01 April 2022


JakeAbma, Jaunita_George_, ShawnT, uxjennifer

Meeting minutes

<Chuck_> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f5c865f3-1549-49c8-bfda-3931b204043a https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols

Review Doodle poll results of possible meeting time changes

Noon to 1pm Eastern is the time that had the most people able to attend

European member, Jake, is not available at that time, however.

May be able to find other times and dates.

<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 12-1 PM PT

<Chuck_> +1

https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/f5c865f3-1549-49c8-bfda-3931b204043a https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3c845aec-dab5-49c4-8294-86cc0d1b5aac/20220107T090000

<Chuck_> 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.

<Chuck_> uxjennifer: We need to weight diversity of input.

<ShawnT> +1 to uxjennifer

<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 8-9 AM PT

<Chuck_> +1


<Jaunita_George_> +1 to ET :)

<ShawnT> +1

<Chuck_> proposed RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 8-9 AM ET

<Rachael> +1

<Jaunita_George_> +1


<Chuck_> +1

<jeanne> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

proposed RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 8-9 AM ET

RESOLUTION: Move Protocols to 8-9 AM ET

Update from John Foliot by Chuck Adams including sharing his opinions and thoughts

JF continues to be unavailable, but hopes to soon. Noted a few concerns with the conversations we've had.

Chuck will channel JF's viewpoints regarding some concerns.

<Chuck_> Chuck's proposed definition: A protocol is ANY [formally?] reported activity by <entity> that GOES BEYOND laws, regulations, standards and success criteria, and advances Accessibility

Propose specific formal definition to protocol based on JF's above

<Jaunita_George_> +1 to the proposal -- I like this

When JF saw references to "measure" it concerned him as it didn't match his original vision.

He understands that if the team wants to go in a different direction, that will be free to happen.

i.e., car dealerships offer extended warranty, not required by law

what they offer can vary.

these go above and beyond requirements and laws

another example, oracle has a corporate citizenship award

amount of money and schools oracle does to support education around the world.

deque does a similar thing; they built one school online

they offer it for free online to anyone with a disability

3rd biz example, mom & pop shop sells musical instruments

they refurb & donate instruments to local schools

is it less or more value than oracle's that spends kazillion dollars, or deque that spends millions?

the idea here is that a protocol can be anything

above & beyond the regulations or requirements

it's incumbent on the person making the claim to document it and decide the value

it's not up to protocols to get between the author and reader to decide good/bad

create a format, like a VPAT, but it's up to the biz to decide how & what

not spat - VPAT

it doesn't get measured, they just make the statement

Jake thinks from day 1 I 100% agree with everything JF mentioned, approach, varies on the maturity work

Jake - the only thing that's hard or difficult is the word measure

Jake - re measure, I get it, but I'm not sure or don't agree… we need mutual definitions on the word "measure"

Jake - wilco spoke of everything you go or see you can measure, you can measure everything

Jake - so the way he uses 'measure' I think… perhaps 'evaluate'? I'm not sure we use the same def.

Jake - had similar issue in maturity modeling, using diff words for same thing, etc.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to state difference between "measuring" and "evaluating"

Rachael - from my convos with JF he has a different vision of 'measure' - the ability to put numeric value vs the evaluate

Rachael - I think he is fine with the word 'evaluate'

Rachael - agree wholeheartedly with Jake

<Chuck_> 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.

<Chuck_> 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

<Chuck_> 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.

<Chuck_> uxjennifer: We are creating guidelines.

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

Michael - this was a way of having documentation in the guidelines that can be evaluated

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

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to answer "can you evaluate it?"

<Rachael> +1 to Michael's clarirfication "above and beyond what the guidelines currently do"

Michael - not interested in defining specifics, interested in getting in sync on we're working on the same thing

Michael - protocols s/b about meeting the guidance not going above & beyond

<Rachael> key question: Are protocols for going above and beyond guidance or for going above and beyond current guidelines

Chuck - POV is JF is looking for extra credit, and doesn't get evaluated by anybody except person reading the statment

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.

JG - support JF's def, takes care of potentially 'watering down' the standards

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to state that we are deliberately postponing decisions about conformance

JG - that could potentially create loopholes for companies that don't have best intents

Rachael - concerned we are making conformance decisions in the def of protocols

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

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

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that it is too vague to be used in regulatory, which puts it all into AAA

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.

Jeanne - I think this def is sufficiently vague, that it won't advance to getting more user needs met in the long run

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to say I thought it was ambivalent to the conformance model.

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

<Rachael> +1 to Jeanne's concerns

<Rachael> Alternate proposed definition: A protocol is a reported activity by <entity> that is subjective and so must be evaluated rather than measured

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

Chuck - re Jeanne, whatever the COGA or other user needs exist, those still exist and will be — this is in addition not to bypass

Chuck - gives a 'biz' opportunity to do more, but are still required to do the guidelines

Michael - for me, making sure we can evaluate non-subjectively

Michael - finding a way to evaluate the subjective things is what is appealing to me in this work

Michael - perhaps we split the group into two — create a group for evaluating subjective things vs the extra above & beyond

JG - like 2 different areas

JG - if we decide now we prob won't get to a consensus

JG - I wonder if we develop ways we can use protocols in parallel

Rachael - I think there's real value in coming up with definition of this

Rachael - I'm not sure we want to tackle above & beyond

Rachael - we already have so much work

<Chuck_> 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....?

<Chuck_> 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....

<Chuck_> 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.

<Chuck_> 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.

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

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

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

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

Jake - when one takes a step back, what Jeanne stands for is what JF tries to solve with protocols.

<Chuck_> fyi: This should not be considered directly from John, this is Chuck's interpretation of John's position, and is subject to error.

<Rachael> +1 to different ways to inform of use

Jake - trying to … the way ppl will inform the world they used a doc such as COGA?

Jake - this is a way that we req those subjective guidance in whatever we will create

Jake - only diff COGA might solve, yet another doc might solve the probs -- not sure if that's conformance

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

Jake - so do we add subjectivity?

Jake - I don't think jf was saying you can replace COGA

Jake - you can do COGA, it is subjective and this is how you document it…

<Zakim> 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

Jake - then we have a framework

Rachael - we keep going back to content usable and it is not an example protocol - it has measurable tests, subjective tests but somewhat measurable

Rachael - raising it as a protocol creates a risk; it's not a simple thing it's complex

Rachael - I don't think we should use it as a protocol

<Jaunita_George_> Shouldn't it make it into WCAG3 as methods where possible?

<Rachael> Alternate proposed definition: A protocol is a reported activity by <entity> that is fully subjective and cannot be measured with repeatable results

<Chuck_> ach Ch

<Zakim> 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 that the intent was to address the subjective and not measurable, and then can we use plain language as our referred to?

Chuck - maybe we focus on the difference and come to a conclusion

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

Chuck - then these would extend our ways of evaluating

chuck - protocols for the immeasurable subjective

Chuck - where you could get 17 diff answers from 17 diff ppl

Chuck - I'll use plain language instead of content usable

Chuck - my intent, go back to JF, did I misrepresent anything?

Summary of resolutions

  1. Move Protocols to 8-9 AM ET
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/like a spat/like a VPAT