- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:03:46 -0400
- To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFmg2sX4KbFL3wq=1C2GbhSHdyT7HXK3oCL7T8pwWEE5N6Hndw@mail.gmail.com>
Oct. 1, 2021: https://www.w3.org/2021/10/01-silver-protocols-minutes.html *Summary:* we discussed what makes a protocol, what types of protocols are (should be?) in scope. - we discussed VPATs - still mostly US-centric, Jake suggested that most EU entities do not use VPATs, but have different reporting mechanisms - Gregg noted that the structure and language of VPATs came from industry, and has been created to say nothing with lots of words - no promises, and no measurability - Jake noted a distinction - VPATs are 'conformance', but we could also have a report that speaks to goals and achievements - Jake suggested "believe that we should present a fixed set of protocols with use-cases + examples" - Jennifer asked "Could WCAG have a "certified list" of protocols, and a process for submitting for review?" (TBD) - Jennifer also noted that she uses the word "consideration" - it reduces stigma. Hopes that protocols can address the measurable/testable/repeatable problem by creating a way to pose meaningful questions to evaluate when not M/T/R: questions that give a way of determining impact; empathize with users - protocols help others to imagine that - JF noted that this may be part of our definition -- *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility | W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor | "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." - Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
Received on Friday, 1 October 2021 15:04:32 UTC