<Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this

<Lisa_Seeman> (also see https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAGand https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/techniques/index.html)

<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: mike_plike

<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: mike_pluke

<Lisa_Seeman> next item:

review actions, and timelines

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/actions/open

<kirkwood> kirkwood+present

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/symbols-non-verbal.html

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

Symbols work from Chaohai ongoing - needs to be processed according to the checklist of how to format etc.

John's distractions section he has gone through the checklist waiting for second pull request

<ddahl> original emotionML description https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2016Feb/0046.html

Debbie - Emotional markup - not written an issue paper (but should close original action)

<Rich> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/links-buttons.html

Rich - Links and Buttons - done link to follow

Not just links and buttons (despite name)

The potential features in section 11 is floating - but not removed because someone originally added it

Rich suggesting that other documents should follow the proposal format that he has adopted

Maybe the linksa nd buttons and "Easy personalisation" sections should be separated out as they are different

Not everything has followed the original proposed "Issue Paper" template

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

Personalization issue papers are, together, a mess - may ask Ayelet to rationalse these

Lisa, Ayelet and Mike to work togather to try to produce a coherent personalization section

May Jo - Flat Design - paper "lacks a lot of meat" and is missing sections that are included in other papers

Correction - Mary Jo not Mary Jo!

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/voice-menus.html

The "voie menu" issue paper is a template that can be used to help improve flat design

Janina not finished with Web of Things paper - needs another week.

Modality issue paper - think John Rochford has completed (not on call)

Thaddeus has already accepted the "numbers" paper

Providing graded help - Thaddeus has volunteered

Michael has agreed to check the "numbers" paper and come back to Lisa

Volunteer needed for Metadata - come back to this later

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

Lisa has asked people to look at "Proposal for WCAG" (above)

Readers need to undertand what is meant by "testable" - not machine testable but will be the case for most people

Plenty of exceptions are added in several requirements

Trys to avoid reference t ocurrent "hot" issues like "flat design" requirements given in more generally applicable terms

John Foliot querying how the COGA work will be handled - rolled into WCAG 2.1 or an extension (John used the term "profile")

John's use of "profile" refers to WCAG 2.0 + COGA extension (for example)

The extension model has the disadvantage that it appears discriminatory - i.e. it is acceptable to not include people with certain impairments

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

Michael: This discussion is best held in the WCAG group and not the Task Force (with representatives of the COGA TF present).

<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models

John Posted the above link as it discussed the issues being discussed.

Michael proposing how to move the material forward from the wiki to a Github draft.

Michael expressed concern that WCAG will say that the material is too detailed and not suitable as WCAG Success Criteria.

Lisa suggesting that techniques can be separated out.

<KurtM> Kurt dropping

Michael: Perhaps one solution may be to move some of the bullet points as part of definitions, thereby tightening the success criteria
... The problem is likely to be that WCAG will focus on the non-standard way of writing success criteria and not on the substance

Lisa suggests asking the chairs to give the document a pre-review before deciding to submit the document for a full review

John has volunteered to give a quick review

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/links-buttons.html

<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: ddahl to write up understanding emotions as issue paper following the template from flat design [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-coga-minutes.html#action01]

<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: mike ayelet lisa to work on personlisation issues papers and what needs to happen is https://www.w3.org/wai/pf/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/pre-publication_checklist. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-coga-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-170 - Ayelet lisa to work on personlisation issues papers and what needs to happen is https://www.w3.org/wai/pf/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/pre-publication_checklist. [on Mike Pluke - due 2016-04-25].

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)

Succeeded: s/May Jo/Mary Jo/
Found Scribe: mike_plike
Found Scribe: mike_pluke
Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Pluke
Scribes: mike_plike, mike_pluke
Present: JF Janina kirkwood Debbie_Dahl Rich_Schwerdtfeger
Regrets: Susann_Keohane E.A._Draffan ayelet_seeman john_rochford
Got date from IRC log name: 18 Apr 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-coga-minutes.html
People with action items: ayelet ddahl lisa mike

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