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

Hi Alastair,

I'm sorry that I missed Rachael's presentation, but after looking at both
the PPT deck and your effort to "*transpose your buckets onto the proposal*",
we (or at least *I*) end up with something of an interesting conclusion:
[image: image.png]
*The left hand column doesn't matter*. What (if anything) am I missing
here?

If some are thinking that a Protocol is used to measure one of "Smallest
Unit", or "View", or "User Process", or "Aggregate", then personally I
think that the initial idea has been lost: Protocols were (I thought and
had proposed) for evaluating Input (Process) and not Output (Outcomes)
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols#14_January_2022>
.

Or, to use the Alt Text example, we are not evaluating *EACH* text
alternative against a Protocol, we are *looking for evidence* that the
editorial team has a process and 'protocol' in place for when it comes time
to author text alternatives: that it's more than just opinion or guessing
for each image (non-text element), it is an informed and educated decision.
The "proof" is not evaluating each image, it is looking for a *promise
statement* (Assertion) that the 'training or process' is being used. I
shudder to think about attempting to evaluate each text alternative against
a protocol, as that is (or would be) far too labor intensive at scale, and
essentially misses the larger idea.

You also stated,

> I don’t want to get hung up on the terms

Respectfully, terms *are exactly* where I think many people are still
struggling (at least with Protocols as I envisioned them).

Multiple people have used the term 'measure' or 'evaluate' here, and yet,
the initial proposal was attempting to figure out how to integrate known
requirements that *cannot be measured* into WCAG 3; needs like "Plain
Language" and/or integrating "Making Content...COGA".

So at the highest level, I will suggest that if some of our group are still
thinking that Protocols can be measured, we have (IMHO) a problem. Juanita
(I think) got closest to the terms that express the concept so far:
Protocols are used to *Define *requirements, and provide guidance on
how to *Assess
*(not measure) content, so that evaluators can then make a (Subjective but
now hopefully informed) *Determination*.

> I just wanted to separate the organisational level aspects from the
requirements for the product/thing/website

I personally think however that this is part of the larger problem: slavish
adherence to unit-test "standards", without the higher-level "organization"
that comes from planning, training, documentation, commitment, and culture
change, does not get us to where we want to be. Organizationally, and from
an engineering perspective I can understand this desire to establish a
seperation, but at the end of the day, I will suggest that Protocols will
need to be holistic in both nature and approach - *organizational level
aspects* applied holistically to the *product/thing/website.*

JF



On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:57 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Jake,
>
>
>
> Did you see/read Rachael’s presentation on the protocols/assertions next
> steps?
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1b5xHQWBzoYdKp7BfPgIUBCpz-yaDOx_kSq_HlQxcFh0/edit#slide=id.g115ec01aa81_0_39
>
>
>
> I think we’re saying similar things, so to transpose your buckets onto the
> proposal:
>
>
>
>
> Constant
>
> Condition
>
> Test Case
>
> Protocol
>
> Smallest Unit
>
> Bucket 1
>
>  1
>
> 2
>
> 2
>
> View
>
>  1
>
>  1
>
> 2
>
> 2
>
> User Process
>
>  1
>
>  1
>
>  2
>
> 2
>
> Aggregate
>
>  1
>
>  1
>
>  2
>
> 2
>
>
>
> I have been assuming that requirements for the organisation (bucket 3)
> would be covered in the maturity model work, which could be incorporated
> into WCAG3 in future, but that is a future decision.
>
>
>
> I think there is also alignment between what John called “Vetted and
> approved” and the Test Case, and “Internal or Company-Authored” and
> Protocol.
>
>
>
> I don’t want to get hung up on the terms, we can work on that, I just
> wanted to separate the organisational level aspects from the requirements
> for the product/thing/website.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*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"