Meeting minutes
<jaunita_george> AGWG-2022-07-15
Review Progress on Evaluating Procedures Example (25 minutes)
Jaunita: taking up the 2nd agenda item since John isn't here
<jaunita_george> https://
Michael: Added new section 5 after the testing section
Michael: some things remaining for pull request
Michael: it is that important that it needs it's own section, it may not be possible to conform to WCAG 3 without having some protocols
Michael: because of the controversy about "protocols" named them outcome implementation procedures
Michael: took material from google doc, tried not to introduce things that don't have consensus, shifted audience to external from internal
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to note that we need to adjust terms in the editor's note
Michael: briefly introduced each of the subsections in Section 5
MichaelC: delineated between smaller organizations and larger ones
MichaelC: will add plain language for all organizations, evaluation example for larger org
MichaelC: 5.2 is a direct copy and paste from google doc, needs some wordsmithing
<jaunita_george> ack
MichaelC: Reports needs to be fleshed out, but tried to stay within consensus
Jaunita: Supported outcomes - you have to meet the baseline first. This should be what goes above and beyond, like personalization
Jaunita: how are we supporting each of these outcomes to a greater degree than the baseline using this guidance. How is it adding in a process outcome quality way
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about FPO and to talk about universal protocol
MichaelC: for outcomes, copy and pasted from content usable
MichaelC: needs a disclaimer
MichaelC: for non testable outcomes for small-mid organizations, think about it when you are doing your work. Might need a "base protocol"
Jaunita: for this example, we can focus on supporting one outcome for the example procedure
Jaunita: We don't have a lot of guidance for supporting some outcomes
Jaunita: Create a default procedure for bronze, evaluation criteria for Silver or Gold would be stricter
MichaelC: would Jaunita be able to work on an example?
Michael: Can integrate anything in Git if Jaunita gives the material to him
Chuck: presentation not yet scheduled
Chuck: wanted to present Aug 2, which means content has to be done July 26 to have time for survey
Jaunita: will send Michael her thoughts, but is on PTO next week
<Chuck_> Sheri: I'm happy to participate in drafting if help is desired.
Poornima: volunteered to help with examples in draft
Michael: talked about adding subsections or milestone points under evaluation
Jaunita: what is in the example is OK for a Bronze level
<Chuck_> Sheri: Is this an opportunity to link to WCAG 2.2 help criteria, or are we looking to avoid?
<Chuck_> Michael: Not for purposes of this example.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we should be careful of saying Bronze, Silver, Gold. This does not have agreement
Jaunita: what should we use as an alternative? Levels 1,2,3?
Rachel: Keep it generic. The concept of level is agreed to, it's what the levels are called is the issue. Talk about higher levels, lower levels, etc.
Jeanne: agreed with that approach
Jaunita: Higher levels will focus on procedural content
<Chuck_> Sheri: No objection, good approach
Jaunita: will write it up
Jaunita: TL;DR will review implementation and results at higher levels
Jaunita: use the listserve to give Michael feedback if you aren't comfortable working directly in the document
<jaunita_george> Ways to contribute:
<jaunita_george> 1. Email Michael Cooper and CC our group; 2. Ask Michael for the html file and edit directly; 3. Edit in Github
<jaunita_george> Also 4. Create a google doc and send to Michael
rssagent, make minutes
<Rachael> +1 to thank you Michael for all the work
rssagent: make minutes