15 July 2022


Chuck_, jaunita_george, jeanne, Le, MichaelC, Rachael, Sheri_B-H__

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://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluating-procedures-proposal/guidelines/index.html#outcome-implementation-procedures

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

<MichaelC> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/evaluating-procedures-proposal/examples/outcome-implementation-procedures/example1.html

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

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).


Maybe present: Chuck, Jaunita, Michael, Poornima, Rachel, rssagent