Re: [Protocols] Minutes for March 4th, 2022

Please note the approach from Dutch government as mailed before, this was
mentioned / used as a proposed starting point for "Possible ways to
evaluate whether a protocol was done" derived from
https://www.digitoegankelijk.nl/toegankelijkheidsverklaring/over-de-verklaring

*1. Previously (before 2020): ONLY 100% PASS / FAIL Compliancy
Approach - *there
were only two statuses (WCAG driven)

*2. Present Day: *The current approach has *FIVE* compliance statuses !!!

A: Fully Compliant
B: Partially compliant (= in control statement)
              "agency has appointed concrete improvement measures READ:
*ASSERTION* / FOLLOWING PROTOCOLS"
C: First measures taken
              "Agency has taken concrete improvement measures to get that
picture. READ: *ASSERTION* / FOLLOWING PROTOCOLS"
D: Doesn't meet
             " Legal obligation prescribes agencies take the necessary
measures
              Agency is urged to appoint concrete measures within a certain
period of time, including planning. READ: *ASSERTION* / FOLLOWING PROTOCOLS"
E: No accessibility statement published

Op vr 4 mrt. 2022 om 16:11 schreef Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael <
rmontgomery@loc.gov>:

> The minutes from the protocols subgroup
> <https://www.w3.org/2022/03/04-wcag3-protocols-minutes.html> are
> available.
>
>
>
> Summary:
>
>    - We will be going through an exercise for  the next few weeks to
>    evaluate:
>       - How to evaluate whether the protocol was done
>       - How well the protocol was followed
>       - How to evaluate the quality of the results (if possible)
>    - We will be using the following (possible) protocols as examples to
>    help with discussion:
>       - Plain Language, Visma UX, (BBC Gel A11y section if 3rd is needed)
>    - Possible ways to evaluate whether a protocol was done (Discussion
>    still ongoing)
>       - Require the organization to publicly state:
>          - What protocol/part of protocol was done
>          - How the protocol was embedded in content or organization?
>          - How can the public see that the protocol was embedded?
>          - Date statement was made
>       - Key questions that need to be addressed later:
>       - Definition of a protocol?
>       - Is a protocol a document or part of a document?
>       - How will we handle overlap with WCAG? The overlap will shift
>
>
>
> *From: *Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 1:42 PM
> *To: *"public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *[Protocols] Agenda for March 4th, 2022
> *Resent-From: *<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 1:41 PM
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> The Protocols Subgroup will meet again this Friday, March 4th at 9:00 AM
> Boston Time (1400 UTC).
>
>
> The Zoom teleconference data is provided at this link:
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7/20211105T090000
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/events/meetings/bfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7/20211105T090000__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34yacGIQO4g$>
>
> We will be on IRC using the W3C server at https://irc.w3.org
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/irc.w3.org/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34ybOl3ZsYw$>,
> in channel *#wcag3-protocols*
>
> These and additional details of our work, including minutes, current,
> and archived draft documents are available on our subgroup wiki page here:
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34ya-s3KL6w$>
>
> *** Agenda ***
>
> agenda+ Develop a way for a lay-person to assess whether a protocol was
> followed
>
>
>
>    1. Pick 2-3 things that are likely protocols (Plainlanguage.gov, BBC
>       style guidelines, ?)
>       2. Propose a way to evaluate (pass/fail):
>
>                                                                i.      Whether
> the protocol was done
>
>                                                              ii.      How
> well the protocol was followed
>
>                                                            iii.      The
> quality of the results
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles Adams
>