Meeting minutes
Zoom url can be found here: https://
<lisa> am i in the right zoom room?
Lisa, I think you're in the wrong room. Use the regular COGA url: https://
Kirkwood, please use the regular COGA url: https://
<lisa> we logged in in again. same problrm
<lisa> me, jan and john
<lisa> maybe u are in the wrong room?
<JohnRochford> Julie is about to visit you.
<JohnRochford> In your Zoom room.
LISA AND KIRKWOOD, PLEASE USE THE REGULAR COGA URL: https://
JAN, LISA, KIRKWOOD: PLEASE LEAVE THAT ZOOM ROOM AND JOIN US IN THE REGULAR COGA URL: https://
<lisa> i clicked the link. we all have rejoined but it is just Jan John and me.
<JMcSorley> If you're in a Zoom meeting, go to "Participants" and copy the link of the meeting you're in and put that link into IRC so that we can follow that link.
<tburtin> https://
<JohnRochford> https://
WCAG 3 card sorting exercise due January 29th
https://
Totally optional if you want to do this exercise
Update on Tuesday's AG meeting: equity will be included but as separate review. And some comments about user testing needing to be part of assertions.
Tiffany said there wasn't time in the AG meeting to process the comments and questions
Lisa said she will pass Tiffany's comment along
Julie said one success was getting COGA members to add comments and thumbs-up in Github, which we'll need to do more of moving forward
John R: We want to make sure people new to the organization can engage in the process
Tiffany: There's a ton of research in Silver and need to make sure that stays included and how we can get our voices heard
Tiffany: I know they're working on making the agenda available ahead of time, but they're not using plain language
Tiffany: I need that plain language and vocal conversation to understand what the true topics are
Lisa commented on companies that are W3C members who are opposed to testing that takes more time or resources
Tiffany: I feel like COGA concepts can be given reasonable criteria to be reproducible, to be put into the actual guidelines
Tiffany asked about the difference between assertions and compliance
John R: From the beginning of Silver, the intent has been to develop criteria that makes it easier for businesses, even small ones, to improve accessibility
John R: To make it easier for businesses to use the guidelines
<JohnRochford> https://
Lisa: reliability and complexity are criteria they can use to throw things out
Lisa: when you come with user testing, that doesn't work
Lisa: With an assertion, you can say followed guidelines or process for user testing
Lisa: But will that be reliably done by another tester?
Lisa: The complexity is a killer—does it take a reasonable amount of time to test with the tools we have now, that's not fair
Lisa: Equity is a word that works for us
Julie: If all the cognitive stuff only gets included as assertions, that's an equity problem
Lisa: We don't have to think about how many. We have to think about are the needs met.
Lisa: If someone can't participate because of your choices — it's got nothing to do with how many
Lisa: Have you given users what they need so they can use it — that's what equity has to be about
Here is the Github thread about this issue: https://
Jan: This is a technique for marginalization
<kirkwood> “if it’s fully accessible to all these different groups then it is equitable” -Lisa
And here are the minutes from the AG meeting: https://
Internationalization next steps
Lisa: Need to separate WCAG 3 from next version of Making Content Usable
Lisa: We need a volunteer to go through Making Content Usable to see areas other than Clear Language that need internationalizing
Lisa: For WCAG 3/Clear Language, we're meant to provide input, not develop everything
Lisa: AG can set up the group to develop the tests, including in English
Lisa: We can provide expert review
Lisa: We can help direct it, but let AG do recruiting of language experts in different localities
<lisa> Equity needs to be about have different user groups had their needs met at a similar level so that they can use the content. It does not mater the number of issues. Content is inaccessible when people with disabilities who could theoretically use the content, can not use it, because of design choices of the content provider. The accessibility has to be similar for the different groups of disability, at any conformance level. For one groups accessibil[CUT]
Jan: I'll start an email thread to help get the comment ready
<lisa> For one groups accessibility needs to be considered bronze and and other group to be included at silver would be a disaster.
<lisa> (Irrc cut out the last line