Meeting minutes
<jaunita_george_> Survey results: https://
Survey results discussion
<Rachael> https://
<JF> https://
https://
Jaunita George: going through survey results and discussion
… 6 respondants
… 1st survey item on definition for "protocols"
… split result, 2 ea.
… in survey, JF noted that protocols sit beside requirements, not above them
… the guidance in a protocol might not have measurable or testable results...
… plain language might just say something like "use your words carefully"
(please see survey results)
JG: continues to go over survey results
… Chuck in survey commented that both A and B could be needed
(JG continues to read survey comments)
JG: Second question was on how protocols might be used to test success.
… 6 results, again mixed results, but not evenly split
https://
https://
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say I could be ok with Option B as long as there is an objective minimum
1. What do you consider the intent of protocols in relation to conformance?
A. Protocols are above or beyond any type of conformance, aka “extra credit”
Jeanne: I would be okay with option B, but I have concerns for some "gaming the system" otherwise it is okay.
Rachael: I did not read option B as a minimum bar, just that it related to conformance.
<MichaelC> +1 to RBM
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest that conformance is out of scope of this meeting
JF: I still feel strongly that is not reasonable for us to expect much progress on protocol until we have better clarity with the WCAG3 conformance model...
… just too hard to know how to talk about protocol without metrics of scoring and points.
Rachael: I hear you John, and this is something the chairs have discussed.
JF: It seems like a blocker to me.
Jeanne: Point noted, I would ask that you let us move on. (JF agrees.)
JG: Noting that there has been discussion for option B,
… might be that WCAG3 only requires attestation that some process has been followed.
B. Protocols are a way of meeting the guidelines, and how they fit into conformance is TB
C. Something else (please provide an explanation in comment
https://
Rachael: Before we move on to question 2, I would ask if we can't boil results from Question 1 down a bit more.
JG: As noted, 3 choices offered, 2 votes for each.
<jaunita_george_> A. Protocols are above or beyond any type of conformance, aka “extra credit” B. Protocols are a way of meeting the guidelines, and how they fit into conformance is TBD
<jeanne> I would say that my proposal is that "Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes cannot be measured, such as evaluating whether a process has been followed.
JG: Focus on option A, is there a way to change that choice for the better?
JF: What do you mean by "extra credit"
<jaunita_george_> Above and beyond what the standards require
JG: Something beyond what is required by guidelines or methods. But this is not fixed.
Jeanne: Jennifer is not on the call today, and I am willing to consider B. So we can we work on that one?
B. Protocols are a way of meeting the guidelines, and how they fit into conforma
<Rachael> Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes cannot be measured, such as evaluating whether a process has been followed.
JG: from survey, I would say that my proposal is that "Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes cannot be measured, such as evaluating whether a process has been followed.
JF: ask for clarification on that
<Rachael> I thnk the how is question 2
Jeanne: that is TBD
RESOLUTION: Change Option B from: Protocols are a way of meeting the guidelines, and how they fit into conformance is TBD to: "Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes cannot be measured, such as evaluating whether a process has been followed."
JF: So we take the claim at face values
Jeanne: We might ask for documentation, but this is one of the details to work out.
JG: I would ask that we table that for now, see if we cannot agree in principle.
Racheal: I think this is question 2
JF: I agree with Jeanne, that making declarations is what I had presumed.
… I come up short on how we assess those claims
https://
2. How do you think protocols should assess success?
A. Protocols provide a way to evaluate whether subjective WCAG requirements have been met. (In other words, protocols evaluate the inputs and the outcomes.)
B. Protocols test the inputs against what WCAG has required
C. Something else (please explain in comments)
JG: Survey comments are lengthy, so not reading.
JF: Claims can be lengthy, and it can be very difficult for a third party to evaluate.
… example in survey is owner saying they have taking a course on plain language and are following PL principles...
… how can third party refute or deny that sort of claim?
JG: reads Jennifer Strickland comment.
JG calls on Jeanne to comment on her survey comment.
<jeanne> Protocols can evaluate guidance where the outcomes can not be measured. We can measure subjective tests without using protocols. Where protocols are useful are in measuring and evaluating processes
Jeanne: Basically I noted that it is the case that we can measure subjective tests without using protocols. And I provided an example.
JG reads Chuck (Charles Adam) comment from survey.
JG: For moving forward, I find two streams...
… option A is something to the effect that protocols can be agnostic to outcomes, it is just reflecting inputs.
<JF> +1 to not prescribing steps
Michael Cooper: This is a little different than I had been anticipating...
… that WCAG3 should not be process or steps, just guidelines and methods.
<Rachael> for me that is correct as well
MC: If protocols do not provide this testability, they are not as interesting to me.
<jeanne> +1 to Michael
<MichaelC> ¨not interesting¨ doesn´t mean oppose work, means I need to look elsewhere to solve the problem
On to survey question 3, on times.
https://
Should we alternate between 8am and noon (Eastern Time) to allow for greater participation?
4 yes, 2 other.
JG: Is anyone strongly opposed between alternating?
MC: I am not opposed, I am just saying we need a plan for success.
<JF> +1 to mcooper
MC: two different times might result in two different sense for consensus
<jaunita_george_> Proposed resolution: We should alternate between 8am and noon (Eastern Time)
JG: Would anyone care to speak against alternating times?
<jaunita_george_> +1
<Rachael> +1
<jeanne> +1
<MichaelC> +1
<JF> 0
Jeanne: I think there are only two people, so we might try an keep them looped in.
RESOLUTION: We should alternate between 8am and noon (Eastern Time)
RESOLUTION: We should alternate between 8am and noon (Eastern Time)
Question 4, https://
4. Would you support creating a group Slack channel in the A11y Slack to help facilitate real-time communication on issues, rather than just relying on email? We could share out a summary of the discussions weekly for the rest of the group/public record.
JG: tallys survey result
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that there is a core group that both times work for
MC: I find Slack not to be very friendly, but I am not opposed to others using it.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that there is a w3c channel for wcag3 we could try
Jeanne: There is a W3C slack channel and WCAG community -- so it exists and people could try it -- it not much used.
JF: I will speak against using Slack. On my company laptop, it is blocked.
… might as well use Teams. We have IRC, and that seems to work okay.
JG: I use Slack for my day job, and it has been pretty good, so I am open to adding it as a channel.
bruce: I don't use twitter either. Fine for others, but please come back to me if you think there is something there I should be responsive to.
<jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: Using the WCAG3 channel on Slack that we can use for Protocols discussions.
<MichaelC> +0
<JF> -100
Jeanne: Asks question to MC, and will send out some Slack invites.
<Rachael> -.5
<jaunita_george_> 0
<jeanne> 0 - although an IRC client would also work
JG: I will call this as resolution which does not pass.
<jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: Not use Slack for Protocols discussions.
<jaunita_george_> 0
<JF> +1 to NOT using Slack at this time
<Rachael> +1
<MichaelC> +.5
<jeanne> +.5
<MichaelC> (I agree to not use it for *official*, wouldn´t say others are forbidden)
Rachael suggest adding "at this time" to resolution
RESOLUTION: Not use Slack for official Protocols discussions at this time.
<JF> +1
no objections from others for others to use
Next steps for the group
JG: There seem to be two camps for protocols
… so I want to explore idea of working on two approaches in parallel
MC: I am in favor of that. Each group should focus on their own idea, and not try to tell the other group.
Rachael: I agree that exploring both idea fully would be a good next step
bruce suggests firm dates to circle back, because he is optimistic that both groups can then later come to terms.
<jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: Explore both areas of Protocols consensus
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to suggest time box
<MichaelC> +1
<jeanne> +1
<jaunita_george_> +1
<Rachael> +1 to exploring both wiht a time box
RESOLUTION: Explore both areas of Protocols consensus
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to propose breakout room
JG: proposes splitting the meeting time
<JF> +1 to Michael's concern of splintering the discussion even more
Jeanne: i will propose using breaking out rooms
<Rachael> +1 to breakout rooms and a short touch base at the end of each meeting
MC: I am worried that different times will devolve into A and B teams
bruce: i think i might be able to contribute to both groups
JG: asks if bruce might split his time
bruce says he does not think so
JF: I am not understanding mechanics of breakout room in practice
JG: asks for clarification
<jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: We should split the Protocols group time to advance both theories of how Protocols can be used
MC: If we go into this with good faith, I think we can work out the details
<jaunita_george_> +1
<Rachael> +1 and work out mechanics in good faith
<MichaelC> +.5
<jeanne> +1
<JF> Conditional +1 pending understanding the mechanics of this
JG: we seem to have consensus, with the caveat of people understanding the mechanics
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to confirm next meeting time
JF: suggest fleshing out how this would work first
<Rachael> +1 to noon next week
<jeanne> +1 to noon
<JF> +1 to noon
JG: table split protocol conversation for now
<Rachael> +1 to trying that
JG: Next meeting next Friday at NOON eastern
<jaunita_george_> Proposed Resolution: Table discussion of splitting discussion during meetings until we have mechanics worked out but can split the time to both theories next week to keep discussion and work moving
<jaunita_george_> +1
<MichaelC> +1
<jeanne> +1
<Rachael> +1
<JF> +1
RESOLUTION: Table discussion of splitting discussion during meetings until we have mechanics worked out but can split the time to both theories next week to keep discussion and work moving