whatever the COGA or other user needs exist, those still exist and will be — this is in addition not to bypass 13:39:47 Chuck - gives a 'biz' opportunity to do more, but are still required to do the guidelines 13:39:54 q+ 13:39:54 q? 13:39:57 ack Mich 13:40:33 Michael - for me, making sure we can evaluate non-subjectively 13:41:04 Michael - finding a way to evaluate the subjective things is what is appealing to me in this work 13:41:40 ack Jau 13:41:42 Michael - perhaps we split the group into two — create a group for evaluating subjective things vs the extra above & beyond 13:41:58 JG - like 2 different areas 13:42:10 JG - if we decide now we prob won't get to a consensus 13:42:23 JG - I wonder if we develop ways we can use protocols in parallel 13:42:31 ack Rach 13:42:43 Rachael - I think there's real value in coming up with definition of this 13:42:53 Rachael - I'm not sure we want to tackle above & beyond 13:42:55 q+ 13:43:06 Rachael - we already have so much work 13:43:15 q? 13:44:01 uxjennifer: A few weeks ago we would attempt to use some selected potential protocols to evaluate a site. What we did was different than what I expected. Dept. of Labor....? 13:44:27 uxjennifer: To convey that they did this "above and beyond" the guidelines, the activities they did to deliver plain language. What I thought we would do when we were defining the activity.... 13:45:15 uxjennifer: The protocol we would define, pick a site, and use that as a guide to evaluate the accessibility quality and usefulness of the site. That's why I proposed we use our own. If we put ourselves in the role of the person who has to do this, to use a protocol, we may learn something. 13:46:06 uxjennifer: I'm between having protocols help evaluate the things that are subjective and doing the "above and beyond". both are appealing and serve the purpose and needs of the people we are trying to support. Trying to make sure all kinds of people have an equitable experience. 13:46:14 q+ 13:46:18 ack ux 13:46:24 ack uxjennifer 13:46:26 ack Chuck 13:46:27 q+ 13:46:45 q+ to say that content usable is not a protocol 13:47:04 Chuck - 'above & beyond' may be a poor representation; there's a lot of content in content usable that are not 'requirements' of the guidelines; that have subjectivity 13:47:44 Chuck - my pov was a co had an optty to say we are implementing content usable even tho a lot goes beyond the standard, and anyone who wants to evaluate our activities, can 13:47:50 q? 13:47:53 q+ to say the we are writing the standards so if we are writing protocols then they are part of the standards 13:47:53 ack Jake 13:47:58 ack JakeAbma 13:48:13 q+ to say maybe we should focus on the difference. 13:48:27 Jake - beyond what is a protocol, you can take one or more steps, what we're trying to do -- what ppl want / think wcag 3 should look like 13:49:30 Jake - i.e., Jeanne expressed concern COGA should not be optional, we should find a way to add it to WCAG3. Make it somehow a req not optional, otherwise it is AAA -- no excuse to exclude such needs, but the interesting part is … she did not object but was concerned 13:49:52 Jake - when one takes a step back, what Jeanne stands for is what JF tries to solve with protocols. 13:50:11 fyi: This should not be considered directly from John, this is Chuck's interpretation of John's position, and is subject to error. 13:50:20 +1 to different ways to inform of use 13:50:24 Jake - trying to … the way ppl will inform the world they used a doc such as COGA? 13:50:53 Jake - this is a way that we req those subjective guidance in whatever we will create 13:51:13 Jake - only diff COGA might solve, yet another doc might solve the probs -- not sure if that's conformance 13:51:48 Jake - if we take the stance that all COGA will be part of silver, then it will be a huge doc; if it is mandatory that we don't care if you use COGA or something from another company, we still have that subjective part to solve 13:51:57 Jake - so do we add subjectivity? 13:52:17 q+ to say I'm certain that the intent was to address the subjective and not measurable 13:52:20 Jake - I don't think jf was saying you can replace COGA 13:52:51 Jake - you can do COGA, it is subjective and this is how you document it… 13:52:57 q? 13:53:00 ack Rach 13:53:00 Rachael, you wanted to say that content usable is not a protocol and to say the we are writing the standards so if we are writing protocols then they are part of the standards 13:53:03 Jake - then we have a framework 13:53:52 Rachael - we keep going back to content usable and it is not an example protocol - it has measurable tests, subjective tests but somewhat measurable 13:54:18 Rachael - raising it as a protocol creates a risk; it's not a simple thing it's complex 13:54:28 q+ to say I'm certain that the intent was to address the subjective and not measurable, and then can we use plain language as our referred to? 13:54:32 Rachael - I don't think we should use it as a protocol 13:54:38 Shouldn't it make it into WCAG3 as methods where possible? 13:54:57 Alternate proposed definition: A protocol is a reported activity by that is fully subjective and cannot be measured with repeatable results 13:55:19 q? 13:55:23 ach Ch 13:55:27 ack Ch 13:55:27 Chuck_, you wanted to say maybe we should focus on the difference. and to say I'm certain that the intent was to address the subjective and not measurable and to say I'm certain 13:55:30 ... that the intent was to address the subjective and not measurable, and then can we use plain language as our referred to? 13:55:33 ack Chuck_ 13:55:46 Chuck - maybe we focus on the difference and come to a conclusion 13:56:29 Chuck - one thing I'm sure about JFs intent, yes we would create the guidelines - tough topics of how do you evaluate meeting the guideline; for those cases where it is subjective and there is no testable measurable repeatable 13:56:41 Chuck - then these would extend our ways of evaluating 13:56:53 chuck - protocols for the immeasurable subjective 13:57:05 Chuck - where you could get 17 diff answers from 17 diff ppl 13:57:25 q? 13:57:34 Chuck - I'll use plain language instead of content usable 13:58:04 Chuck - my intent, go back to JF, did I misrepresent anything? 13:58:54 rrsagent, generate minutes 13:58:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/01-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Chuck_ 16:14:57 ShawnT has joined #wcag3-protocols 18:00:03 MichaelC_ has joined #wcag3-protocols 20:28:24 MichaelC has joined #wcag3-protocols 23:56:59 MichaelC_ has joined #wcag3-protocols