<Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this

<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: EA

<Lisa_Seeman> next items:

<Lisa_Seeman> next item:

Review of timeline

Deadlined end of Month Jan 2016 freeze all the content going into the gap analysis - first working draft

Stop working on it whilst content is ported by Lisa and Michael

Still go on working on issue papers that are outstanding whilst this porting is occurring

need to have enough in the working draft that people can see what we are working on

Lisa hopes that by July 2016 all the issue papers will be complete

Issue papers, summary of those papers and the table of user needs plus techniques completed and draft of extension proposal

<Lisa_Seeman> EA: slide project will be a great implmention and will identify gaps in what we are doing

Lisa suggested that we also need to discuss epub and the extension for ARIA - need to add to techniques

Lisa is moving now to the sub groups - Mike to give a summary of WCAG proposal

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG

Mike said that they had completed a full overview of the document - may need revisiting

Lisa said they were checking for the notion of making it testable and widely adaptible

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Gap_Analysis_Summary

Other two subgroups - next on summary Janina and Rich - nearly fiinished this task - say 70% complete

Mary Jo to add some solutions... Rich has made some comments but still feels more needs to be done to make it easier for others to read.

Layout issues arose - positioning of techniques and issues cropped up

<Lisa_Seeman> hi kurt - we are looking at https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Gap_Analysis_Summary#Overview_of_techniques

<Kurt_M> Thanks

Rich said we need to 'paint a picture of the problem' lack of research, lack of 'personalisable' web at this stage, content modification, lack of standards for these and other aspects, build services to support needs - gaps shown and then offer techniques - People on the whole do not grasp the whole problem

<Mike_Pluke> q

Mike agreed with much of what had been said - offer alternate options but can offer low tech fall back options - not all or nothing and Rich agreed

Lisa pointed out that this was a summary of issues and the techniques with a table of the user needs

<Lisa_Seeman> ea: should we write the introduction now

<Lisa_Seeman> or fiurst finihsh the summary

Janina suggested finishing the draft and then consider writing the draft of the overall picture

Michael feels it is important to have an introduction - Lisa has Rich to help at the moment

<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: Lisa and Rich write a introduction for gap annalisis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/01/11-coga-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - And rich write a introduction for gap annalisis [on Lisa Seeman - due 2016-01-18].

Lisa asked whether we should keep the papers as issue papers rather than topics?

Issues paper are exploratory items - Michael felt that the name was not a problem and Rich agreed

Rich commented that we need to make things more easily found - bring solutions higher up the order and not have to deal with all the research.

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Gap_Analysis_Summary

Discussion about cross links and the need to summarise the main points and then people go out to get extra information.

Rich commented that more needs to be brought into the section but it is not easy to make consumable

Lisa suggested that some headings are confusing with some that are repeated - needs to be revisited.

Lisa went on to look at the poll regarding the meetings to be help - Austin USA seems to be the only one that has 6 people which is not quorum - need 8 + people.

<Lisa_Seeman> http://doodle.com/poll/yfhxc4qx3bxku47g

Janina and Michael felt that it was more about who was going to be attending the most important factor

Lisa went on to the development of a table of user needs - Kurt and Tony - time pressures not so great as the summary.

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG

<Lisa_Seeman> is it perscriptive?

Lisa asked everyone to look at the Proposal for WCAG to check that it is sufficiently prescriptive.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: EA
Inferring ScribeNick: EA

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: Rich_Schwerdtfeger janina Debbie_Dahl

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Chaohai_Ding, E.A._Draffan, Ayelet_seeman, john)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Chaohai_Ding, E.A._Draffan, Ayelet_seeman, John_Rochford

Regrets: Chaohai_Ding E.A._Draffan Ayelet_seeman John_Rochford

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 11 Jan 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/01/11-coga-minutes.html
People with action items: lisa

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report