Meeting minutes
<Ben> Taken an (personal) action to read up on scribing this week & have put my name down to scribe next week.
Content Usable Publication https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/content-usable-publication/
Ca: anyone new?
Publish Making Content Usable
RM: talk about comments in groups.
<Rachael> Current draft: https://
RM: Current draft: https://
RM: first comment from Sarah.
<Fazio> Big tech 5 already using it
<Fazio> Or Tech Big 5 I think they're called
RM: long document
<Rachael> Sarah comment "Group key sections: Recommend moving the User Cases / Personas section before the Usability Testing, Focus Groups, and Feedback section. The User Stories, Design Guide, and Use Cases / Personas are an excellent toolkit for designers and developers."
<Rachael> Mike "it could also use a structural edit to consider the structure and navigation features. It's a big document and is hard to digest or navigate in its current form."
RM: revised 3 times now.
… not sure we can do it again. But we can talk about it.
<CWA> +1 live with structure
<AWK> +AWK
RM: can we live with the current structure?
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
<Ben> +1
<johnkirkwood> +1
RM: comments around the summary.
… section one. We have restructured that part.
… key phrase, "after each of your Summary subsections, I recommend you provide a short paragraph explaining the structure of each section. It should be a lot easier to parse than this repetition; it is not immediately obvious that the 36 links, which only have 4 unique names between them, actually point to 36 different locations."
Lisa: added links on the request of EO/
… they wanted full tables. But it didn't work.
… what we have now is a bit of a compromise.
RM: any other suggestions beyond adding attributes?
Sarah: add headings as headings.
… like the "see also" links.
… makes it more usable as a document.
<MarcJohlic> It may also help to just move the "Objective x" to the front of the sentence: "See also Objective 4: user needs, design patterns, ... "
Sarah: user testing links all go to the same place.
MJ: It may also help to just move the "Objective x" to the front of the sentence: "See also Objective 4: user needs, design patterns, ... "
Lisa: MJ's suggestion could work.
… we did a mock up of Sarah's but people got lost. And it didn't work.
… links could be going to the right section.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say that the user testing links are a mistake. I've noted to fix it
Lisa: we could also take out links.
RM: there is an art in this.
… like the suggestion to clarify the sentence.
Rain: like Sarah's suggestion for headings.
… I could create a visual to help.
… worry about title tags. Creates more digital clutter.
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say can w3c provide an editor?
Mg: . Does the W3C have a copy editor that could edit this?
… It is a challenge.
<Rachael> To clarify, I meant two audiences from an accessiblity point of view: screen reader users and people with cognitive and learnign disabilities
RM: this is a TR doc. Intend to do an interactive version too.
Mg: did not originally realize 36 different links
… first section isn't numbered which throws off everything else.
… 4 views are useful.
Ben: has adding section links been considered?
<Ben> For example "User Needs (3.1.1)" for objective 1 versus "User Needs (3.2.1)" for objective 2
<Zakim> CWA, you wanted to ask about summary of where we are at
Chuck: heard 2 points of discussion: Title attribute. Copy editor.
<Rachael> Possibilities I heard: Make headings actual headings. Mark semantically but add css to leave in a line. Make the links in the following format "User Needs (3.1.1)" Add clarifying sentence
Chuck: think doc is good enough to be published without a copy editor.
Rm: make headings real headings.
… adding a clarifying sentence.
Lisa: +1 to rain's idea.
<johnkirkwood> +1 to lisa my feeling is that we wouldn’t be able to do CSS
Lisa: we tried putting in TOC.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to propose straw poll
<Rachael> Straw poll: Make headings actual headings. Mark semantically as a list but add css to leave in a line. Make the links in the following format "User Needs (3.1.1)"
RM: Make headings actual headings. Mark semantically as a list but add css to leave in a line. Make the links in the following format "User Needs (3.1.1)"
<LisaSeemanKest> the numbers will not work for people who find them confucing
RM: third option sentence.
<CWA> straw poll option 1) Make headings actual headings. Mark semantically as a list but add css to leave in a line. Make the links in the following format "User Needs (3.1.1)"
<LisaSeemanKest> i like option 1, without the numbers
<LisaSeemanKest> thats
<LisaSeemanKest> thanks
<CWA> straw poll option 2) Make headings actual headings. Mark semantically as a list but add css to leave in a line.
<CWA> straw poll option 3) remove the links
<CWA> straw poll option 4) adding a clarifying sentence or title before hand
<CWA> 2
<Rain> 2
<Ben> 1
<Rachael> 1 or 2
<MarcJohlic> 1
<sarahhorton_> 2
<LisaSeemanKest> 3
Laura: 1
<Fazio> 0
<Ryladog_> 2
<ChrisLoiselle> 2
<juliette_mcshane> 2
<JF> 1 or 2
<johnkirkwood> 3
<mbgower> 1? (Don't see how we can not have headings)
<Jennie> 1 or 2
chuck: think 2 has it.
<LisaSeemanKest> i dont want the headings
<johnkirkwood> 2 is fine
chuck: Anyone opposed to #1
<JF> create semantic structure?
Lisa: headings will make it look like topics
… now it is a list or summary.
<Rachael> suggestion: Try this assuming we can keep the actual look the same. Make headings actual headings. Mark semantically as a list but add css to leave in a line.
RM: propose we try it.
<JF> +1 to Rachael
RM: if it doesn't work we can bring it back.
… not sure if it will work in the TR doc space.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to support the need for semantic structure
Rain: 90% chance it will work.
jf: preserving sematic structure is critical
Chuck: option 2 has it.
RMM
<Rachael> https://
<LisaSeemanKest> texthelp is an add on for dyslexia with two million users
<LisaSeemanKest> (over two million)
Detlev: if my comment is not relevant. Discard it.
… up to the editors.
RM: reads Detlev's comment.
<LisaSeemanKest> we mention ivr
"I stumbled at the passage „voice menus that involve remembering a specific number or term“. Is a ‘voice menu’ any menu that can respond to spoken commands, say, in Dragon? That wouldn’t be anything special. Or is it something else I don’t know? I guess many people will be uncertain what this means."
<LisaSeemanKest> and link to it
<Ben> +1 for IVR
<JF> +1 to IVR with a hyperlink to definition
Katie: ivr = interaction voice response. Add definition.
lisa: we can ad that in.
RM: section 2.1
<Rachael> For example, there are links that have too little context to be useful - take for example the paragraph “Section 5 can be useful for teams involved in user research and user testing” - why? Do I have to scroll down to section 5 to find out what it is about?
<Rachael> Provide descriptive links: In “2.1 How to Use this Document” (and throughout the document) change the section links (e.g., Section 5) to descriptive links. For example, using the underscore character to identify link text, change “Agile teams can incorporate _section 3_ into their user stories” to “Agile teams can incorporate the _user stories in section 3_ into their user stories.”
<Rachael> https://
<LisaSeemanKest> The high-level objectives outline key design goals that will help people with cognitive impairments. Each objective has associated:
<LisaSeemanKest> user needs and user stories, that show the user perspective
<LisaSeemanKest> design patterns, that show what to do
<LisaSeemanKest> personas and user scenarios, that help you to understand your users' experiences and challenges, and
<LisaSeemanKest> questions for user testing.
<LisaSeemanKest> Mappings of objectives, user stories, p
<Rachael> The “2.1.1 Testing Each Pattern” section does not appear to belong in the “2.1 How to Use this Document” section at its current level of detail. The content is important and would be helpful in the Design Guide. Suggest removing for this version and adding an item to the ordered list in the “2.1 How to Use this Document” section, “8. Examples from each pattern can be used as the basis for test cases.”
RM: we have a links and content problem.
Lisa: putting in the links would be helpful.
… think it is more or less already there.
RM: do we need to do more?
Sarah: doesn't address what I was talking about.
… this is an important section.
Lisa: mappings and appendix A could be links.
… adding more links without overwhelming.
… want more specifics.
… Would like a specificities.
<Rachael> User Stories: This section contains user stories describing different needs of people with cognitive and learning disabilities. Each story is provided with a set of user needs.
<LisaSeemanKest> user needs and user stories, that show the user perspective
RM: could we slightly revise?
Lisa: we are trying to reduce redundancies.
… have we managed to achieve a summary?
… this is meant for developers.
<Fazio> I think I it’s fine
Chuck: not sure if you (Lisa) are for or against the suggestion?
lisa: we can add it but there is a cost.
Sarah: not adding but focusing the content that is there.
lisa: I can try to rewrite that.
<Rachael> straw poll: option 1) add links and add structure to the 2.1 option 2) add links
<sarahhorton_> 1
<LisaSeemanKest> 0
<CWA> 2
<mbgower> 1
<Jaunita_George> 1
<CWA> really 1
<Ben> 1
<Ryladog_> 1
<juliette_mcshane> 1
Laura: 1
<johnkirkwood> 1
<Rain> 1
<Jennie> 1
chuck: option 1 has momentum
<Rachael> Change "This also includes the following user needs:" to "This user story also addresses the following user needs:"
RM: "This also" change to "this user story also addresses"
Df: would have to restructure.
<Rachael> Straw poll: 1) Just change "This" to "This user story" 2) Change entire sentence 3) no change
<LisaSeemanKest> 3
<Fazio> 3
<CWA> 3
<Rachael> 1
<Sukriti> 3
<juliette_mcshane> 3
<Jaunita_George> 1
<sarahhorton_> 1
<johnkirkwood> 1
Laura: 1
<Rain> 3
<LisaSeemanKest> i can live with 1
<Rain> I can also live with 1
Chuck: scales have tipped to 1
<Rachael> https://
RM: Section. 5
<CWA> Sarah you had comments on section 5. Usability Section
<CWA> rachael: Recommended removing this section and adding to testing section.
<CWA> sarah: From my read through document, the user stories in earlier section link to user story that describes a particular objective.
<CWA> sarah: When it comes time to link the objectives to the user testing section, there aren't those targeted sections that are describing usability testing or user research.
<CWA> sarah: For a particular objective. It's a stand-alone section, an important section. It all comes back to this "overwhelming people" who will use this doc.
<CWA> sarah: Testing content seems less integreated and needs more time and attention.
<CWA> sarah: Even terminology we are using is not the right terminology. The doc is very good, it can go out as is. If we are trying to maximizing the impact, it might be worth...
<CWA> sarah: segmenting that section so it maps more cleanly.
<Zakim> CWA, you wanted to ask for scribe change
<CWA> rachael: This has had a lot of conversation. It's a hard call. There's a lot of value. Coga has discussed options.
<CWA> rachael: We think it's valuable to emphasize usability testing. EO requested we limit what's in it and link to their resources until we work with EO.
<Detlev> Adding a comment to §4.3.3.3 How it Helps: I don't think the graphic included here is helpful it is far too abstract / has too little context to illustrate the point
<CWA> rachael: That's a planned effort. The decision to date is to leave it in, focus on testing with people with cognative issues, and work with EO.
<CWA> rachael: We think it has a lot of value. I don't know if that impacts your position.
<CWA> sarah: I had a hunch that this is what's behind the inclusion. I think it would help if it appears separately from... before usability testing.
<Jaunita_George> Haven't read this closely yet, but we should probably address remote user testing, which is a bit more common given the pandemic.
<CWA> sarah: And there was not an effort to integrate something that doesn't integrate well. It becomes a way a chapter in its own right, focused on usability testing.
<Jaunita_George> **If it hasn't been addressed already. There are unique factors to consider with remote usability testing.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about some restructuring
JF: Leaning in the same direction as Sarah
… I think we're trying to give too much information at once. Would like to see a high level overview in the main document.
… Then having all the questions and personas, I think it would solve the problem if we put them in appendixes.
… It allows me to read the document without getting caught up in the individual personas.
Lisa: This is the end of the document, followed by the glossary.
… We're going to make a web version, making it more interactive and focus on user needs.
… People love the personas.
Lisa: To Sarah's point; we want to make another version. There is more to do. Haven't covered mental health for instance.
… Our approach is "is it good enough to publish"?
… We have lists of things to work on next, which will feed into a second version.
Lisa: We have restructuring on the list, so the question is do we mess around with restructuring again? We've tried so many times, and have to balance requests from different groups.
<Fazio> Publish!
Lisa: Is it good enough to publish now?
Rachael: I would push back on moving the personas to the appendix.
<alastairc> I think the alternative version is the solution, not a re-structuring.
<Jaunita_George> I think it's ready to publish and then publish updates/appendices as needed. This seems like very timely guidance that would be valuable to organizations.
<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to alsiter
JF: For that reason I would want to split it out to a separate document. All I'm suggesting is have the summary for section 5 and 6 together, then the personas. Simply to restructure to have it more readable at a high level.
<Chuck> +1 to alastair
<KimD> Can't the personas live in the doc AND listed separately in an appendix for easier reference?
Lisa: We tried that, we had it pulled out in different documents. We had it in appendixes. It got more confusing. It isn't a quick restructure.
… If it helps is in section 5 having a link to "see objective X".
<LisaSeemanKest> add the grafics?
Detlev: I think the graphic in 4.3.3.3, I couldn't work out what it was supposed to convey. Think it needs to be taken out or replaced.
Sarah: Want to clarify that I was suggesting switching 5 and 6 around.
<LisaSeemanKest> 4.3.3.3 does not have a grafic
<Rachael> proposed straw poll: 1) Move usabilty section to appendix 2) Move both usabilty and personas to appendix 3) Switch sections 5 and 6 4) No change
Sarah: What I didn't pick up on is that the 5.5 maps to the objectives themselves. That changes my thinking about the section. I see it is more integrated than I picked up on.
<LisaSeemanKest> we could add (objective x) next to each one
<Fazio> +1
Chuck: Agree with Alastair; there will be another document, and this one is sufficient.
… Every time someone suggests a minor tweak it turns out to be significant effort. As an individual, I think this document is good enough as is.
<Fazio> +1to Alastair I mean
<Chuck> straw poll: 1) Move usabilty section to appendix 2) Move both usabilty and personas to appendix 3) Switch sections 5 and 6 4) No change
<Jaunita_George> 4
4
<Chuck> 4
<Ben> 4
<Fazio> 4
<Rain> 4
<Jennie_take2> 4
<LisaSeemanKest> 4
<GN015> 4
<JF> 2 or 4
<laura> 4
<Rachael> 4 The web version will handle the issues
<Jennie_take2> 4
<sarahhorton_> 4
<Sukriti> 4
<johnkirkwood> 4
<alastairc> 4
<david-macdonald> 4
<Ryladog_> 4
<Rachael> “Finding people (...) with different cognitive and learning disabilities can be achievable, even for small groups on a low budget. People sometimes recruit users from an organization or self-help group for people with learning difficulties”.
Rachael: Comment from Detlev.
<Rachael> https://
<alastairc> Jaunita_George - Yes, it's public, just be clear about the status - it's a draft.
Rachael: We added a note to this section to call out that this group is potentially more vulnerable.
<Jaunita_George> Oh sure! Thanks for letting me know. :)
Detlev: It sounded as if it should be done by everyone. In our perspective it isn't easy to do that.
<Fazio> I disagree.
<LisaSeemanKest> i strongly disagree
<Fazio> So many disability services agencies
Detlev: We planned a project that is focused on this group, but we found that testing we do with other groups isn't possible here. We have to take results on trust.
… Would be good to warn that it is not always easy to involve this group in the design process.
… Maybe even suggest which groups are easier to involve, or say who you can collaborate with.
Chuck: Had some disagreement, but without much context.
<johnkirkwood> aging community as well.
Fazio: Countries have agencies to help peoples with cognitive disabilities. All you have to do is contact them and they'd be willing to put you in touch with people. It's their job to help people achieve economic independence.
Rachael: Detlev made a good point. We haven't fleshed out that some groups may be easier. Curious what Lisa's thought is on that statement.
<JF> +1 to Rain
<Fazio> Sorry bad choice of words
<Fazio> thats true
Rain: The desire to put the expectation on developers as something they need to do. From my role at Google I can say that even though there are a lot of organisations out there, it is hard. There is a complicated history that these support organisations have to keep in mind, and be protective of the people they are supporting.
<alastairc> Very dependant on org size, but a useful heuristic is whether they already run usability testing. In which case it is expanding something they already do.
Rain: Would love to keep this in. I acknowledge there is this challenge.
<Jennie_take2> Possible reword? For each objective, it is not only possible that your user testing includes individuals with a range of cognitive and learning disabilities but can really improve usability.
JF: Part of this is that it is situational. If you're a big organisation in silicon valley it is more reasonable. In other places access may not be as easy. I want to be careful that we don't lean on that. It is important, we want to encourage it, but think we don't want to shame organisations who can't do it as fully.
<Jennie_take2> Another option: For each objective, many organizations can add user testing including individuals with a range of cognitive and learning disabilities into their user testing plan.
<Fazio> +1lisa
Lisa: That is what we've done. We've given some guidance. Making your site, you can test it, maybe find some people that are older.
… If you have a big organisations, some need some work. We're trying to give them support on what are the issues they need to think about.
<Rain> smiling
Lisa: If you're a small place, trying to figure out what template to use. You can ask around, your mom, your neighbour, your old school mate.
… You can go around and ask. In a day you can have quite a broad thing. Unless it's a 5 person hamlet, I don't believe you can find five people who'd want to help out.
<alastairc> Might be worth a qualifying statement under 5.1, e.g. "If your orgnisation already tests websites with users, this section aims to expand that activity to include people with cognitive and learning disabilities."
Lisa: There are things to be careful of. Informed consent. We've linked resources on consent forms. You can change it, copy it and move forward. We've given the resources, they are linked from the developer resource page.
… This has all the resources to make this achievable. If we don't test with people with cognitive/learning disability, you won't have an accessible page. It is achievable on whatever budget you have.
Chuck: If this document won't be normative, than this requirement as stated seems okay as is.
<LisaSeemanKest> mpt normitive, just a nte
<LisaSeemanKest> note
Chuck: Alastair has suggested to call it out.
<Chuck> akc me
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that user testing is immature in a lot of orgs
<Chuck> Chuck acknowledges that non-normative still gets reviewed carefully
Mike: We spend a lot of time word smithing non-normative. What brought up the discussion was Detlev saying you may want to qualify the statement. It is not clear exactly who it is aimed at.
… Is the target for someone familiar with usability testing? Maybe put this information in an appendix for people who don't have experience with it.
… It is a very large section. If you don't know a bunch about usability testing, suggesting it is straight-forward is problematic to me.
Fazio: Having relationships with organisations is important, in order to get them to join your study group. In terms of accessing, you can pick any place in the country where there is such an organisation. Is it easy? No, you have to build that relationship.
Detlev: I was comparing the ease of testing with different groups. When we tried to plan testing, we were told it wasn't easy.
David: That's why building relationships with organisations is important. Don't think we should remove it from the document because it isn't easy.
Jennie: From government perspectives I'd like to reframe the conversation.
<JF> +1 to Jennie - this *can* be something of a slippery slope...
Jennie: One is formal compared to informal usability testing. For formal testing we have very specific requirements. For auditing we need to know the diagnosis, whether they were compensated.
<Fazio_> +1 Jennie
Jennie: At the same time, what they want to do (please correct me if I'm wrong), is we need people to think about including people with cognitive disabilities, and give them the encouragement that they should start to plan for this.
… Think we should have an encouraging tone. More organisations started doing this, your organisation should consider doing this.
<Rachael> straw poll: 1) qualify this statement on email list to come to resolution 2) no change
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest straw poll
Rachael: Was going to propose a poll to continue the conversation on the e-mail list.
macdonald: Some jurisdictions may not be as rigorous in pointing to a standard vs a note, whereas others may require by law some documents like this.
<LisaSeemanKest> -1 to david.
macdonald: We may want to have a statement, kind of like we had on WCAG 2, about not putting this into legal documents.
<johnkirkwood> -1
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say it is (or should be) a framing issue, who is it aimed at?
<JF> +1 to DMD
<Fazio_> I'm pretty sure in COGA we discussed this and decided no we don't want countries to not use this as broadly as they see fit
Alastair: Usability testing / user research is a key tool. Don't think we need to say if it has to be put into law or not.
<KimD> +1 to David's point - very important
Alastair: This section starts off clearly. I think we can make it clearer there is a variety of organisations. Even training for UX on how to expand that for people with disabilities. It seems like a big step for a lot of organisations.
… Little more skeptical about the lower end of the scale, people who haven't done usability testing at all.
<LisaSeemanKest> we had a lot of discusions on clarifing that this is not requirments of wcag. any more would be disastrous and make us look like we are against coga groups
Alastair: So if you don't do usability testing there is a learning curve.
<Chuck> straw poll: 1) qualify this statement on email list to come to resolution 2) no change
<Jaunita_George> 2
<Fazio_> 2
<LisaSeemanKest> 2
<sarahhorton_> 1
<alastairc> 1, and then 2 if we don't agree on list ;-)
<Detlev> 1
<johnkirkwood> 2
2
<GN015> 2
<mbgower> 1
<Chuck> 1, then 2
<Ryladog_> 2
<JakeAbma_> 1
<Rachael> 1 and 2 if we can't agree on list
<Sukriti> 1
<Jennie_take2> 1, then 2
<JF> 1
<laura> 1 then 2
<Rain> 1, then 2
<david-macdonald> 1
chuck: Majority of the group wants an opportunity to explore qualifying statements.
<LisaSeemanKest> Tal like to be referred to (pronouns) as they/them/theirs.
Rachael: We have two more issues. We got great feedback. We diversified based on gender identity.
… Ran it by the task force, they found it harder to read with the pronoun, so we use the name Tal a lot.
… Saw Sarah's point that we don't use pronouns a lot, but this is why.
Sarah: I think it's great we're using they/them pronouns in the personas. If we're going to, we need to use them. Its worse if we know pronouns and not use them. Even one of two uses of "they".
<LisaSeemanKest> it is in
Rachael: One option is to refer to people by their name.
<LisaSeemanKest> quote " Tal starts the process, but realizes they do not know the author’s name."
<LisaSeemanKest> "Sadly, when Tal comes back to the form, all that they filled in is lost. Tal has to retype the whole thing again."
Sarah: In the narrative of the persona, we should use the pronoun at least once.
+1
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that multi-gender references gets trickier in Internationalization issues/concres
<Chuck> +1
<Rachael> Right now in the main persona, we use the gender pronoun in the main pronoun in the sentence "The one that worries Tal most involves a written assignment to research Post-war fashions and their impact on today’s designs. "
JF: As others have noted, the user of multi-gender pronouns tends to be western-centric. As much as I want to be culturally sensitive, we need to show that same respect to other territories. Sliding it in there is respective. I don't think W3C documents is the place to make that statement.
Rachael: Right now it is in one place in the personas.
<Rachael> straw poll option1 ) no change 2) add it in 1 or 2 places in the main persona 3) Tal like to be referred to (pronouns) as Tal/they/them/theirs.
<LisaSeemanKest> note the main persona is only one pargraph
Mike: I think you have enough information in there for the context for that user. I agree you can make more use of a proper name so you have less frequent. If you're going to create a user in that way, I think we should be true to that persona.
<Rachael> straw poll option1 ) no change 2) add it in 1 or 2 places in the main persona 3) Tal like to be referred to (pronouns) as Tal/they/them/theirs 4) change the persona to remove gender diversity
Sarah: Want to add another option, to use the pronouns naturally and correctly
<KimD> +1 to Sarah
<Jaunita_George> +1
<LisaSeemanKest> it is not readable.
<Rachael> straw poll option1 ) no change 2) add it in 1 or 2 places in the main persona 3) Tal like to be referred to (pronouns) as Tal/they/them/theirs 4) change the persona to remove gender diversity 5) use the pronouns as frequently as would be used naturally
<JF> -1 we're attemtpting to use a Wc3C document to advance a societal discussion out of our scope
Lisa: Want to clarify, we tried that. It was hard to read. It's an international document. Everything we're trying to do to make things readable, I think there will be people who struggle with what's going on.
<mbgower> 1
<Chuck> 2
<david-macdonald> 4 - I'm concerned that the use of it in this document may be confused as us suggesting that gender identity is a cognitive disability.
<Ben> 5
3 + 5
<morr4> 5
<GN015> 4
<Rachael> 1 or 2 (can't live with 4 or 5)
<Caryn> 3
<sarahhorton_> 5
<JF> 4 or 3
<Fazio_> 1
<Caryn> or 5
<KimD> 3 + 5
<LisaSeemanKest> 1 , can live with 2
<Rain> 1 or 2
<Jaunita_George> 3+5, maybe with an explanation about how they/them is being used?
<alastairc> 1 or 2
<laura_> 1 or 2
Chuck: Don't know if there is consensus here
<Fazio_> +1 to that
Mike: Suggest we give the feedback to the authors, they incorporate it in the next iteration.
<Fazio_> +1 Mike
Chuck: If we don't have consensus, the decision is "no change".
<JF> then -1 to CfC
Chuck: There is no consensus, so the document does not change.
JF: Don't think we can make no change. There are enough people unhappy with the current situation. To force the issue now is wrong.
… If we leave this unchanged I will vote against it. Think we may be overstepping our bound.
<alastairc> Probably need to continue on list and narrow down the options.
<JF> +1 to Gundula
Gundula: Agree with John. It causes issue for translation.
Chuck: Going to continue to discuss our options, revisit an perhaps our next call.
<Jaunita_George> I have to hop off. But thank you. Nice meeting everyone!