IRC log of wcag3-protocols on 2022-05-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

11:54:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
11:54:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-irc
11:57:43 [JF]
JF has joined #wcag3-protocols
11:57:56 [JF]
agenda?
11:58:15 [JF]
zakim, start this meeting
11:58:15 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
11:58:16 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), JF
11:58:59 [JF]
meeting: WCAG 3 Protocols Meeting
11:59:42 [jaunita_george]
zakim, start meeting
11:59:42 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
11:59:43 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), jaunita_george
12:00:14 [jaunita_george]
agenda+ Evaluating Procedures Proposal
12:00:35 [jaunita_george]
agenda+ Points for Protocol Proposal
12:01:31 [jaunita_george]
Meeting: Protocols-052722
12:01:39 [jaunita_george]
Chair: Jaunita George
12:01:43 [MichaelC]
present+
12:01:51 [jaunita_george]
rrsagent, make logs world
12:02:11 [jaunita_george]
zakim, take up item 1
12:02:11 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Evaluating Procedures Proposal -- taken up [from jaunita_george]
12:02:43 [jaunita_george]
zakim, pick a victim
12:02:43 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose MichaelC
12:02:55 [MichaelC]
scribe: MichaelC
12:03:47 [MichaelC]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit
12:05:06 [MichaelC]
jg: <reads from proposal>
12:09:55 [jennifer_]
jennifer_ has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:10:00 [jennifer_]
present+
12:10:04 [Rachael]
q+
12:10:54 [MichaelC]
jf: what is goal for this review?
12:11:11 [MichaelC]
jg: send the proposals to the WG
12:11:30 [MichaelC]
don´t expect consensus of the subgroup, we have two areas of consensus
12:11:47 [MichaelC]
jf: will we review first?
12:11:54 [MichaelC]
jg: can do some cleanup before submitting
12:12:07 [jaunita_george]
ack Rachael
12:12:14 [jeanne]
jeanne has joined #wcag3-protocols
12:12:28 [MichaelC]
rbm: I see next step as solicit review from the parent groups of both proposals
12:12:29 [jeanne]
present+
12:12:42 [MichaelC]
we can refine them if it´s productive
12:12:42 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
12:12:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html jeanne
12:12:46 [Rachael]
present+
12:13:40 [MichaelC]
jf: I see lots of questions open
12:13:50 [Rachael]
q+
12:13:59 [MichaelC]
jg: because we have two areas of consensus, we expect that
12:14:05 [Rachael]
q-
12:14:10 [MichaelC]
taking to the larger group will give us more points of view
12:14:25 [MichaelC]
don´t think we will be able to agree here on a single proposal
12:15:21 [MichaelC]
per RBM we can start to prepare the editors´ notes of outstanding issues
12:15:26 [MichaelC]
zakim, next item
12:15:26 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Points for Protocol Proposal -- taken up [from jaunita_george]
12:15:30 [MichaelC]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit
12:15:34 [jennifer_]
I thought I asked a question about the two approaches, and the response was that the two approaches would work in tandem.
12:16:24 [MichaelC]
jf: my understanding of conformance is that you perform ACT-style tests
12:16:42 [MichaelC]
failing tests lowers the score and potentially conformance level
12:16:56 [MichaelC]
losing points is demoralizing
12:17:14 [MichaelC]
think protocols can be used to (re)gain some points
12:17:34 [MichaelC]
define what success looks like given unknown parameters
12:18:02 [jeanne]
q+ to ask that a concern be listed that protocols can be gamed to pass a minimum on a site that isn't accessible.
12:18:35 [MichaelC]
promising to adopt best practices docs gives you points
12:19:11 [jeanne]
ack je
12:19:11 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to ask that a concern be listed that protocols can be gamed to pass a minimum on a site that isn't accessible.
12:19:11 [jaunita_george]
ack jeanne
12:19:13 [MichaelC]
protocol gives content creator info to make well informed decision
12:19:24 [Rachael]
q+ to clarify what would go forward with this proposal
12:19:45 [JF]
Q+
12:21:07 [MichaelC]
js: should note concern about raising score where it @@
12:21:32 [MichaelC]
s/js:/jeanne:/
12:21:37 [jaunita_george]
ack Rachael
12:21:37 [Zakim]
Rachael, you wanted to clarify what would go forward with this proposal
12:21:41 [MichaelC]
jennifer: @@
12:22:13 [jeanne]
s/@@/ would otherwise fail a minimum bar of objective tests. It makes it more vulnerable to gaming
12:22:29 [jeanne]
rrsagent, make minutes
12:22:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html jeanne
12:22:33 [MichaelC]
rbm: we´d add all concerns to either proposal
12:22:49 [jaunita_george]
ack JF
12:23:12 [MichaelC]
topic: Discussion of proposals
12:23:49 [MichaelC]
jf: my concern with evaluating procedures proposal allows self-documented protocols
12:24:09 [MichaelC]
could lead to toothless protocols
12:24:37 [MichaelC]
orgs do this all the time but it doesn´t necessarily improve accessibility
12:25:25 [MichaelC]
jg: the evaluating procedures proposal includes requirements for self-documented protocols
12:25:39 [MichaelC]
and states that they must be public so they can be inspected
12:25:50 [MichaelC]
jf: who vets them?
12:26:19 [MichaelC]
recognize AG can be a bottleneck, but we need rigour
12:27:00 [MichaelC]
jg: protocols relate to specific outcomes and are measured in context of that
12:27:20 [jeanne]
q+ to ask how Points for Protocols addresses this?
12:27:36 [MichaelC]
jf: don´t see how we evaluate stuff that can´t be measured
12:28:08 [MichaelC]
it´s still subjective
12:29:02 [MichaelC]
jeanne: how does Points for Protocols provide the rigour? I see the same question applying to both
12:29:05 [MichaelC]
ack j
12:29:05 [Zakim]
jeanne, you wanted to ask how Points for Protocols addresses this?
12:29:21 [MichaelC]
jf: protocols are vetted by AG
12:29:50 [MichaelC]
hence subject matter experts
12:30:00 [Rachael]
q+
12:31:02 [MichaelC]
jeanne: that´s not clear in the proposal right now, think it needs editing
12:31:19 [MichaelC]
jf: AG doesn´t have to author all protocols
12:32:28 [MichaelC]
but it reviews them before they can be used to gain conformance points
12:32:43 [MichaelC]
jeanne: that needs to be written up
12:32:45 [jaunita_george]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit#
12:33:04 [MichaelC]
ack r
12:33:07 [jaunita_george]
ack Rachael
12:33:17 [jennifer_]
q+
12:33:36 [MichaelC]
rbm: might be useful to compare the proposals in table form to find the similarities and differences
12:33:58 [jennifer_]
+1
12:34:21 [MichaelC]
ack j
12:34:36 [jeanne]
New document -> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gQ8k6Dkaxnl9fSY3hTbRzTGgdr-FTdlO5fmU5wPSI5E/edit
12:34:49 [MichaelC]
jennifer: I think we should come together with a harmonized proposal
12:34:58 [JF]
Q+
12:35:01 [Rachael]
Just a note that multiple proposals at the exploratory phase is built into our process
12:35:43 [MichaelC]
need to be nice to each other, hear one another, approach with best of intentions
12:35:48 [jaunita_george]
ack JF
12:36:28 [MichaelC]
jf: @@ haven´t decided what we´re doing with conformance
12:37:00 [MichaelC]
public declaration of adopting protocol
12:37:06 [MichaelC]
accomplishes @@
12:37:41 [MichaelC]
the public promise means you have to follow through on it
12:37:47 [jaunita_george]
q+\
12:37:54 [MichaelC]
in a legal situation
12:38:04 [MichaelC]
ack \
12:38:34 [MichaelC]
jg: accessibility statements aren´t generally enforceable
12:39:17 [MichaelC]
jf: one of the questions is, what will regulators accept
12:39:31 [jennifer_]
* Jennifer needs access
12:40:36 [Rachael]
Chair note: We are working our way towards conformance conversations but we are still not there yet so pre-discussing has not proven to be a productive use of time
12:40:38 [MichaelC]
q+
12:40:53 [MichaelC]
jg: do we want to develop a single proposal, or submit multiple?
12:41:15 [MichaelC]
jf: are we even working on the same thing?
12:41:22 [jennifer_]
q+
12:41:26 [MichaelC]
maybe we´re working on different things that both use word protocol
12:42:15 [jaunita_george]
ack MichaelC
12:42:54 [jennifer_]
* Jennifer: Thanks, Jeanne. I refreshed before, but now I do have access.
12:43:01 [JF]
Q+ to note that an end state does not have to be one or the other - it may be both
12:43:03 [MichaelC]
for me, the question is what @@
12:43:12 [jaunita_george]
ack jennifer_
12:43:33 [MichaelC]
mc: I think we won´t form consensus on a single proposal, thing broader input from the WG is needed
12:43:50 [MichaelC]
raising questions and feature comparisons is useful
12:44:04 [MichaelC]
jennifer: think we should be able to come to agreement
12:44:37 [MichaelC]
rbm: discussion of conformance keeps side-tracking us
12:45:11 [MichaelC]
there are unknowns that we need to work around, until we´re able to get to them
12:45:19 [JF]
+1 to Jen
12:45:28 [MichaelC]
jennifer: all work should halt until conformance sorted out
12:46:07 [MichaelC]
rbm: we tried addressing conformance first, but didn´t have enough base information to have non-circular conversation
12:46:20 [MichaelC]
the chairs have to find a way to work through things
12:46:30 [MichaelC]
having multiple options is ok
12:46:50 [MichaelC]
we can compare, discuss, merge, etc.
12:47:28 [MichaelC]
people may strongly favour a proposal, but we have to develop an overall consensus
12:47:51 [MichaelC]
chairs are handling this with a strict schedule, which we have to use to be able to move forward
12:48:07 [MichaelC]
jennifer: can we put a bracket around conformance-related aspects of proposal
12:48:36 [MichaelC]
q+
12:48:47 [MichaelC]
rbm: thinks the points for protocols proposal has done that
12:48:58 [MichaelC]
it will be part of what we forward to group
12:49:48 [MichaelC]
we need to make progress, we´re recycling discussion
12:49:59 [MichaelC]
jennifer: think a group should be able to work together
12:50:12 [MichaelC]
and evaluating procedures group has developed something different
12:51:06 [MichaelC]
jf: we have two unique ideas, both have some value, neither are fully baked
12:51:28 [MichaelC]
should ask the WG to evaluate them independent of each other
12:51:43 [MichaelC]
with both using the word ¨protocol¨ that´s harder
12:52:16 [MichaelC]
see conformance being addressed in the evaluating procedures proposal as well
12:52:31 [MichaelC]
ack me
12:52:36 [MichaelC]
ack jf
12:52:36 [Zakim]
JF, you wanted to note that an end state does not have to be one or the other - it may be both
12:52:38 [JF]
ack me
12:54:04 [MichaelC]
mc: think we were ¨bracketing¨ conformance but hadn´t actually put brackets in
12:54:19 [MichaelC]
think we need to have placeholder conformance info for the proposal and as fodder for later discussion
12:54:59 [MichaelC]
it´s ok to rename if there is concern they are being presented as exclusive of each other
12:55:06 [MichaelC]
jg: what about renaming?
12:55:18 [MichaelC]
jf: ¨development protocols¨ and ¨evaluation protocols¨
12:55:59 [MichaelC]
jg: development would be points for protocols, evaluation would be evaluating procedures
12:57:02 [jaunita_george]
Proposed Resolution: Bring both proposals to AGWG as Development Protocols (Points for Protocol) and Evaluation Protocols (Evaluating Procedures) and work to get a table together outlining the differences/similarities ahead of the AGWG meeting we'll be discussing it.
12:57:14 [JF]
+1
12:57:20 [MichaelC]
+1
12:57:21 [jaunita_george]
+1
12:57:25 [Rachael]
0
12:57:30 [jennifer_]
0
12:57:40 [jeanne]
+1 for two propo9sals, but I don't like the new names. I don't think they accurately describe the proopsals
12:58:02 [jennifer_]
Agree with Jeanne — I don't understand them at all.
12:59:34 [Rachael]
What about procedures and protocols?
12:59:55 [jaunita_george]
RESOLUTION: Bring both proposals to AGWG as Points for Protocol and Evaluating Procedures and work to get a table together outlining the differences/similarities ahead of the AGWG meeting we'll be discussing it.
13:00:22 [MichaelC]
jg: we´ll prepare to present these to the AG WG
13:00:39 [MichaelC]
meanwhile let´s fill out the table of similarities and differences
13:01:02 [MichaelC]
jg: let´s meet next week (12:00 pm Eastern) to review the table
13:01:28 [MichaelC]
rrsagent, make minutes
13:01:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html MichaelC
13:02:13 [jaunita_george]
zakim, end meering
13:02:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'end meering', jaunita_george
13:02:20 [jaunita_george]
zakim, end meeting
13:02:20 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been MichaelC, jennifer_, jeanne, Rachael
13:02:22 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
13:02:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/05/27-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html Zakim
13:02:25 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, jaunita_george; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
13:02:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wcag3-protocols
13:17:14 [Plansmash]
Plansmash has joined #wcag3-protocols