Meeting minutes
<Lisa> irc tips https://
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: The background is W3C is international organization and all the specifications need to work everywhere
Lisa: The internationalization group had some criticisms of Making Content Usable
Lisa: We tried to make it international, like 'Use the tense and voice that easiest to understand" and gave English as an example
<EA> + present
Lisa: We tried to narrow the double negative so it said 'Don't use a double negative to express a positive' because some languages use a double negative to express a negative
Lisa: We didn't know about some things in Japanese
<kirkwood> shouldn’t we just say “avoid using a double negative to express a positive” instead of “don’t use..”
Lisa: We have some issues from the Internationalization group and some from the Working Group
Lisa: How do we go about resolving these issues?
<Lisa> w3c/
Lisa: So that's the background. We should think about accessibility in different languages. Each language has its own thing.
Lisa: Some things are common and some things aren't.
Lisa: We need a game plan and we need to discuss that game plan with the internationalization group and see if they're happy with it.
Lisa: Are we happy with the scope: "Help make the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities international, and resolve issues from the internationalization working group."
<Lisa> (draft) help make the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities international, and resolve issues from the internationalization working group.
<EA> Groups of languages?
<kirkwood> +1
<kirkwood> maybe have scheduled interactions with internationalization group… define how to work together?
Julie: Can we make this narrower wording—that we will "make it more international" and include examples and exceptions for more languages, but not promise that we're going to cover every language? That's not possible
Katy: Similar concern
<Katy> Yes, I think a wiki would be extremely helpful
Lisa: We could maintain a wiki and a government or dialect could suggest additions to the wiki
Lisa: Making Content Usable could link to the wiki
<kirkwood> should we focus on defining a methodology?
<EA> W3C have a very broad scope! "The W3C Internationalization (I18n) Activity works with W3C working groups and liaises with other organizations to make it possible to use Web technologies around the world, regardless of language, writing system, or culture."
Lisa: Maybe there's a workflow or provisos we could put in, like we did with simple tense and voice
Julie: Do you see the wiki as an interim solution between publishing formal versions of Making Content Usable?
Lisa: We shouldn't have been able to publish as a W3C issue with an open issue. We thought we had resolved the issue and didn't know the internationalization group had reopened it
Lisa: We have to be able to convince the internationalization group that we're ready to publish the next version
Lisa: We need a compromise, which is why the KPI is full of the internationalization group
Lisa: We need to make sure the internationalization group is OK with our plan
Lisa: We can't say "We'll broaden and have more examples."
Lisa: We have to propose 2 or 3 solutions
Lisa: I think we're confusing the scope with the solution
Lisa: Does it need to support Yiddish, for example? If people aren't using Yiddish on the internet, are we taking it too far?
<EA> Perhaps we need to look at all the W3C internationisation language groups - there are around 11 of them on the about page https://
<Lisa> help make the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities suffiently international, and resolve issues from the internationalization working group.
<kirkwood> “cultural norms” are very important (as well as language).
<Lisa> julie: we can get input from all these language group
<kirkwood> +1 to getting input
<Lisa> coga is a small group
<EA> +1 to what Julie said
<kirkwood> could that not be our mission to actively enlist their help/input?
<EA> Do we need to give the main points of concern to each language group?
John: +1 to Julie's idea. I feel like we should specify enlisting the help of these language enablement groups.
<EA> +1 yes cut down the amount they have to read from Content Usable
John: Think about how we propose to we're enlisting their help instead of shifting the work to them.
John: Such as scheduling meetings to get their feedback
Lisa: We could reach out and ask them to review what we've done for plain language and localizaton
<Katy> I agree, a great idea. But good to specify what we are looking for.
Lisa: We should draft our methodology and get signoff from the internationalization working group
<kirkwood> +1
Lisa: We want them to see that we're making this effort. We can't publish again with an open issue.
<Katy> Also it would be good to know how it is some of these groups have come about (where other language groups haven't)
EA: Katy and I are saying the same things in IRC.
EA: There's an awful lot in Making Content Usable. We should highlight the parts we're concerned about. It will be much easier than to give them the whole document.
<kirkwood> +1 to E.A.
EA: It is a difficult document to navigate if you're looking for something like where internationalization might be impacted.
Lisa: We still need to agree on our scope.
Lisa: I suggest we add "sufficiently international"
<Lisa> scope: help make the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities suffiently international, and resolve issues from the internationalization working group. This can include a ethedolgy, support and sugestions for the next version
<Katy> This resource may also be of use / interest: https://
<kirkwood> make reasonable efforts to identify and work with internationalization working groups where possible?
Julie suggestion: Make the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities sufficiently international, including resolving issues raised by the internationalization working group. Our workflow will include specifics on how we will enlist feedback and suggestions from W3C's language enablement groups.
Lisa: Are people happy with that scope?
<EA> I am abit concerned that sufficient or adequate may make people think it will be second rate - perhaps pause on trying to write a scope till we have seen what can be achieved in the next month? Do we have to have it now?
John: What determines "sufficient"?
Lisa: It means "reasonable."
<Katy> could we say 'more'?
<Lisa> Make the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities adress concerns and issues raised by the internationalization working group. Our workflow will include specifics on how we will enlist feedback and suggestions from W3C's language enablement groups.
<Lisa> Make the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities adress concerns and issues raised by the internationalization working group. Our workflow will include specifics on how we will enlist feedback and suggestions from W3C's language enablement groups and others.
<Lisa> +1
<EA> +1 as fairer for all
<kirkwood> +1 to resolving to work with internationalization group to address concerns?
<Katy> +1
Julie suggestion: Ensure that the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities resolves the issues raised by the internationalization working group. Our workflow will include specifics on how we will enlist feedback and additional suggestions from W3C's language enablement groups.
<EA> Julie are you not wanting us to consider other groups' take on the subject such as Katy's and others?
<Lisa> +1 to julie
ake the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities adress concerns and issues raised by the internationalization working group. Our workflow will include specifics on how we will enlist feedback and suggestions from W3C's language enablement groups as well as groups outside of W3C..
<Katy> +1 to this
<EA> +1
Julie corrected suggestion: Ensure that the next version of Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities resolves the issues raised by the internationalization working group. Our workflow will include specifics on how we will enlist feedback and additional suggestions from W3C's language enablement groups and groups outside of W3C.
Lisa: I'm changing it on the page
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> ageda?
Lisa: We have 20 minutes left
Lisa: We should set some sprints. The first sprint will be to read over the issue carefully
<Lisa> sprint 1: draft plan we can share with coga and internationalization
Julie: Can the first sprint include developing a workflow that's ready to share with the internationalization group by the end of the 1st sprint
Lisa: That's the first sprint
Lisa: Who wants to draft?
Lisa: I think it's reading the problem, creating an email and a document that isn't all of Content Usable, what questions do we ask people.
Lisa: And create contact list of who we reach out to
Lisa: And keeping track of who've reached out to
Lisa: Making that plan of how we'll do that. Is that right?
<Lisa> and how we comunicate with them
<Katy> It sounds good, I'm happy to draft it but when would it be needed by?
Julie: I suggest we start the 8-week sprint when Katy gets back from vacation
<EA> Regrets for Sept 7th as on hols but happy to read draft and big thank you Katy!
Thank you, Katy!
Julie: Where should we keep the draft?
Lisa: In the google drive. We'll make a new subdirectory in the COGA drive.
Lisa: We should open an Internationalization directory in the google drive.
Julie will try to do this and will let Lisa know if I run into trouble.
Lisa: That will be our starting position.