<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> /invite Zakim

<Jennie> Jennie+

<Jennie> Sorry

Lisa Update on the publications

Concerns about the number of documents - how do we get them across to the two parent groups

Lisa suggested that we need to write an overview of the different documents - possibly Alistair wrote something along these lines

Main usable document, persona document, user testing and others - need to be linked up

Official place for publication is the Technical Review page otherwise it just becomes a resource and had less restrictions.

Lisa asked Janina if it would help to know where to publish things.

Janina agreed with what has been said - looked at the CFCs in April 2017 and standing commission in 2018 and what has changed is the move of the Appendix

Janina continued to say there are now two additional documents for permissions - decision emails etc Suggested that working draft of Gap Analysis should go but without Appendix which can be published as a second document

Janina continued that publications would be delayed by TPAC - Think about early Nov 2018 to at least publish one of the documents with simple overview

Janina said this might be an easier pathway to acceptance by the WCAG groups

Lisa mentioned another concern about the lack of advancement on the iterations - need to have better quality as still feel like drafts

Lisa cont. Need to recruit more people who are actively involved in the working group - Alistair was going to draft a persuasive letter

Lisa cont. Need extra editors as an idea

EA - can be hard to write using the correct type of WCAG language so may need help from those used to this type of writing.

Alistair added the fact that he had written a note about the technical side of things.

Lisa also mentioned the idea of getting experts in UI - cutting edge usable design knowledge for cognitive impairments.

Alistair suggested different drafts of the note to be sent out to different places

Lisa added the need to come from different angles such as usability and user experience.

<jkirkwoo> Depends on what exactly is being sent

<jkirkwoo> but I think I could send to neurocognitve rehab facilities

Lisa said - send emails out and thanks John for his suggestion

Janina said need to good technical writing skills as well

Lisa asked for Alistair's overview of the documents.

<alastairc> This one? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FKwUarPhmvxwrJYtvWVeUVKi2ozivYZFmpEsWfOuJCg/edit#slide=id.g3c3870b6d6_0_142

Lisa asked for Alistair's overview of the documents. Presuming these will stay as drafts rather than being progressed.

Michael suggested that they needed to be retired if they are not progressing.

Lisa asking what would be needed in the next versions of the gap analysis and the design doc

Lisa said may want to be moved out of TR

Lisa mentioned John Kirkwood and John Rochford are working on GPS and navigation and another person is working on emotional issue document.

<Jan> I have to drop off the call - it's budget season and we are buried. We are willing to help with editing, but the deadlines have to be reasonable. We cannot edit large documents in short time-frames because we don't normally have the luxury of working on W3C work during the work day and our regular jobs require quite a lot of overtime.

<jkirkwoo> I will reach out to John Rochford

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> thanks Jna,

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> that makes sence

<jkirkwoo> it may

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/#way-finding

Alistair mentioned that in the gap analysis there is a mention of wayfinding and it may make sense to update it with the GPS and navigation

EA need to look at emotional document partly written by Thadeus and Renaldo. Lisa to try to find the document

Lisa mentioned Road Map table - needed to be broken down into design requirements.

Lisa suggesting due to the amount of detail in the tables that might even be out of date should now just be links to design requirements and cut down the amount of information

EA +1 the tables are hard to read etc

Alistair commented that they need to clearly show a user need and the way to fulfil that need or whether there is a gap. Need to maintain areas that are yet to be covered - must not lose that aspect. should be two columns or a heading and list.

John agreed with concept of not losing the purpose and where we do not yet have the technological answers... fill in the puzzle over time

Lisa suggested that all the work done so far is fully represented on issue documents and then sort the tables out.

Lisa asked Janina if it would be possible to make the tables easier to read.

Janina agreed to do the task if it does not have to be done before TPAC and to look at other user stories

Janina confirmed that there needs to be a case made as to why things have to be changed and why it does not work for some people with a need for explanations about challenges with guidance

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: janina review gap analisis and see what is missing. (maybe chanlges in the user reserch modules, tables need redone and issue papers updated for emtional and gps and conversonalal interface

<trackbot> Created ACTION-294 - Review gap analisis and see what is missing. (maybe chanlges in the user reserch modules, tables need redone and issue papers updated for emtional and gps and conversonalal interface [on Janina Sajka - due 2018-10-11].

<jkirkwoo> I can help you with that, Janina, if could review in Google doc.

Lisa went on to discuss the usable document and the requirements document

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/coga/requirements/

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/separate-usable-doc/content-usable/usable.html

Lisa asked what are the most important things and what needs to be done for the next publication

<alastairc> https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable/

Lisa realised that the links provided for the documents were not the ones that needed to be viewed. Alastair has added the correct document link above

Lisa asked what is more important than the requirements? The next version of the Gap Analysis will wait for feedback from Janina and the next version of the user requirements should be the next task - clarify and may more usable before the next iteration

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/separate-usable-doc/content-usable/usable.html

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable/

Lisa actually meant to say how to make content usable - design requirements are a break off document from that one.

Lisa then asked what do we next need to work on such as persona, design requirements more consistent level - the latter needs the most work.

John pointed out that it is only ready as a public working draft - Lisa added it is frozen as an HTML doc

Alistair suggested that the content usable document is the one that needs to be discussed. Suggested that we focus on section 9 onwards

Lisa pointed out that the design requirements (section 9) are not complete as policy requirements not there yet. Hard to map the tables at the moment - design requirements need to be more mature

Alastair (sorry spelt incorrectly before now) - said they need to be more developed before publication

Lisa asked what is the most important content to get out to people - and asked if going for first working draft is possible?

Janina mentioned a need for a synopsis before it all goes out to publication and also an overview as part of the procedure.

<Jennie> Need to drop off the call for another meeting. Have a good week.

Alastair asked what needs to be done to get it published and what does this group need to do?

Lisa asked what we need to write for the design requirements

Alastair mentioned Gap Analysis, design requirements and usable doc

<alastairc> Gap analysis - The analysis of the research and what gaps there are.

<alastairc> coga-usable: The overview of what organisations should do about their process

<alastairc> design requirements: what designers should do

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> zakim hung up on me...

<janina> Alastair, looks like a good overview start!

Alastair - wants a break down of the different documents and looking at the sections that need checking.

Alastair to make a text document to clarify what all the documents are designed to convey with links to latest versions.

<janina> +1

<alastairc> trackbot end meeting

<alastairc> RRSAgent make public

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: janina, Jennie, jkirkwoo, shari, MichaelC, alastairc
Present: janina Jennie jkirkwoo shari MichaelC alastairc Jan
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: EA
Inferring Scribes: EA

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


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


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: janina

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


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)