24 June 2022


JakeAbma, JF
Chuck, Rachael

Meeting minutes

JF: Jaunita will be presenting this deck for everyone.
… name change from Points to Protocols to "Protocols and Assertions"

<Chuck> rachael: Saying, that names aren't consistent across slides.

<Chuck> JF: will review docs and align names.

<Chuck> back to you rachael

JF: Rewarded by adopting protocols
… [reads slide 6-7]

Review/edit current draft of presentation

[reads slide 8]
… documentation is public record of promise

[reads slide 9]

[reads slides 10-12]

JF: [reads slides 13] Organizations early in accessibility often conflate usability and accessibility

JF: [reads slides 15]

JF: [reads slides 16]

JF: [reads slides 17]

JF: [reads slides 18]

JF: [reads slides 19]

JF: [reads slides 20]

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to review action items

Jake: Only one thing about the shift left. I'm not sure it is what we deliberately want to mention. It needs to happen but the way you mentioned it, it sounded like shift left starts at buisness, UX. IT sounded more important for them then developers.

JF: tons of good guidance, best practices. We all know would be optimum decision path. We want people to be more than technically conformant.

JF: ACT type tests are mechanical at base. Looking at code, whereas this is a bit softer. "Make help easy to fine", user story is important, but how to we make it happen is contextual.

JF: In that regard it is instructional. Here's some use cases and examples.

JF: that's the goal. If we have this vetted info, we want to give it some value.

JF: Best way to get somebody to do something is show them why they have an advantage doing so.

JF: If you adopt protocols you will be rewarded.

Poornima: Great preso. Slide 12. Question on 3rd point. In my opinion I still think that W3C or WCAG subject matter experts define protocols.

Pornima: We can get some reviews from them, but confused by "public". Who will do the self-defined protocol?

s /Pornima/Poornima/

JF: [Reiterates question]

Poornima: Another part is my opinion, some protocols, I'm thinking that the superset will be returned by AGWG or W3C subject matter experts.

Poornima: or sub-groups, someone in the space to get some feedback to add or review or something. However the superset will be defined by W3C experts.

MC: The mechanics, the proposal is open ended because we are leaving space for it, we don't know what will work out yet. We expect AG will need to provide some protocols as samples.

MC: In this proc, we set examples for what protocols look like. Orgs can write their own, but the format is very important.

MC: If they are using a self defined protocol in a statement, then they have to publish publicly, so that it can be reviewed and critiqued publicly.

MC: In terms of bubblying up, protocols in the wild and A/G, we'll be open to that. But not good experience with crowd sourcing in the past.

Jaunita: Protocols proposal outlines some things it will have. Those will keep it in a box, so folks that adopt a protocol or write a protocol will understand that there is a certain quality in place due to stricter requirements.

Jaunita: They will be at outcome level, we will have certain things that are necessary for using a protocol for that conformance level.

JF: I have a concern that you say they can have a self defined protocol. What happens if company publishes a protocol, who decides if a 3rd party authored protocol meets the requirements?

<Poornima> +1

JF: If they write something but not solving. If we hand off to non subject matter experts, we have no control.

MC: That's a question for us to discuss in a group. That will be a broader point of debate, we are clarifying now.

MC: Preliminary answer: it's similar to yours with a public statement. The public nature of the statement keeps you honest. I don't see us policing protocols.

MC: Maybe in special circumstances. The public publication allows people to compare, and that gets into social pressure to enforce.

Jaunita: Should discuss as a larger group, both points are recorded in editors notes.

<Poornima> I agree discussing with larger group

Jaunita: And ability for orgs to write their own. We table for now, and return to deck. JF if you are alright, we can continue to review on your screen.

Jaunita: We can update slide notes. Any suggestions?

Chuck: Any other updates to this deck that should be made?

JF: One very minor layout concern. I have the most recent version I will send to you after this call.

Poornima: Can we add slide notes on our own? Or do we go through this group an email?

Jaunita: Not in google drive, make it easier to edit. Idea would be to send up to larger AGWG group next week. We want to get it wrapped up in this call. Do you have some edits for us to add?

JF: We have MC on call too. I'm concerned about the idea of sending the deck to everyone on mailing list. Is that wise? I would like to get deck publicly hosted. Are there any rules?

MC: We aren't constrained by rules, but we don't really have a great place set up.

JF: Attaching to email and sending to list, feels odd.

MC: Happens frequently. This one would be small and would be allowed through.

Poornima: No updates for now.

Jaunita: MC, would it be ok if you add me to google drive so I can send?

MC: I have to consult with Jeanne. I will try.

Jaunita: Can I get access?

MC: Jeanne may have given me admin.

Jaunita: Is everyone ok with taking deck, sending it around for last minute edits, then presenting it next week?

+1 to presenting next week.

<MichaelC> +1

<Poornima> +1

Jaunita: +1 if ok to present, 0 if no opinion, -1 if objections.

MC: What account do you use for google?

Jaunita: Same

<JF> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

Jaunita: Preso moves forward. Are we on agenda?

JF: yes.

JF: Last 30 minutes of Tuesday call.

Jaunita: Perfect. If nobody has q or objections we can leave early.

MC: Should have editor access now.


Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Maybe present: Chuck, Jake, Jaunita, MC, Poornima, Pornima