Meeting minutes
<Becca_Monteleone> I am having difficulty connecting to the zoom (the zoom link on the COGA channel takes me to an empty room) but I am observing here on IRC
<Becca_Monteleone> Oh! The meeting is at 11 ET. My apoligies!
<Lisa> the call is in an hour
<Lisa> next item
lisa: scribe just needs to cover main points
<Lisa> https://
<Lisa> next item
lisa: reminder to sign up to scribe and reach out for orientation calls.
lisa: action items - no individuals from mental health group
kiki: Did surveys and card sorts and have results, some objectives were unclear catagories
will drop document in, needing comments for content usable form. Unless this group should decide
<Kiki> https://
lisa: will add this to main call for next week or week after if we do not get to it this week
Lisa: question on the survey as she felt survey was not impartial view, alternative catagories were not seen, was she looking in incorrect place?
<Lisa> https://
kiki and lisa: trying to determine what was or was not included in card sort
kiki: alternative catagories were not set up like the document linked, but were included in the card sort
Julie: would like help understanding percentage level for agreement to move forward
kiki: specific items 60% above was strong correlation of card to category, others lower were included at 30-40% was the largest category for short critical path
kiki: could look into better fit of categories with lower percentage, maybe look at card differences instead of category issues
ie. card saying "provide feedback" might have been misunderstood
lisa: what is the number we should be aiming for, would 90% be reasonable?
kiki: 60% or above would be ideal as people will categorize differently, just looking for majority
<Lisa> https://
lisa: may need a week in the main group on what could be a better structure or restructure in addition to tweaks, maybe 3 with different cognitive profiles come out with new mock-ups of categories with an alternative card-sort
lisa: one group tweak current, one group work on an alternative to try both and see if we can higher percentages
julie: the document with 4 themes (that lisa shared) would be fascinating to know if only those 4 themes caused higher agreement on the items that had smaller percentage
kiki: would not be hard to recreate the card-sort tool to use it. Mostly the issue is recruiting and most would be same people. Need ideal of 30 people
lisa: can we do a smaller group to get the themes better, then send to 10 people to give us an idea to get an idea and tweak, then if we want to recruit more to do the card sort so we are not trying to recruit the full 30
<Lisa> close item 9
kiki: asked if anyone is screen reader or voice control access user, can be moved to another tool with 4 themes and objectives categorize without looking at the document to see if those 4 themes are capturing
lisa: closed item 4 to put on agenda as discussing now
kiki: will try and get into another tool and send out by end of day
<Kiki> https://
kiki: qualitative research plan rough draft, dropped in notes, is being planned by a researcher now to address information that may be misunderstood
kiki: these are questions we are trying to understand ourselves, so please note what is more important to us as a team
kiki: please leave feedback on what is important so that the findings are useful, this study is being done through google so it will not be redone
if we can put feedback on agenda next week so we can meet march deadline to have this done
kiki: feedback will be needed by next monday
lisa: clear language sub-group updates
Julie: 1st focus is assertions doc from silver with new version weekly and short timelines, talked with Rochelle to get date on when team can focus on it. "stable for experimentation" version may go out on January 31st
julie: they will pause on updates and COGA TF and others would have time to review. Could Feb 9th be good for clear language subgroup to come together and align after asynch, and then bring it to full COGA TF with time to review
julie: this assertions document is important as it may be similar to AAA or try and dig in to see if some assertions can be A level with less ambiguity and confusion.
julie: EA sent email on getting input on the assertions or procedural or protocol testing essential. hoping to have several weeks to a moth to come together as subgroup and task force before we give feedback
<EA> Thank you Julie as it really is a concern and I am not sure 'assertions' is even the right word now listening to you talking about procedures.
julie: happy to have anyone join to help with these initial rounds of feedback
lisa: is there anything to send to the wider list?
julie: makes sense to wait until there is a version to focus on, hopefully this will go out on January 31st and can share a google doc at that time
<EA> +1 to Julie's comment to pause till we get the next version of the assertions document
julie: anyone who wants to discuss on Feb 9th can join, and then we come together as a full TF afterwards
Lisa: call for test plan and strategy update
shawn: met to discuss, but waiting to see what silver is doing
shawn: meeting on Friday to discuss way forward
shawn: own document specific to test for cognitive disability and best way to approach testing for making content usable, looking at the assertion test and different types of tests
shawn: still looking at patterns and seeing where they relate to each test
lisa: are there minutes and links that can be added to right hand column of google document. What is done so individuals can jump back in
shawn: will put link to the folder with the information and add descriptions for those documents
lisa: check in on david and list progress
david: not sure full scope of partner organizations we should consider
lisa: want to ask everyone what we need to discuss and what everyone needs help with, so that is a good question David. We will put it on the agenda to discuss, might be next week
Lisa: briefly organizations that help or do literary reviews and updates such as bulletins and reviews that we can utilize instead of us having to redo the work
lisa: any organization doing research and getting grants should also be doing reviews
lisa: big organizations and companies might also be doing internal research, and might be willing to share some of the research if not all
lisa: ask for update on images subgroup
john: nothing new since last week
lisa: next week will be less on subgroups
<Lisa> https://
lisa: link to subgroup page in irc
lisa: if you have a subgroup meeting coming up, please send agenda day before to help remind people to attend
who wants time on the next call (or two)
lisa: calendar link
being used by shawn, david, kiki and others
shawn: make a few suggestions, calendar looks for links to zoom that are embedded in message to create a join, suggestion is to put link inside meeting details
lisa: unable to do as the information is confidential and the calendar is open
shawn: not a problem, I made a work around
lisa: would anyone think it would be extremely beneficial?
lisa: without the need we will keep in mind, but not add the links at this time
<julierawe> Sad to say there are people who zoom-bomb W3C meetings. I was in a meeting where someone joined with a fake name and drew some genitalia. Very unpleasant.
lisa: next item is if anyone wants time on the call for next week
Issues with WCAG4ICT including content useable https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues
call for topics we need to cover
lisa: if you need you can email with topics
lisa: WCAG2ITC update, not creating supplements, just conformance to WCAG
<EA> https://
lisa: wrote issue asking for that to be reconsidered
<Lisa> https://
lisa: if WCAG2ITC should include content usable supplement, then you can open an issue via link in irc channel, or can add comment to lisa's comment
shawn: part of the WCAG2ITC working group and can bring it up in that group
lisa: feeling is that chairs are hesitant to have anything that creates more work on an overworked group, so suggestions is to draft something on implementing coga supplements and incorporating top 10 hits
<Lisa> https://
lisa: on our home page of our wiki the getting started and 10 tips would be a good draft to start off and less daunting than the larger coga document
shawn: I know they are overworked and are pushing to get it, they may not pick it up, but if we do the work for them that might be it. We might be able to see where content usable could be included in WCAG2ITC
shawn: would links to us also work?
lisa: next steps if possible - ask them to include a draft on working with supplements, if there is an action item ask if we can put on people from coga, then we can put together a small team
lisa: would be a great first steps and good to get our members in, anything would be a huge step from nothing
shawn: sure
julie: do you know time frame for WCAG2ICT?
lisa: not sure
<Lisa> https://
lisa: link to overview
<ShawnT> https://
<Lisa> next item
shawn: work statement with timeline with Nov 2023 publish
specifically for WCAG2 with note of 2.2 for ICT
shawn: reference to EN standards
lisa: this would be a good first step to talk about next week, and the time is right
lisa: next week focus - gather missing user needs and any other updates
lisa: keep the calendar going, it seems useful, let me know if you need help with it
lisa: call Thursday on testing sub group