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

And another reaction I thought about after the call, you referred to the
approach as a "VPAT like accountability", but I do not think that covers it.

It's more of a  PDAA approach (Policy Driven Accessibility Adoption)  like
Texas, Minnesota, etc. use next to / in extension of VPAT.
The approach was developed by Jeff Kline (also Maturity group member) and
Jay Wyant, specifically because VPAT is about the product only at a certain
time / moment, but to be sure it will be, become, or stay accessible, you
must know about the intention / approach / followed processes of an
organization.

https://www.nascio.org/resource-center/?selectedTopic=accessibility
https://mn.gov/mnit/assets/Policy%20Driven%20Adoption%20for%20Accessibility%20%28PDAA%29%20CSUN-Public_tcm38-61817.pdf

Op vr 4 mrt. 2022 om 19:59 schreef jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>:

> Hey Jaunita,
>
> Please also see this page (translate into English):
> https://www.digitoegankelijk.nl/wetgeving/wat-verplicht
>
> *Requirements*
>
> *Nr1.* requirement: Make websites more accessible based on the
> requirements of chapter 9 of the European standard EN 301 549. These
> requirements are identical to accessibility standard WCAG 2.1, level A + AA.
>
> *Nr2. *Publish an accessibility statement.
>
> *Nr3.* Continuing to work on either staying or fully complying with the
> accessibility statement.
>
> So, if not 100% compliant yet (as probably 99% of all websites worldwide)
> you MUST prove your path towards this goal.
> It has already been proven for thousands of sites and apps that this
> approach works better because there is a reward / grow factor build in
> (indeed a "maturity / change your processes / apply and use protocol like
> documentation)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Op vr 4 mrt. 2022 om 19:36 schreef Jaunita George <
> jaunita_george@navyfederal.org>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m a little concerned with having this be something that could be used
>> to meet standards.
>>
>>
>>
>> I feel like this would undo a lot of good work that’s taking place to
>> hold organizations accountable if we try to make this a compliance standard
>> or alternative to actually meeting the requirements. It also would make
>> someone “compliant” if they show they’re trying to implement processes –
>> which I feel is just going to result in lower accessibility across the
>> board. Organizations everywhere have wonderful accessibility statements,
>> but inaccessible products – and I think this could continue that worrying
>> trend and lead to accessibility in name only.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we go this route, then we should just make it part of the maturity
>> model and not tie it to standards compliance. It’s important if
>> organizations try, but far more important if they achieve results and
>> results should always be easily measurable.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jaunita George, JD, PMP, WAS (she/her)*
>>
>> *QA-ADA Analyst III, **Product Engineering & Delivery Services (ISD)*
>>
>> *DHS Certified Trusted Tester (TTV5)*
>>
>> [image: IAAP WAS circular badge and horizontal name logo for
>> International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) Web
>> Accessibility Specialist (WAS) credential. To the left is a dark blue
>> circle with three lines of centered white text that read: IAAP Certified
>> WAS. There is a smaller light blue circle that surrounds the dark blue
>> inner circle that designates the WAS credential color scheme. To the right,
>> two lines of dark blue text. Top text reads Web Accessibility Specialist,
>> second line reads International Association of Accessibility Professionals.]
>> <https://www.accessibilityassociation.org/s/wascertification>
>>
>> Navy Federal Credit Union, 820 Follin Lane, Vienna VA 22180
>>
>> W: 571-391-0356 | C: 206-778-1882
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Navy Federal Credit Union. Our members are the mission.]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 4, 2022 1:28 PM
>> *To:* Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael <rmontgomery@loc.gov>
>> *Cc:* public-silver@w3.org; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>> *Subject:* [External] 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
>> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bksw5hQXg9PYfUbtvrgUY0SeOxLJv2nVMRihu-4saz5ni8i0lcbUxbIx0qNe8zBLb__wriTFKMLyuVqvLwApBhCQ9K32hl0ct9yhLY2QFTReg-EjOBmimAuLYz9dBcM1qDLPIS11ZZEs8styO8bv8lciyhSRm9BasIzTJHzuJX_C2KgnLBTDMLD0D3WEd6RmXp3O_vCC_yoBeR_Q9g8GZPZFnXs5vgqSzDFWtIUsL1VU_ugA1wYqzbxsMsPz8rhgtD0Hn6szzml9SkCV8Gyz4b4xaQtdbT0RjRQXxZHngT5lHIb-zOFi6-tSU51R87DVcGdsMhzECW6zIhM4FMC8SdjbqRWqwqrKBgxPOzA2NwUT8YrV61Y7cetZ7Jega9rdoVRTl5fTHHcTJX-oMyA4nQ_mrABs78UMEsVrDEzpK4Yo0skZSyqRJngKEqsAXrwepPEc8zV9N8w4nf6pNXNzNA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitoegankelijk.nl%2Ftoegankelijkheidsverklaring%2Fover-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://secure-web.cisco.com/1bBc-AeZLPPKOVvCExG0BbLyFYdagfVfi6hAuN7_FBdtZXh4Z-IDZQa11Uz5jnHurh-zQnEXFrU1PHmx0R7fK6XS-HoQLHIWyNdJXfTdBtc14_avFRLdaUczIaPPxQyTTNzok7P6cZuwwAP92oRfXqTX6DMFj_gnxyw6oMipmRtghaY8xXKoXcpIljDpqUy4soN38I3MvWyC5xosKGPRIJkKj3Js3DqWUeeq07_t5qtzGldc6Floe03VjydOTmwFybDeD-aw2EmyVKpI4A1kwGxDKgP3V1-_qZP1oxDokd0CrOKKRVZxN42-LOfekXZdm4uRmT1CRtyybc4sGJzRh7su1wxhrGnLgHAJr0AldhNVBQKloDmO9AOGHvxNAcRhTU0Ei4UB3aqXuz39egwtE0QxBpUuYchFWMZ45TAYabiOOBrAzZJFK6ib45TM0gi96JHEEoxvmuI7CV9EOno3gyQ/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fevents%2Fmeetings%2Fbfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7%2F20211105T090000__%3B%21%21ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ%21ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34yacGIQO4g%24>
>>
>> We will be on IRC using the W3C server at https://irc.w3.org
>> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rI9UW3alosWZho6nVCm-E_dZkJ0BlrVmIyuglWkoUjfWBgRWm6nN35lmjZjFKf-INfhP42jq-fWcgnZi4RUDVZyTd_xV9MBOBw49_JX1_pme_MDZBZhjydUT4RaZ6RhKo0spYxpnqM39mlm1Lf_CG5Iu0Z9m9zjglM_9EkIVHROMeoDmfyAoOBMdLQRgmaYZ8IY_XcLmdZq4RO5Inf1p92eduUVe8o3W2peMTIyf-LVHNx3lugwhx5nr5v6d6gwGPBHRnntIKr1-FEnDe6A6OXihyqBL_vKW_vnHsF6e8sw-cLeuFeoZDWi7zaa5-jmzMTx3WcNZ_HZlwI2s6wh68dVVnRiVDH39gAi9MfLyJnYS7w9apy0GMFDaO9OHmJR0lTpKchQAqiUBvEj-mYvNwPpsMqsEU2IJFsprPrTeO2HSyb3JpM4ETuPgGnOxpzFjcFo2Lwo99TWCkAQDBMISHg/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Firc.w3.org%2F__%3B%21%21ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ%21ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34ybOl3ZsYw%24>,
>> 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1tjim_fOcxm_qDZXrWClV8REdYA-GUtSZbZl_fRtKIrUFR4njzqvyNYSuAc7Xt_z9cn5ms3Sjt80esOl0OKBBv0TXcn8KiNRzh1hRVN1_SUm2gAYvqsZRug-VWDmK9K_UdFhBk1M6LXyskr-8fKqgelQVFptVtkudhNLxizoUUtmhcEQcQJVHmE11FQSn1eUiy1ioZ__ISn5ZXS7eK4HK2twbyRpxCrsizjlg9l24mGO9WRpi6ku0TJgOU5hMfwZE_bWRRevB7sZoeCoEacO8oje3QzDpoHtjX0mDZs0-9qd7aTJL3eNpmIgHu1w0dysTvGbfBLY2tufQdmh2EgSEmt_nGS2DzGikOxxSJlSJqPsePi4-ngHgiVZfj-qZuAIaBVT11nYM70RJrUhEts5Xfk9C_96nnhG_Ic-lgRU3mVmcBZ0OULXfHqr0qJrd3pNwnkJm25EaJUz0DcCM-c9wFA/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Ftask-forces%2Fsilver%2Fwiki%2FProtocols__%3B%21%21ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ%21ZvVx1wh89EAXhBiorHpgvdpQRlEtQPxaEsJbJ7_Q3MrxtnQGs5lwbIC34ya-s3KL6w%24>
>>
>> *** 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
>>
>>