Protocols-2022-03-25

Co-lead/facilitation changes

ca: JF away for a while, Juanita will step in as co-facilitator

Discuss changing meeting time, to be followed with a doodle pole via email

ca: a few requests for different meeting time, will send around a scheduling poll

looking for candidate slots; for me later in day Friday (Mountain time) good

mc: Friday sometime about it for me

<ShawnT> Fridays are good for me too

st: don´t want to overlap WCAG 2.2 meeting

<Jaunita_George__> Fridays between 8-9, 12-1 and after 2:00pm work best for me.

ja: European time, so not too late

hopefully I can make whatever is schedule, Fridays generally good

js: current time good, other AG meetings after this, then it gets late in the day Europe

ca: will make a poll from this input

until we announce a time change, plan on the current time

hopefully we can do that by next week

Brainstorm plain language requirements and government adoption as our first protocol exercise

<Chuck_> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ274/pdf/PLAW-111publ274.pdf

<Chuck_> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport

ca: picking up from 2 weeks ago https://www.w3.org/2022/03/11-wcag3-protocols-minutes

we were gonna go through above links and exercise the concept

jg: remember a different resource for plain language

<jenniferS> https://www.plainlanguage.gov

<Chuck_> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport

ca: ^ is what we wanted to review

note evaluation is included in it

two resources were evaluated for 2021

ca: chair hat off, think this is measuring how well following guidance was done

think we´re more exploring how hard you´re working towards it

i.e., if you study hard for a test but get a low grade, we care about the effort

think they´re measuring outcomes, which we wanted to avoid

jg: support a third party measuring results, it´s useful

but how that plays out here, it seems to fit with the maturity model work

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to say effort also has quality and quantity aspects

<Chuck_> michaelc: Whether or we are measuring the effort or outcome, we can measure both. We can measure how much effort, but we shouldn't just measure how hard, but the quality of the effort.

<Chuck_> michaelc: We should measure quality of effort.

<Jaunita_George__> +1 to MichaelC

js: plain writing act is the law, which this resource supports

I agree with JF that protocol is about the due diligence to meet the requirements

-1 to third party evaluation

that may be out of reach for some orgs

keeping in mind protocols are for more subjective things

there could be different views of the outcome, even if we agree in the inputs

<ShawnT> I found the Department of Labor's report :https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting

ca: +1, though for brainstorming third party review is still a thing to consider

as having value, though we don´t want to get stuck in that as opposed to the protocol itself

+1 to the quality of effort metric

<jenniferS> The link ShawnT found is interesting.

<ShawnT> Plain Language Quick Reference Guide: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/general/Plain-Language-Quick-Reference-Guide.pdf

<Chuck_> michaelc: I heard 3rd party review as nice to have. Maybe at highest conformance levels, I don't think it should be a standard part of procotols.

<jenniferS> I do wish they'd included showing their homework along with the grade.

st: want more of JA perspective

<jenniferS> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting-reports

ja: I see 2 kinds of docs

1) guidance doc, like coga content usable, or plainlanguage guidelines

still having success-criterion-like content

2) process doc, says what you should do to achieve the result

these two types often get mixed together, making it more confusing

when we measure / evaluate

that´s about motivating or supporting use of these docs

not about end result

so for me, think we need to describe how to document effort

<Jaunita_George__> That's a good point Jake about differences in languages

<missed context> note plainlanguage.gov doesn´t cover most languages

accessibility statement might document the effort you´re putting forth

but won´t prescribe towards what the effort is put

<Jaunita_George__> Can we require a certain amount of measurable change per statement and a certain amount of statements per year?

that forms the basis for accountability

<ShawnT> I think this is what Jack is talking about: https://www.government.nl/accessibility

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to talk about maturity model

ca: I thought a maturity model could be an example of a protocol

<ShawnT> Can I get a link to the maturity model?

now we´re seeing the reverse as well perhaps?

https://w3c.github.io/maturity-model/

<Chuck_> michaelc: provide maturity model link

<Chuck_> michaelc: I heard jake differentiating guidance documents (the accessibility benefits) and the process (how you are chasing it). I think it's good to not mix.

<Chuck_> michaelc: I see protocols as the process. We are not in consensus on whether the guidance needs to be part of the protocol.

<Chuck_> michaelc: or if protocols should leave guidance open ended. Understand it to be a separate question.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to comment on the two doc types

ja: in maturity model, have looked at some ISO standards for same thing

not sure we´re chasing that, but see gray area

need better distinction between maturity model work and protocols work

so we don´t reinvent each others´ wheels / conflit

c/conflit/conflict/

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask about our consensus

ca: what do you mean about not having consensus?

<Chuck_> michaelc: We don't have consensus on how the guidance is incorporated into a protocol.

jg: picking up on the plain language, clearly English specific

it might be a requirement for a protocol that it be language agnostic

also think we need to define our purpose better

we should define better why we´re doing protocols

<Jaunita_George__> And defining why will help us choose the proper protocols

<Chuck_> michaelc: I don't think we can require that protocols be language agnostic. It's an important space. In Coga if we limit ourselves to language agnostic we eliminate a lot of relevant guidance.

<Chuck_> michaelc: We need to solve that problem, and there are other domains where it's a problem for us, and that impacts all of WCAG 3.

<Chuck_> michaelc: Going back, I see protocols at same level as methods. There could be non-agnostic protocols, and you pick the appropriate one.

<jenniferS> For what protocols should be doing: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols

ca:

<jenniferS> From Protocol's definitions: "Decision: Protocols measures inputs and not outcomes"

ca: going back to exercise, it does seem the report is measuring results, which seems not what we´re chasing

js:

<jenniferS> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting

<jenniferS> https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport

js: ^ that reports on outcomes, but if you click through, it goes more into what was done

so really, the plain language act is being used as the protocol

not plainlanguage.gov

see examples of inputs being reported on there

<Chuck_> Details can be found on this page: https://www.dol.gov/general/plainwriting/2021AnnualComplianceReport, under the heading "Agency Activities and Accomplishments"

<jenniferS> https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/

so it reports on activities they did, but it doesn´t circle back to the requirements and cast it as a protocol

pointing to the specific guidance in context of activities you´re following would enhance it

I extrapolate, perhaps people can use the law as the protocol, and show their work

ja: think we should allow orgs to pick their protocols

<Jaunita_George__> +1 to Jake

our job is just to define what a protocol is for this purpose

the protocol shouldn´t define the guidance you follow

just help you pick it and report on it

jg: +1 in general

<Jaunita_George__> https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/10/14/the-enron-code-of-ethics-handbook-from-july-2000-is-a-fascinating-read/

considering small orgs that can´t follow big fancy protocols

<example of a large company with industry-leading ethics statement, which had a spectacular ethics meltdown>

so just having the protocol isn´t enough

<jenniferS> Good point, @Jaunita_George! It sounds like the protocols could be required to be from a non-connected source?

large orgs can find loopholes

smaller orgs, more difficult

<Zakim> Chuck_, you wanted to ask Jennifer about "activities and accomplishments"

ca: back to exercise, does the candidate protocol fit? we´re exploring the edges

I don´t see the evaluation as lining up in the protocol

but see evidence of orgs showing their effort

which is more what I think a protocol is

don´t think all protocols have to be this granular

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to relate us-defined, self-defined, and guidance and to suggest purpose of exercise

<Chuck_> michaelc: I didn't interpret this as lets look at plain language. The purpose is to see what we like about it.

<Chuck_> michaelc: We should do that with other examples. This is a tangent, but it will be important in the future.

<Chuck_> michaelc: We have to decide if protocols are defined by maintainers of wcag3 or if they are self defined. If we don't provide any definitions... that's impacting what we are thinking about the conversation.

<Chuck_> michaelc: We need to provide some protocols for orgs that want somethings canned, and we should provide a means to write protocols for orgs that want to create their own. We need to define requirements clearly.

<Chuck_> michaelc: I think protocols can be big or small. They can be general, they can be specific. Those are not part of this exercise, but I think we are getting tangled up in these questions.

js: +1 that orgs might not use protocols they developed themselves

ca: out of time!

scheduling poll forthcoming

next meeting at this time next Friday, until otherwise announced