11 Aug 2014

See also: IRC log


Deborah, Dahl


<Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this

TPAC: http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/

<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: KateDeibel

<Lisa_Seeman> http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/

update on first editors draft of gap analysis : https://w3c.github.io/wcag/coga/gap-analysis.html

Lisa reminded folks of going to TPAC if they can


<Lisa_Seeman> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/coga/gap-analysis.html

MichaelC discusses comments on first editors draft.

We generated 100 pages, but is it achieving the right goal

<Lisa_Seeman> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/coga/gap-analysis.html

We might need to change the document, break into multiple documents, search for overlap, etc.

Some references are cited, some are further reading. We might need to filter. (Different section refs have not been consolidated).

Our document is deepy structured (too deep in headings)

<EA> It seems to have the original versions of Aphasia and non-vocal rather than the combined document - this thankfully could reduce it a bit!! I have to say it is very long and repetitive.

JohnRochford: Expecting lots of redundances will be removed once the weeding is done

<EA> Yes I agree we should all follow a common template

<EA> ditto

MichaelC: Template was deviated. Wants permission to be an editor and restructure.

<Tony_Doran> Apologies for being tardy - headset not working. Still no audio.

<EA> Big difference between use cases and user groups... which one do you want?

<EA> Are they all medical? Dyslexia does not fit that title - more functional?

richardschwe...: this draft lacks a gap analysis... is more of a coverage of medical conditions. backgrounds may need to move to a separate document/appendix

EA: concerns about medical term... it's not a fully appropriate as the terminology does not readily apply to functional conditions.

lisa: suggests that if we want to eventually restructure to focus more on table of cognitive issue / access issue, then we may not need to worry too much on restructuring this draft now
... ADD section/executive not yet approved by WG
... vision document is not yet in

michael: getting references into right format is required for this draft
... super huge appendix is a problem

richard...: make this a research document and do gap analysis elsewhere?

<Lisa_Seeman> aka lisa

<Lisa_Seeman> aka kate

<Lisa_Seeman> aka rich

KateDeibel: concerns about functions and their interactions, what does it bring into consumable bits (too simplified concerns).

Lisa: summary of kate's comments: people do not know this user group and we need to fight that
... suggestion: for now, make the table. summary of user groups, gap analysis, then background research. avoid getting them lost in the research

<Lisa_Seeman> http://accessibility.athena-ict.com/cognativefunction.shtml

michaelc: we might still need to break into separate comments
... people are not going to read a book and this is currently a book. put the easier digestible first

<EA> I really do agree with what Michael is saying - no developer is going to last the course with this one!!! :>))

<neilmilliken> They are less interested in the reasons why than what guidance we can give

<EA> agree

<neilmilliken> Agree

<JohnRochford> agree

<Tim> +1

<Lisa_Seeman> proposal: move reserch section after proposals sections

lisa: proposal move research section after gap analysis.

<Lisa_Seeman> resrve the right to move it to serate doc later

michael: make a TOC first, continue editing/futzing, or do restructuring now (or some combo thereof)

Lisa's suggestion: lisa will write TOC and send to group while Michael does his edit round

<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: lisa to write toc for editors draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/11-coga-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-32 - Write toc for editors draft [on Lisa Seeman - due 2014-08-18].

michael: logistics editing question: porting over a new thing is easier, but if an edit occurs, then those edits are tricky. wiki editing/w3c document editing are hard to keep in parallel

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about how to edit from here and to say big research dod is ok; gap analysis that leads to guidelines proposals should be more digestible and to talk

lisa: proposal: we have people tell us when they have edits to sections in the W3C document, but wiki is fine for new sections
... who can write the table?

<Lisa_Seeman> well , once we have agreed that we need it we will ask for a voleteer

<Lisa_Seeman> (if not i can make it)

richard...: we will need cognitive issue and solutions... needs to be very concrete for developers to use

<EA> Please can I say they may not be solutions but strategies

<neilmilliken> the gap analysis comes first

lisa: is gap analysis about identifying gaps or identifying solutions?

<neilmilliken> then you address the gaps with specifications and recommendations

rich...: suggestions/recs for filling gaps or where do we need to create a new standard, but we need to provide a starting strategy

lisa: we need to look at current technologies and do reviews

<janina> +1 to considering all W3C emerging specs, i.e. IndieUI

lisa: we need volunteers for those tech reviews
... will ping ADD group

<EA> thank you.. have to go..

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: lisa to write toc for editors draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/08/11-coga-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-08-11 17:01:59 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: KateDeibel
Inferring ScribeNick: KateDeibel

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Cooper EA IPcaller JohnRochford KateDeibel Lisa_Seeman Michael_Cooper NeilMilliken P0 P2 P4 P5 Rich_Schwerdtfeger Susann_Keohane Tim Tim_Boland Tony_Doran about audience expectations https inserted janina lisa michael michaelc of proposal realistic richardschwerdtfeger simpleirc1 trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Joseph_K_O'Connor, Kinshuk, Barry_Johnson)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Steve, Lee

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Steve, Lee)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Deborah, Dahl

Regrets: Deborah Dahl

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

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 11 Aug 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/08/11-coga-minutes.html
People with action items: lisa

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]