20 May 2022


bruce_bailey_, jaunita_george, jeanne2, JF, joeyang, Le, Rachael
Jaunita George

Meeting minutes

Evaluating Procedures proposal

<jaunita_george> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit

jaunita: aim to solidify presentation to larger WG
… definition looking pretty good
… please add comments in edit mode
… doc should allow you to request edit access
… from doc: A protocol is a document written by an organization who wishes to meet a WCAG 3 outcome that allows use of protocols. The protocol must meet specific outcome-level requirements, which will be outlined in WCAG 3 for each outcome that allows use of protocols. (To be decided: We expect that not all outcomes will allow use of protocols.)


Bruce asks if example would be protocol if keyboard were a wcag3 outcome

Jaunita thinks that is getting at correct level of specificity
… might expect code level analysis
… would want to see something for robust principle
… close to expected level of specificness

<jaunita_george> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit

Jaunita: that ictbaseline example for keyboard not quite on mark for 3, but getting there

Jaunita: back to protocols definition. Any concerns for defintion?

MC: For me, 1st bullet in proposed definition might move to open question for conformance model
… definition might not need rules as part of definition for now.

Jaunita: I think I want to add note about that.

MC: There was a question last time how much of the evaluation should be in the definition or part of protocol...
… just asserting protocols is not strong. Open question if just the statement is enough for Bronze.

Jaunita: I favor that question being brought back to AGWG.

JF: We have been told that conformance, what is Bronze / Silver / Gold, so seems premature for Protocols to mention.

MC: We know there will be levels, we know there will be conformance.

JF: With out more details on scoring, this is hard to say.

Jaunita: We want protocols to be non-trivial
… and it could even be the case that Bronze does not even include protocols.

MC: Including test procedures works regards, have not socialized this, but if test proceed is very basic -- say FTE towards conformance testing...
… and protocol is just assertion of that. Is that enough for basic definition.

<JF> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit#

<jaunita_george> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit#

Suzanne: Definition should say "Protocols are.." and not necessarily include conformance.
… idea is that company/organization would just make the declaration about what where they doing.

Jaunita: To JF comment in doc, the assertion needs to be public in order to count as protocol.

MC: We wouldn't expect WCAG3 to require public conformance claims. So by implication public protocol would not be required.

Suzanne: So let me try an example of VR prototype under development. The company might post their protocol even without test results.

Suzanne: My question is if protocols can exist outside of conformance claims or outside of being public. I think they can.

<jeanne2> +1 Suzanne - only public if making a conformance claim

Jaunita: This could be a good question to bring back to AGWG.

MC: Currently many organizations aim for accessibility, following WCAG, without public conformance claims, and use WAI resources.
… I would expect 3 will continue that tradition.

JF: I disagree that the decision to require public claims as part of 3 has been made or not.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask if this is a subgroup or full meeting?

JF: If protocols are not going to have any impact on normative score, seems like more of an EO activity rather AGWG.
… So is this part of wcag 3 or not?

Jeanne: I would like to focus on consolidating work and ideas on evaluating procedures so we can get back to AGWG.

Jaunita: I would like to leave as outstanding question is that okay with everyone on the call?

Jaunita: I do like the document well enough at this point. Tabling the conformance discussion for now.
… I want to ask Mike Gower to take one more passs.

Michael Cooper: It does look reasonably complete to me.

Le Siveus: I have editorial suggestion to move bullets around.
… Seems a bit circular at moment.

<jeanne2> /+1 to edit

<Le> +1

<jeanne2> +1 to accepting MC edits

Jaunita: any concerns for other edits?

<jaunita_george> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<Le> +1

<joeyang> +1

Jaunita: I will accept edits then, so document is now clean.

New first paragraph: Protocols provide evaluable procedures to meet Outcomes in WCAG 3 where the outcomes are not necessarily measured. We can measure qualitative tests without using protocols and those are defined as methods in WCAG 3. Where protocols are useful are in measuring and evaluating processes and outcomes that are difficult or unable to be measured with methods. (Example: plainlanguage.gov mostly provides the gu[CUT]

Jaunita: Please stop reading at horizontal line, Notes and Outdated Proposals.

Suzanne: Two examples which are there now are not quite complete.

Jaunita: Not hearing any concerns for moving one example up.
… One other needs a little more completion...

Two examples are Style Guide for Writing Heading and link to model from Center for Plain Language.

Jeanne: Non-text content belongs below the line. It can added pretty soon because Outcome work is progressing.

Le Silveus: Can we add an example about working with PWD and advocacy groups?

Jaunita: We have that as high-level note 4/22, as user testing.

Le volunteers to move that paragraph up into the main.

Jaunita: I would like for the heading structure for the examples to be clearer.

Jaunita: Any other editorial or substantive changes?

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<jeanne2> +1

<MichaelC> +1

Jaunita: straw poll if good

<Le> +1

[Jaunita does one more pass through google doc]

<jaunita_george> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Accept clean portion of the proposal as our recommendation for the larger group

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

<jeanne2> +1

<Le> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept clean portion of the proposal as our recommendation for the larger group

scribe will also copy/paste clean portion to list as part of minutes

Notes that on problem statement is unfinished

Jaunita: I will put something in as outline of issue
… please be encourages to provide light edits and comments

Suzanne: looks good

Jeanne: Can we add something about providing motivation to go beyond minimum level of accessibility?

[Jaunita edits]

Jeanne: how about continue to improve

Suzanne: not going beyond, because protocols are part of compliance

<jeanne2> +1

<Le> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

Jeanne: So, going beyond wcag **2** compliance

Jaunita: plan is for discussion with merged protocols group, then to AGWG

Rachael confirms.

Jaunita: Next meeting is combined (both) protocols group

<jeanne2> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/

Jaunita / JF / Jeanne / Rachal discussion one missing piece

Jaunita: Next meeting is Friday at 8:00

Summary of resolutions

  1. Accept clean portion of the proposal as our recommendation for the larger group
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/test rests/test results/

Succeeded: s/part of three/part of wcag 3/

Succeeded: s/+1 to eldit//+1 to edit

Succeeded: s/lm61613@gmail.com//

Maybe present: jaunita, Jeanne, MC, Suzanne