16:41:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coga
16:41:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-coga-irc
16:41:25 <Lisa_Seeman> trackbot, start meeting
16:41:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 389
16:41:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2642
16:41:31 <trackbot> Meeting: Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
16:41:31 <trackbot> Date: 16 January 2017
16:41:31 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
16:41:53 <Lisa_Seeman> regrets: steve, mike, it is also a us holiday
16:43:11 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this
16:43:13 <Lisa_Seeman>  agenda+ action items
16:43:14 <Lisa_Seeman>  agenda+  review SC managers task, timelines . Links: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1, https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html,  rewording https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/rewroded%20sc%203.html
16:43:16 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+  tables https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/table.html
16:43:17 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+ be done
16:57:27 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #coga
17:00:46 <Pietro> Pietro has joined #coga
17:01:14 <EA> EA has joined #coga
17:02:11 <Jim_S> Jim_S has joined #coga
17:02:32 <Jan> Jan has joined #coga
17:03:20 <Thaddeus> Thaddeus has joined #Coga
17:03:27 <Thaddeus> Thaddeus Present
17:03:31 <Lisa_Seeman> scribe: kirkwood
17:03:33 <Thaddeus> + Thaddeus present
17:03:44 <Lisa_Seeman> Present+ lisa_seeman
17:03:47 <kirkwood> present+ kirkwood
17:03:48 <Thaddeus> present +Thaddeus
17:03:51 <Jim_S> present+ Jim_S
17:04:00 <Pietro> present+ Pietro
17:04:04 <EA> present + EA
17:04:43 <Jan> present+ Jan
17:04:59 <kirkwood> lisa, asking for introductions
17:05:14 <kirkwood> lisa: works for ibm head of task force
17:05:15 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, next item
17:05:15 <Zakim> agendum 1. "action items" taken up [from Lisa_Seeman]
17:05:26 <kirkwood> EA: southampton university
17:05:46 <kirkwood> jan: hjan mcsorley work for pearson
17:05:55 <kirkwood> Jim; jim smith works for
17:06:33 <Jim_S> Jim Smith works for Atos
17:06:53 <kirkwood> lisa: mike, not recognizing name
17:07:18 <kirkwood> thadderus: works for macy’s and UI architect, invite experts
17:07:47 <kirkwood> mike cooper: w3c staff contact
17:08:40 <kirkwood> petro: work for italy vp of ? europe.
17:08:52 <Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/actions/open
17:09:05 <Pietro> I come from Italy and I'm Autism-Europe vice-president
17:09:12 <kirkwood> petro: autiwsm europe
17:09:50 <kirkwood> krikwood: bot checkin wasn’t able to show
17:10:51 <kirkwood> EA: bernard is a student in Germany right now
17:12:25 <kirkwood> thaddereus: said he’s not getting back to him
17:12:52 <kirkwood> theaddereus: he needs to get back to him in order to work with him
17:13:27 <kirkwood> Lisa: he needs to send time to taderus onn an ongoing basis. Thaderus is very fliexibel
17:14:03 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, next item
17:14:03 <Zakim> agendum 2. "review SC managers task, timelines . Links: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1, https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html,  rewording
17:14:06 <Zakim> ... https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/rewroded%20sc%203.html" taken up [from Lisa_Seeman]
17:14:31 <kirkwood> lisa: next item is delaing with SC manager issue
17:14:51 <kirkwood> lisa: we’ve made 39 submissions in success criteria (edits or addtions)
17:15:39 <EA> I have sent a Skype message to Renaldo Bernard regarding the mental health and coga research.
17:15:57 <kirkwood> lisa: they assign SC managers to managge proces of getting the success criteria through their processes to get consensus on list, when you think SC criteria ready go to Josha and andtew put on survey and people vote on it. Hope fully get into 2.1
17:16:10 <Lisa_Seeman> : https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
17:16:26 <kirkwood> Link on their wiki on who’s managing which succes criteria
17:16:31 <Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html
17:16:45 <kirkwood> our tabel of success criteria with sc assigned
17:17:19 <kirkwood> lisa: we don’t have all the high priority, if we don’t get through proces they will be labled at risk which is really not good
17:17:46 <kirkwood> lisa: if you take on 2. try and get on another
17:18:18 <kirkwood> ji: can look at taking on other stuff
17:18:32 <kirkwood> ji / jim
17:20:12 <kirkwood> lisa: need to define SC and see if robust. The idea isn’t about SC manager opinon its about reaching a consensus and moving forward
17:20:59 <Lisa_Seeman> q?
17:21:03 <kirkwood> lisa: if its toomany points, its your job to get consensus going so everybody is happy about it. and comfortable meeting the WCAG success criteria
17:21:43 <kirkwood> lisa: the WCAG timelines, i think, the February 23rd for the publishing first public working craft.
17:21:45 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #coga
17:22:10 <kirkwood> michael cooper: only a few week, very likely very little ready at this point
17:22:37 <kirkwood> lisa: how do we encourage them to move forward?
17:22:51 <kirkwood> lisa: very aware my two are quite sticky ones
17:23:32 <kirkwood> cooper: difficult for WCAG is overwhelemed by all the SC, to get into first public working draft
17:24:44 <kirkwood> cooper: reality not going to get all SC in publi working draft. we are now looking to get them in. WG is quite overwhelmed
17:25:43 <kirkwood> mc: working group has a massive amount on their plate. you can draw comments to yours to get attention on this proposal. soounds like you could do it later, not too late to do in march
17:25:55 <kirkwood> Lisa: don’t agree with that
17:26:17 <kirkwood> Lisa: getting into first working draft is really important
17:26:34 <kirkwood> MC: only a few are likely to make it into first SC its just reality
17:27:13 <kirkwood> lisa: IBM is making talks and are focusing on first working draft, if don’t promote they will not get enough support
17:27:33 <kirkwood> Lisa: we have prioritized the SC trying to get through the ones that are hight
17:27:50 <kirkwood> Lisa: high first some medium
17:28:34 <kirkwood> Lisa: we have prioritized, bugging taking two success criteria , if don’t make into this working draft less likely to get in
17:29:11 <kirkwood> mc: agree that earlier better, but will be frequent followup drafts, but don’t agree that first public draft won’t get in
17:29:56 <kirkwood> MC: it would be great to meet bar, the WG is dealing with multiple high priority from each TF in working draft
17:30:20 <kirkwood> MC: we’ll be lucky to get 5, focus on which to get into this draft
17:30:30 <Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html
17:30:35 <kirkwood> link to priorites put in
17:30:59 <kirkwood> LS: everyone is taking two, if people promote those 2 then they are more likely to get in
17:31:30 <kirkwood> Thaddeus: fine to promote the ones I have, not really sure how
17:31:49 <Mike_Pluke> +1
17:32:56 <kirkwood> LS: this is the process as i understand it . the one that looking at SC see if their are any issues,    SC manager is about building consensus
17:33:12 <kirkwood> LS: to make sure a maority of people are comfortable with it
17:33:53 <kirkwood> LS: don’t take out unless you have proposer and everyone is comfotable. Building consensus and everybody is comfortable
17:34:57 <kirkwood> LS: for examp jk SC, its debilating if changes context for example
17:35:35 <kirkwood> LS: once solve the issue is to build consensus
17:36:04 <Jan> Jan has joined #coga
17:36:09 <kirkwood> LS: try to build consensus on SC once done send to josha nd andrew to then try to get it through
17:36:09 <Jan> q+
17:37:24 <kirkwood> MP: rewording 3.2.4 wether we rewrite existing SC will be discusssed a fundamental question, does it make sense to start rewriting SC, we will know better tomorrow. Quite alot are rewrting existiing ones to hwat extent acceptable we’ll know tomorrow
17:37:33 <Lisa_Seeman> ack j
17:37:36 <kirkwood> LS: if its a rewrite then its a rewrite
17:38:03 <kirkwood> Jan: he sent me addtional information inlcuding some videso from Josh if haven’t got it i can forward to list
17:38:33 <kirkwood> Jan: Josh sen trainnig materials on how to mange SC including some videos that Andrew has made
17:39:06 <kirkwood> MP: success criteria managers phase one , contains links to video
17:39:11 <Mike_Pluke> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1
17:39:27 <kirkwood> MP: link to video
17:39:35 <kirkwood> Jan: will send email to list to all video
17:39:36 <MichaelC> q+
17:40:43 <kirkwood> LS: there is a sentence in my SC that shouldn’t be there. Don’t know who wrote this. It seems that ‘intentded audience’ its not necessarily a part of SC its a conformace criteria question
17:40:48 <Jim_S> q+
17:41:21 <kirkwood> LS: not sure I understand it and where it came from. cna’t remember how got in their
17:41:43 <kirkwood> MC: its is absolutely something that is fair saying I don’t understand this
17:42:08 <kirkwood> LS: its a note a WG thing, it allows me to put link to issue number
17:42:31 <kirkwood> LS: wnat me to put it into comments area in git hub
17:42:56 <kirkwood> MC: don’t put to list put it in github as comments not in thread
17:43:10 <kirkwood> MC: put a link to email in github issue. every email is archived
17:43:40 <kirkwood> LS: when I comment in github, i follow email group as well and link to acrchive and comment in github correct?
17:44:06 <MichaelC> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/ GL List
17:44:30 <kirkwood> MC: yeah there will be some things happening on mailing list, so wouldn’t attempt to move to github I would put a pointer to mailing list in git hub comments and continue discussion in github
17:44:34 <MichaelC> ack me
17:44:35 <Lisa_Seeman> q+
17:44:43 <Lisa_Seeman> Ack l
17:45:30 <kirkwood> MC: this is what the SC manager should do, we can only process some of them, there is only so much time to build propslal, only so many coan go through the process.
17:46:11 <kirkwood> MP: i have been writing in github on SC who gets to see comment, is it just people onlist?
17:46:22 <kirkwood> MC: anyone can see it.
17:46:53 <kirkwood> MC: won’t get an email unless you subscribe to an issue or happens if you comment on an issue
17:47:49 <kirkwood> MC: so SC mangers can handle issues being noticed what you can do, identify preople that would be intersted. Send a starter message to list to get people to subscribe
17:48:13 <kirkwood> MC: does anybod obvject to this as worded is a good example
17:48:32 <kirkwood> MC: unpopular is easy to figure out
17:48:38 <Lisa_Seeman> ack jim
17:48:57 <kirkwood> JS: is their an erea to see who originally proposed a SC , the original owner
17:49:08 <kirkwood> LS: the official proposer for all of them is me
17:49:22 <Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html
17:49:33 <kirkwood> LS: they were reworked and extension document we did all together
17:50:48 <kirkwood> LS: if you want to for exmaple EA, resoltion is uptop and should be at bottom, Easiest way is for you and I to schedule a call to get some conversation going on second one
17:51:15 <kirkwood> EA: i was getting more concerned would like to schedule a time tomrrow moring i’ll be in lab that will be fine
17:51:51 <kirkwood> MC: i do recommend taking questions task force to keep it on mailing list
17:52:30 <kirkwood> LS: sometimes we want to talk over on phone call and get nice resolution on call if something like a rewording as long as comments go into github
17:53:15 <kirkwood> EA: say we have omsthing where layout has gone worng are you saying go back to coga group rather than the WCAG group, don’t we have to go to WWCAG
17:53:58 <kirkwood> MC: we have to to gett consensus if it gets to  apoint that it gets confusing, it just needs to go back to WG if needs a fix
17:55:33 <kirkwood> LS: succes criteria mangers talkt to proposser meant to go bac to TF, document in comments in github. As a SC criteria your WCAG SC manager does that make sense. You are bringin it through consuensu. you can absolutely go back to TF to do new workign to propose to WG
17:56:23 <kirkwood> MC: sometimes the comments form WCAG WG can accross as harsh thats not the intent and take critiques in terms of misunderstanding to make clear as complimentary to each other
17:56:39 <Mike_Pluke> Q+
17:56:57 <kirkwood> LS: a quick talk with me and do new wording, but as a manger you can
17:57:26 <kirkwood> MC: lisa you cna be invlved in new wording too, SC can gother the SC manager
17:57:34 <Lisa_Seeman> Q?
17:57:39 <Lisa_Seeman> ack mike
17:58:54 <kirkwood> MP: i f’e got SC small degree of consensus that its better to split into two. I could put proposal to TF asking if anyone objects. could make same question to WCAG  at least I could redraft on github than have new propsal will agree ton pricnicple at least gets one step further
17:59:24 <kirkwood> LS: put in comment on new proposed workging and forward to TF to alert TF because not everyon is in WCAG thats in TF
17:59:42 <kirkwood> LS: you can alert task force
18:00:19 <kirkwood> MP: you are saying just put in comments, thought michael says to email is that right?
18:01:16 <kirkwood> MC: what you are trying to get SC through the process, what will we get something that will yield conses. as far as splitting a SC that will be paritally addrssed in WG tomorrow.
18:01:48 <kirkwood> MP: split is no brainer other difficult
18:02:12 <kirkwood> LS: just ping me on skype we cna owork on new proposal together
18:02:26 <Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Acceptance_Criteria_for_Success_Criteria
18:02:28 <kirkwood> LS: always happy to talk it over if change to wording
18:03:11 <kirkwood> SC for WCAG this is the consensus proposal we have to get it through, the big criteria is if its testible
18:03:29 <kirkwood> SC: thats the old docment
18:03:30 <Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
18:03:36 <kirkwood> SC: that is the new one
18:03:55 <Thaddeus> I have to drop off thanks for clarifying the SC manager process. I will be on the WCAG call tomorrow
18:04:00 <kirkwood> SC: that it is testable with a high degree of confidence thate is what is important
18:04:40 <kirkwood> LS; i’m on skype on phone and focus on SC that is most importnat, plesase be in touch with any question
18:05:16 <kirkwood> LS: if anyone on call can take more, feel free to ping me on skype email or any toher mechanism
18:05:25 <Lisa_Seeman> rrsagent, make logs public
18:05:35 <Lisa_Seeman> rrsagent, create minutes
18:05:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-coga-minutes.html Lisa_Seeman
19:20:29 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, please part
19:20:29 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been lisa_seeman, kirkwood, Jim_S, Pietro, Jan
19:20:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #coga
19:20:37 <Lisa_Seeman> rrsagent, please part
19:20:37 <RRSAgent> I see no action items