Meeting minutes
<ThompsonS> What's the Zoom link?
Review/edit current draft of presentation
Jaunita: I sent over to Protocols list the latest draft preso.
Jaunita: We are going to review and determine if there are any edits that need to be made.
<bruce_bailey> @MC -- pipes work ? (in addition to slash)
Jaunita: We have both proposals. If there are edits, I can take notes as fast as I can, but may be better to send notes in slides using different font color, or just comment them in by using "review".
Jaunita: Don't want to use google docs, using PP.
JF: I provide alt text :-)
Jaunita: Reviewing "background" slide.
Jaunita: Everyone ok with the background?
<no objections listed>
Hi Shawn, working on getting you a link you can use that doesn't require passcode.
<Jaunita_George> Try this link Shawn: /mit.zoom.us/wc/98636601356/join?track_id=&jmf_code=&meeting_result=&tk=&cap=undefined&refTK=&rn=true&po=3&epk=ZSNJ0k97p0oec6qViTDh3Is5xoobjUK0yJ8t4IlAE98DDFNYgw0.HUmYBdzHQzTxRVav&wpk=wcpk2d865b49755c0d3c24bb6e8ded882374///www.w3.org/events/meetings/f828eba1-cf1d-44ce-b68e-b22406b25ae1/20220422T120000
mg: Although the protocols slide is accurate, there's a lot of discussion between protocols and user process. Ways of capturing information beyond the straight forward tests we are use to in 2.x. Not necessarily where I explored in this space.
Jaunita: Are you talking about evaluating procedures?
mg: This spawned out of the realization that we needed to go beyond standards ways of measuring. There's pre-cursor of exploring measuring content beyond the 2.1 standards.
JF: That was never in the original proposal. As we started talking, some gravitated towards that term.
JF: Methodology or protocol, but that was not part of the original proposal. It was about for subjective content, it cannot be measured, but we want to encourage doing those non measurable activities.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say are we talking about the protocols proposal or the catalyst for it? Which is the the background for?
mg: I'm focused if the background talks about the protocols proposal or the catalyst.
mg; When I brought up various discussions, you brought up how it could be tackled. If this background is about the protocols proposal, or if it talks to the space we are trying to resolve.
JF: 2 very distinct proplems because they share a common name.
Poornima: Is it about going beyond, or the org identifying the accessibility standards.
JF: Was that a q and who is the question to?
Poornima: Encourage orgs to go beyond minimal guidelines. This is going beyond minimal accessibility, or for identifying the right guidance. Just trying to understand if that's part of it.
Jaunita: Reviewing some items harder to evaluating, and possibly evaluating quality of output or quality of adoption. Other group is crediting for adopting a protocol.
<mbgower> +1 to JF on "minimal"
JF: It's not about going beyond minimal accessibility. Now, we have as one of our overarching goal, we'll have gold and silver and bronze. Logic tells me that silver will improve upon bronze, and gold will improve upon gold. We don't know what that implied stratification is.
JF: Right now, you lose points when you fail. There is no reward for trying to do the right thing. Heart of protocols and assertions, publicly making a promise to make the work effort. We can't measure the final outcome, because it will become contectual.
JF: If we can give comparative examples... it's about adding points to total score by being proactive. Only way we have scoring now is reactive.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say the "hard to measure" phrase is what I'm focusing on here. That was the problem space, IMO
mg: that last line is where I'm focused. That is the commonality on the two items. Focusing on things difficult to achieve in the 2.0 model.
Jaunita: We have proposals linked, and a comparison table. Protocols and assertions are the first we'll discuss.
Jaunita: We can get all your feedback in.
Jaunita: We have overview slide.
Jaunita: Any thoughts on this content here?
bruce: I think we ought to get a static cleaner version of both proposals referenced from slide 3. Still google docs, notes and formatting. They aren't quite snapshots.
Jaunita: How do we want to go about this? Use this time? Or tackle next meeting, or work on next meeting?
<mbgower> +1 agree, just note future stuff to do
<JF> +1
Chuck: I suggest (not as chair) we focus on preso this meeting.
<bruce_bailey> i agree with focusing today on PPT
Jaunita: OK if we accept that?
+1
<Poornima> +1
Jaunita: Would folks prefer I read outloud, or read themselves?
<team taking time to read and review "Protocols and Assertions Overview".
JF: There is a second slide in the series.
bruce: Statement about "must be publicly posted and available for review". Is that part of this proposal, or ISO 9000?
JF: This proposal. If and when a challenge happens, the neutral arbitrator will make the decision. Company asserts plain language, customer disagrees, judge can review protocol and make an informed decision.
JF: Key is it is all public and about informed decisions. No paywalls. Public is part of accountability.
Bruce: Thinking about bridging language. Some statements are not persuasive or compelling. Even fed agencies have agreed on reporting, and that's a protocol. There would be a friction to posting those results.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to object to Making content usable as a current protocol
Rachael: I object to slide 5. Making content usable being called out as protocol is very risky for this document. It oversimplifies the content, and would not lead to treating the content as it is needed.
JF: I do not agree with that interpretation. The motivator for this proposal was to how to make this document part of WCAG 3. I don't know how to do that. All requirements can't be measured.
Jaunita: COGA may be working on how to encorporate into WCAG 3.
Jaunita: We may want to give them availability to make proposals in that vein.
Poornima: Question on slide 7 (3 of 3). The second point <reads> we are talking about this protocols at org level. Means can we refer to it as planning stage? UX is just one part of the org. Planning is at stage where it takes place.
Poornima: Planning stage comes first, then UX stage. Good point to start, and call it out at org level?
Jaunita: I agree. I've written things that include charts, and put in req and planning stage.
<bruce_bailey> SDLC stands for ?
JF: Planning is in mix. Protocols are applied at design and UX stages. Make help easy to find.
JF: Where does that account for that? Where rubber hits road, one of our req is make help easy to find.
JF: When I'm working on design, I can make informed decision.
Rachael: If I'm understanding objections being overruled, can we capture that in a note as a concern?
chair is scribing, and difficult to scribe and chair.
Jaunita: We should put the editors notes in one of these slides. Maybe in the title slide.
no, will figure it out.
Jaunita: We can go next person
mb: 3 things. There is the comment button and you can add a comment on either slide.
Jaunita: Adding a place for editors notes.
mb: I don't slide why the COGA users guide would not be considered a protocol. I think we will have to put in more discussion on different views.
mg: on 7 I think the use of word "solve" is problematic on this. I think it has to address a problem. May not address, but may improve. There's other places where protocols can be implemented. I like proactive and not reactive.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to ask why the COGA info isn't considered a protocol and to say that slide 7's use of "solve" and "UI/UX" is overly specific
Jaunita: Quick question, I don't understand comment on slide 5.
mg: I think that listing COGA usable guide is a concern. May be a learning opportunity.
q/
<Rachael> Chuck: coga has concerns that making content usable is being presented as a protocol. In an effort to persuade, it may be helpful to use an alternative
Jaunita: Is it ok for purposes of this proposal to take the picture out? We can revisit and talk to Coga team and discuss ways to look at it from protocol lens.
JF: It seems to me that everyone gets caught up on the word "protocol". On this slide. Maybe non measurable guidelines is a better way to call it out.
slide 9 calls it a potential protocol. It compares the 2 examples.
JF: These are things you need to do to support needs of disabilities.
Jaunita: May ruffle some feathers. I don't think COGA agrees that it can or can't be measured.
JF: Couldn't be measured objectively in 2.x. All of these goals came forward in WCAG 2.1.
JF: COGA wrote a non normative note. That's the history of this document.
Jaunita: Concern is to say it can't.
mg: In the same way we established on taking notes, maybe we don't decide now. Maybe we make a note. I'm puzzled too, but we won't solve today. If we keep discussing we'll get stuck. I suggest we take a note.
+1 to MG
JF: To mikes points, I'm fine with it trying to address a real problem. I think you focused on the point that it is pro active and not reactive. I see it at the design stage, but absolutely planning stage.
JF: Intention is it is used at beginning and not end, sift left.
Jaunita: Is this more characteristic?
Poornima: Any point in the process, this may bring some confusion. If we are specific, as we talk about ... we want to say "early" in the stage that could best fit here.
mb: I think they should be quantified. FOR Example, or SUCH as, that will be fine. Demonstrive
Poornima: echos back proposal.
<mbgower> sure
+1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<ShawnT> +1
Jaunita: Any other suggestions or tweaks?
Jaunita: Slide 8. I'll give everyone a moment.
JF: Feels like a team of one.
Jaunita: We are on slide 9. Slide 8 everyone is ok.
Jaunita: Reviewing "examples of potential" protocols.
JF: Checklists.
Jaunita: I have checklist... any other comments?
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say not checklist
bruce: I'm concerned with portraying as checklist.
<Rachael> +1 to Bruce
jf: I agree. These are the outcomes or guidelines that the docs seek to be met. When you go into the doc, the structure of the doc. I'm trying to compare and contrast, both docs take same general structure.
JF: You have user stories to apply.
JF: In that regard both docs share structure
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say why not just remove "checklist" if that's a problem?
mg: Can we remove checklist? Seems demostrative.
JF, Bruce: Fine
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i agree with outline
<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to discuss Le
<mbgower> +1
Le: My comment is related to visual clutter. Same initial heading. It's not necessary to include "guideline" and "objective". Will decrease clutter and make it easier to read.
<bruce_bailey> +1 to taking off words !
Poor
Poornima: We talked about old silver bronze, and now guidelines. HOw will the ratings be assigned. For each of guideline?
Jaunita: I think the statement of whether or not you followed is going to be a public asertion on web site.
JF: It's a programatically linked assertion. ERL at W3C for example.
JF: Created to be XML. It can be expressed, structured mechanism.
JF: Mechanics can be discussed later, the idea is that there is a machine readable document that is linked to asset.
JF: Because of that, that's now introducing what lawyers will call institutional risk.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note these are how they are presented in the associated documents
JF: Minor point, in those 2 docs, the requirements are presented that way. It's verbatim.
JF: If we remove them it's editorial.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that "guideline" and "objective" are terms used in docs. put them in headings of columns
mg: Take out guideline, and take out objectives. That will work.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say programmatically linked assertion seems aspirational -- even with EARL
<JF> +1 to Mike
bruce: That's great. Responding to JF's comments. The assertion needs to be machine readible. We don't have that with these 2 examples. I would love to keep as best practice, or promoting. Inviting public scrutiny, requringin machine readable seems blockers.
JF: I hear that concern. What I will suggest is that there is already a precident in epub.
Bruce: That's a good one.
JF: There is in fact an OPF file, a manifest. Metadata declarations. Those values are recorded at schema.org. It's tried and tested.
<Poornima> I'm curious to learn about existing automated machine readable mechanism at a later point, thanks for sharing information.
JF: It feels aspirational, we've never done it before. The mechanism exists and has been used before.
Jaunita: Are we ok with this slide?
+1
<bruce_bailey> +1 to slide
<Poornima> +1
mg: Objectives should be lower case.
bruce: epub 3? Is that appropriate to put here?
<mbgower> Links to these docs would help
JF: I don't see that as being... programatic link, is in epub. Idea of informative guidance does not exist in epub.
jf: making statements we can do that today and are doing that today.
bruce: I suggest putting epub 3 in here. There's a well defined process of validating an epub 3 doc
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say add links
mg: If we got links lets add them.
Jaunita: Made notes there, we can work on that offline.
Jaunita: We have a couple of slides for evaluating procedures.
Jaunita: Thoughts or action items?
Jaunita: Evaluating slide 12.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that the ePub linking example could be referenced on slide 7
JF: Back to bruce's point, I recommend slide 7 for mention of EPUB3.
Jaunita: Back to slide 12. Any objections to this language?
mg: This is good. Maybe "some protocols CAN be written", but can sit as is.
Jaunita: And the example?
mc: I had comment I sent to Jeanne and Juanita. bullet about making content usable, we aren't evaluating that. I have a couple of word suggestions.
mc: How the org would evaluate the protocol, and how the org would evaluate their path...
Jaunita: I'll take via email.
Jaunita: reviews MC's suggestion.
+1 first suggestion
mg: I think you can cut it off at progress. I don't think you need the second part.
mc: I can live with that.
Jaunita: Get rid of reference to content usable?
mc: I'm neutral, I want to be accurate on how we refer to it.
Jaunita: We'll take this back
Jaunita: Any q before we close? We'll work more next week.