15:43:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag3-protocols
15:43:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/06/03-wcag3-protocols-irc
15:43:30 <Jaunita_George> Zakim, start meeting
15:43:30 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:43:31 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), Jaunita_George
15:43:55 <Jaunita_George> Meeting: AGWG 6-3-2022
15:44:02 <Jaunita_George> Chair: Jaunita George
15:44:40 <Jaunita_George> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:45:23 <Jaunita_George> Agenda+ Review/edit comparison table (30 minutes)
15:45:33 <Jaunita_George> Agenda+ Work on a single proposal (30 minutes)
15:45:43 <Jaunita_George> Present+
15:58:14 <Chuck> Chuck has joined #wcag3-protocols
15:58:23 <Chuck> present+
16:01:39 <jeanne> present+
16:01:40 <JF> JF has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:01:46 <JF> Preent+
16:01:52 <Le> Le has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:01:54 <Jaunita_George> Zakim, take up item 1
16:01:54 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Review/edit comparison table (30 minutes) -- taken up [from Jaunita_George]
16:01:57 <Le> present+
16:01:57 <Jaunita_George> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gQ8k6Dkaxnl9fSY3hTbRzTGgdr-FTdlO5fmU5wPSI5E/edit
16:02:27 <MichaelC> present+
16:02:54 <Jaunita_George> zakim, pick a victim
16:02:54 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Le
16:03:38 <Jaunita_George> zakim, pick a victim
16:03:38 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose MichaelC
16:04:06 <MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
16:04:22 <MichaelC> zakim, next item
16:04:22 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Work on a single proposal (30 minutes) -- taken up [from Jaunita_George]
16:04:31 <mbgower> mbgower has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:04:33 <MichaelC> zakim, take up item 1
16:04:33 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Review/edit comparison table (30 minutes) -- taken up [from Jaunita_George]
16:04:34 <mbgower> present+
16:05:00 <Jaunita_George> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gQ8k6Dkaxnl9fSY3hTbRzTGgdr-FTdlO5fmU5wPSI5E/edit
16:05:29 <MichaelC> jg: above table, we tried to compare the proposals, avoid paraphrasing
16:06:25 <MichaelC> we want to see if we agree the details captured are accurate
16:06:36 <MichaelC> then see if we can develop a harmonized protocol
16:06:50 <MichaelC> if not, we´ll just go to the AG with both proposals
16:07:17 <MichaelC> to start, any changes on the points of comparison?
16:07:53 <MichaelC> jf: my comments are responses to questions, may be should be incorporated
16:08:06 <MichaelC> big point is that protocols must be vetted by AG WG
16:08:58 <MichaelC> they can be externally developed, but AG WG vets before they are listed as approved
16:09:28 <mbgower> q+
16:09:44 <mbgower> q?
16:10:13 <MichaelC> mg: does that mean we have to validate protocols in all human languages?
16:10:30 <MichaelC> jf: review everything to send forward as proposal
16:10:57 <Chuck> q+ to say I acknowledge the challenge, can we note it down as an issue to be reviewed later?
16:10:57 <MichaelC> yes, that may be hard for us to do across languages
16:10:58 <mbgower> q+ to say I think it is just one example and we have a scaling problem if we have to vet
16:11:05 <Chuck> ack mb
16:11:05 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I think it is just one example and we have a scaling problem if we have to vet
16:11:06 <MichaelC> but there are broad principles that apply across examples
16:12:13 <jeanne> q+ to ask if John has any interest in compromising on this item
16:12:14 <MichaelC> mg: don´t think analogy is to tests, but to techniques
16:12:20 <MichaelC> don´t think we can vet everything
16:12:26 <JF> Q+
16:12:34 <JF> ack ch
16:12:34 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I acknowledge the challenge, can we note it down as an issue to be reviewed later?
16:13:05 <Jaunita_George> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit#
16:13:07 <MichaelC> ca: can we flag that as an issue? so we can take the proposals
16:13:25 <MichaelC> jg: ^ we have draft editors´ notes for each proposal
16:13:27 <Jaunita_George> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit?pli=1#
16:13:52 <MichaelC> jeanne: there are lots of concerns around scalability
16:14:12 <Jaunita_George> The first link is the Points for Protocol proposal and the second is the Evaluating Procedures proposal.
16:14:12 <MichaelC> can you compromise on this point so we can harmonize the proposals?
16:14:47 <MichaelC> jf: if we don´t vet protocols, they can write whatever they want
16:14:49 <MichaelC> q+
16:15:22 <MichaelC> ack j
16:15:23 <MichaelC> ack j
16:15:24 <Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to ask if John has any interest in compromising on this item
16:15:29 <jeanne> ack je
16:15:57 <MichaelC> we haven´t answered whether protocols will be part of the scoring model
16:16:07 <MichaelC> so don´t know @@
16:16:13 <MichaelC> can´t have fox guarding the hen house
16:16:20 <Jaunita_George> q+
16:16:28 <Jaunita_George> ack MichaelC
16:17:09 <Chuck> MichaelC:  A broad comment.  What we are doing right now is identifying accuracy of columns.  Maybe we identify that there is a difference.  For 1 proposal or 2, I'm seeing that there is a lot of commonality in visions of protocoals, and some differences in how they might be applied.
16:17:41 <Chuck> MichaelC:  They are questions that are seperable from what a protocol is.  Let's identify the points of similarity and differences.
16:17:50 <Chuck> MichaelC:  We can handle them in the group discussion.
16:17:57 <Chuck> +1 to Michael
16:18:03 <MichaelC> ack me
16:18:04 <MichaelC> ack j
16:18:54 <MichaelC> jg: circling back to the comparison, have added content to the points column
16:20:05 <MichaelC> jf: a difference I see is evaluation proposal, protocol evaluates something
16:20:15 <MichaelC> in the points proposal, it´s more instructional
16:20:36 <MichaelC> functioning like the COGA supplemental guidance
16:21:05 <Chuck> agenda?
16:21:17 <MichaelC> they illustrate using user stories, but final determination is @@
16:21:53 <Chuck> q+ to ask for clarity on the purpose of this portion of the review.
16:21:57 <MichaelC> so I see protocols as used earlier in the production timeline in the points proposal
16:22:41 <MichaelC> jg: so with these changes, does the points column look accurate?
16:23:01 <MichaelC> jf: guess so based on what I know
16:23:20 <MichaelC> jg: pasted content that was changes, others seemed more as comments
16:23:35 <Sheri_B-H> Sheri_B-H has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:23:40 <Sheri_B-H> present+
16:23:42 <MichaelC> moving on to the evaluation column
16:24:05 <JF> Q+
16:24:07 <MichaelC> ca: for clarification, we´re checking this mapping accurately describes the proposals?
16:24:11 <MichaelC> ack c
16:24:11 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask for clarity on the purpose of this portion of the review.
16:24:27 <Jaunita_George> ack
16:24:28 <MichaelC> jg: yes, it was an exercise Jeanne and I made, want not to mischaracterize anything
16:24:33 <Jaunita_George> ack jf
16:25:06 <MichaelC> jf: I´ve been concerned that we use different meanings of the term ¨protocol¨, see MG as supporting
16:25:24 <mbgower> q+ to say what we're talking about is similar, but the process/interpretation of how to use is to me under discussion
16:25:34 <Chuck> q+ to say that the merging is the next agenda item.  This stage is to...
16:25:37 <MichaelC> at some point someone is going to want to own the term ¨protocol¨
16:25:46 <MichaelC> jg: don´t think we need to own terms
16:26:06 <MichaelC> returning to evaluating procedures column
16:26:13 <Jaunita_George> ack mbgower
16:26:13 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say what we're talking about is similar, but the process/interpretation of how to use is to me under discussion
16:26:48 <MichaelC> mg: this table helps to see similarities and differences
16:27:04 <MichaelC> I think the main differences are in the process of using a protocol
16:27:19 <MichaelC> I don´t think it´s unsolveable, it comes down to use cases
16:27:26 <Jaunita_George> ack Chuck
16:27:26 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say that the merging is the next agenda item.  This stage is to...
16:27:57 <MichaelC> ca: just to refocus that at the moment, we´re making sure the columns are accurate
16:27:59 <mbgower> column 2 is pretty thyin
16:28:00 <mbgower> thin
16:28:12 <mbgower> for the definition 'what is a protocol'
16:28:16 <Le> q
16:28:29 <JF> Q+
16:29:45 <MichaelC> lsmn: the document isn´t clear enough to represent externally yet
16:30:28 <Jaunita_George> ack JF
16:30:35 <Chuck> acknowledged, we are moving into 2nd agenda.
16:30:42 <Jaunita_George> zakim, take up item 2
16:30:42 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Work on a single proposal (30 minutes) -- taken up [from Jaunita_George]
16:31:01 <MichaelC> jg: moving on to harmonization
16:31:07 <MichaelC> let´s look at similarities and differences
16:32:40 <MichaelC> jf: think the evaluation proposal is about @@
16:32:59 <MichaelC> but the points one is more about educating and incorporating work earlier in the process
16:33:34 <MichaelC> q+
16:33:41 <MichaelC> and get points for having gone to that effort
16:34:21 <jeanne> q+ Poornima
16:34:27 <JF> Q+
16:34:28 <MichaelC> lsmn: so the points protocol is a documented procedure that defines qualitative best practices
16:35:05 <jeannetest> jeannetest has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:35:24 <MichaelC> and the evaluation one is about fitting into scoring
16:36:07 <MichaelC> jf: not procedure, which can be too rigid, but e.g., a user story that explains the issue
16:36:19 <jeanne> q?
16:36:41 <MichaelC> that may not be measurable, but it´s describable
16:37:19 <MichaelC> lsmn: so it´s more of a commitment, something the org is striving for
16:37:26 <MichaelC> do they state how they´re doing it?
16:37:40 <MichaelC> jf: via a programmatically linked conformance statement
16:38:14 <MichaelC> conceptually like an EPub manifest file that has a bunch of metadata
16:38:41 <MichaelC> making the commitment, and making it publicly via this statement, is what keeps them moving
16:38:57 <MichaelC> gives people scope to question how they´re doing it
16:39:02 <mbgower> q+
16:39:07 <mbgower> q-
16:39:36 <MichaelC> lsmn: so in points proposal, the conformance comes via the statement where they commit to it and outline how they´re doing it
16:39:42 <MichaelC> jf: or report on steps taken to achieve
16:40:00 <mbgower> q+ to say that one of the challenges we have is trying to compare solutions when I think if we focused on the problem space, we'd see these two proposals are VERY similar
16:40:16 <Jaunita_George> ack MichaelC
16:40:47 <Chuck> MIchaelC:  The evaluation procedures is a superset in this sense, may not be clear enough in the documenation.  In both proposals, protocol defines what you are trying to do.
16:41:11 <Chuck> MIchaelC:  It does document.  The point of difference is the evaluating is you might test against this.  But other view is it is impractical.
16:42:04 <Chuck> MIchaelC:  We have an uncompleted discussion on what happens for minimal conformance.  Simply adopting the protocol is enough for minimal.  I interpret this as the same for "points".  We go on for higher conformance levels.  I hear them being different levels of details or conformance for same general thing.
16:42:05 <mbgower> +1 to what Michael just said
16:42:11 <Jaunita_George> +1
16:42:23 <MichaelC> jg: so in both proposals, companies state what they´re striving for
16:42:37 <Chuck> Le:  Are you saying striving same thing, but minimal conformance is that we are trying to adopt?
16:42:53 <Chuck> MIchaelC:  At minimal conformance, if you are making a public claim, but you only need to commit to it.
16:43:01 <MichaelC> in the evaluating one, at minimal conformance, it´s similar to the points one?
16:43:07 <Chuck> Le:  Later conformance, that's where you define how you reach these goals.
16:43:31 <Jaunita_George> ack poornima
16:43:43 <JF> ack me
16:44:52 <MichaelC> ps: think we can have protocols that define what is needed, and define how the feed into rating
16:45:31 <MichaelC> jf: the conversation keeps coming back to evaluating
16:45:50 <MichaelC> points is about providing guidance, evaluating is about evaluating outcomes
16:45:56 <MichaelC> q+
16:46:30 <MichaelC> think @@ is oriented to UI designers, other is oriented to engineers
16:47:23 <MichaelC> ps: should make clear the audience for the protocol, that will clarify some of those questions
16:47:28 <Jaunita_George> ack mbgower
16:47:28 <Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that one of the challenges we have is trying to compare solutions when I think if we focused on the problem space, we'd see these two proposals are VERY
16:47:31 <Zakim> ... similar
16:47:45 <MichaelC> mg: we don´t need to view as a dichotomy
16:48:17 <MichaelC> we´re all exploring ways to lead to WCAG conformance
16:48:27 <JF> struggling with the term "measure"
16:48:36 <Chuck> +1 to MG
16:48:37 <MichaelC> we should take the best ideas, rather than filter at this stage
16:48:40 <Jaunita_George> ack MichaelC
16:48:47 <Jaunita_George> +1 to MG
16:49:01 <JF> Q+
16:49:16 <mbgower> From the How do they fit column: "Protocols describe inputs such as documentation of steps, actions taken, date completed, conformance claims, etc.  but do not necessarily measure outcomes."
16:49:16 <Chuck> MIchaelC:  I keep hearing "evaluating procedures" talking about "evaluating outcomes".  It is about evaluating effort towards the outcome.  That's a significant clarification.  If you take away the evalauation, you are at the same thing.
16:49:21 <Jaunita_George> ack jf
16:49:36 <Poornima> Poornima has joined #wcag3-protocols
16:49:42 <MichaelC> jf: +1 to MG, but I stop at measure
16:49:51 <MichaelC> we can´t measure, they´re all contextual
16:50:06 <MichaelC> lsmn: can we agree if we could measure them, they´d be in the guidelines elsewhere?
16:50:12 <MichaelC> jf: yes, it would be a test procedure
16:50:40 <MichaelC> instead, we might provide test scripts
16:51:05 <MichaelC> a machine can´t test e.g., alt text quality, but you can provide a decision tree to get to a good version
16:51:06 <Chuck> q?
16:51:47 <MichaelC> jg: looking to how to combine the protocols
16:51:47 <JF> s/but I stop at measure/but I cringe at measure
16:51:52 <jeanne> q+ to say that JF example of alt tree process
16:52:00 <MichaelC> the points one wants to give people credit for adopting, and @@
16:52:20 <MichaelC> the evaluating one includes measuring their adoption
16:52:23 <MichaelC> so it´s a higher threshold
16:52:42 <MichaelC> maybe we can combine in such a way that effectively the points one is a baseline
16:52:49 <jeanne> q-
16:52:51 <MichaelC> which is a public conformance statement
16:53:07 <MichaelC> you can´t do less than that and get conformance points
16:53:24 <MichaelC> then the evaluation one takes it further and measures the adoption effort
16:53:46 <JF> Q+
16:54:07 <MichaelC> orgs could choose which level they want to target
16:54:22 <MichaelC> jf: how do you measure adoption effort?
16:54:40 <MichaelC> q+
16:54:44 <Sheri_B-H> q+
16:54:48 <Jaunita_George> ack JF
16:54:56 <MichaelC> especially where org has a small web team
16:55:15 <Jaunita_George> ack MichaelC
16:55:50 <Chuck> MIchaelC:  As best as I can characterize, we are in proposal stage and have to work out details.  You define the steps you follow, in addition to the guidance, and the steps to implement the guidance, and the check is to confirm the steps have followed well.
16:56:10 <Chuck> MIchaelC:  Evaluation one has a baseline that does not have a requirement for self evaluation.  That may persist in further discussions.
16:56:29 <Jaunita_George> ack Sheri_B-H
16:56:54 <MichaelC> sbh: just want to point out that the maturity model already has established how to measure adoption
16:57:11 <MichaelC> jg: maturity model might be a protocol or procedure
16:57:12 <Sheri_B-H> it's a good opportunity to link the two
16:58:05 <MichaelC> jg: let´s continue this discussion for the next meeting
16:58:21 <mbgower> q+
16:58:23 <MichaelC> we might be able to combine the proposals into a multi-tiered approach
16:58:48 <mbgower>  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1twjaSude_5-1VdpFKPX1Bw_hA09cIvyzeP1h8PowSxo/edit?usp=sharing
16:58:50 <MichaelC> mg: ^ I added commonalities, I think there are a lot
16:59:02 <MichaelC> lsmn: +1, see more commonalities than differences
17:00:02 <Chuck> q+ to propose that MG and LE share what they perceive to be the commonalities next meeting.
17:00:14 <MichaelC> lsmn: see the evaluating one as adding a few more steps to otherwise common proposal
17:00:38 <MichaelC> a big difference is on who can write a protocol that is valid for conformance
17:00:51 <Chuck> ack Ch
17:00:51 <Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to propose that MG and LE share what they perceive to be the commonalities next meeting.
17:00:57 <Chuck> ack MG
17:01:00 <MichaelC> jg: evaluating one provides requirements so self-documented protocols aren´t spurious
17:01:16 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/03-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html MichaelC
17:01:20 <mbgower> Thanks for the discussion!
17:01:31 <Chuck> 6AM for me!
17:01:53 <MichaelC> meeting: WCAG 3 Protocols
17:02:48 <MichaelC> present+ JF, Poornima_Subramanian
17:03:14 <MichaelC> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag3-protocols/2022Jun/0000.html
17:03:42 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
17:03:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/03-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html MichaelC