<Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this

was thrown off the call, be back in a minute

aacc is ayelet

<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: ayelet

<Lisa_Seeman> next item

<slee> Lisa_Seeman: I have to leave early today (I have a birthday tea to make)

lisa: does anyone feel there's anything urgent to be discussed?

<Lisa_Seeman> next item

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Methodology_for_gap_analysis

<neilmilliken> sorry I got way laid

lisa: the gap analysis is looking at what we have in web accessibility for cognitive, what we'd like to have, and what's missing
... the methodology is to look at the problems, see if we have a solution, check how credible and helpful it is, see if we have support in w3c standards.
... an example for a well supported feature is the session timeout time.
... success criteria that needs to be higher
... format - the easiest is to have it in a table. However, it may be better in a category format as it feeds straight in to the road map

John: why couuldn't we talk first about the commonalities of all cognitive disabilities and afterwards unique disabilities?

Lisa: If we find it's needed we could do that. However, they seem to be about adaptation except for a few exceptions.
... We could put it under the editing

<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: lisa to explain the second example in the methodolgy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-coga-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-86 - Explain the second example in the methodolgy [on Lisa Seeman - due 2015-04-20].

Lisa: are people ok with the research being backed up by confidence and not only research?
... some things are so clear that the group has consensus

<Lisa_Seeman> group agrees

<Lisa_Seeman> http://www.w3.org/2015/04/draft-wcag-charter

<neilmilliken> Yes i have seen it

Lisa: have people saw the change in the wcag charter?

<Ryladog> Yes I have

<Lisa_Seeman> WCAG Cognitive Extension

<maryjom> I have seen it too.

<JohnRochford> I have not.

Lisa: On the one hand they've put COGA extensions as one of their deliverables, on the other hand the deadline is November 2015
... we should touch base about what they need to have in the extension which we could deliver on time

<slee> +1

Lisa: the charter is a 3 year charter, and we should give an extension by November, and give a more ambitious proposal for an extension 3 years later
... on the other hand we would have until October 2017 to build the technology

<slee> Lisa_Seeman: Exciting. I have to go. From that table we have to do an understanding guide as well.

<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: lisa ask chair of wcag what they need and the format and rule for wcag extention [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-coga-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-87 - Ask chair of wcag what they need and the format and rule for wcag extention [on Lisa Seeman - due 2015-04-20].

<maryjom> The WCAG charter has been changed for the following reasons: First they want WCAG 2.0 to remain stable for worldwide policy makers to incorporate into their standards.

<Lisa_Seeman> http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/

<maryjom> Second to have normative extensions to cover more comprehensive requirements for various disability types.

<maryjom> Cognitive requirements can be published under such an extension.

Lisa: There's a playoff of to what extent we want to remain an extension, and to what extent we want to get adopted

Katie: believes legislation might decide to have different conformance level requirements for WCAG and for the extensions

<Lisa_Seeman> 1. Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies

<Lisa_Seeman> 2. Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear

<Lisa_Seeman> 3. Design deliverables with ease of use in mind

<Lisa_Seeman> 4. Write to a more diverse audience

<Lisa_Seeman> 5. Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content

<Lisa_Seeman> 6. Ensure that the revision is "backwards and forward compatible"

Lisa: for 2, if you have 10 accessibility experts in the room, 9/10 need to agree
... whether or not things conform
... 5 is easy, but we need to put it in the package we give wcag
... 6 might be a problem. maybe we should discuss it with the WCAG chairs

<Lisa_Seeman> next item,

Gap analysis methodology https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Methodology_for_gap_analysis

Lisa: How important does the group feel is moving to an editors' draft, even though github supports it?

* even though github supports the techniques etc

Janina: The w3

<Ryladog> Have to drop early sorry

* Janina: the w3 trusts the expertise of the group's members, and views it as evidence enough

Lisa: in the past evidence was requested

<Lisa_Seeman> Criteria by which we decide what research to accept:Due to practical constraints most research will simply be cited and not examined for credibility. However the following cases will rely on task force consensuses before inclusion:

<Lisa_Seeman> Commercial research that implies the use of a specific proprietary product will be examined for scientific credibility before being included

<Lisa_Seeman> Research where the task force is aware of contradictory evidence (including anecdotal) will be examined for scientific credibility before being included.

Janina: consensus of the group usually enough, evidence could be added later

Mike: always preferable to back it up with research. however, the lack of it shouldn't limit us

I was thrown off the call, could someone switch me while I reconnect?

<Lisa_Seeman> ok

thanks

<Lisa_Seeman> if we dont have reaserch we need a very high confidence level

<Lisa_Seeman> or we will lose credibility

<Mike_Pluke> +q

<Lisa_Seeman> jannia agrees

Lisa: we will have 2 years to back it up or remove it

<Lisa_Seeman> john is enging in the reaserch - it will take years

<Lisa_Seeman> Mike likes the example, that text highlighting is a good example of were evidence is needed

<Tony_Doran> need to drop off.

<Lisa_Seeman> 95% certenty that it will help most of the people we claim it will help

<Lisa_Seeman> or we need back up reseach

<Mike_Pluke> +1

Lisa: we need to be 95% sure that the techniques would help 51% of the people we claim it will help

<Lisa_Seeman> a recomendation needs consencis

Mike: what to do when there is a disgreement?

<janina> http://www.w3.org/Guide/

Michel: consensus usually means that everyone could live with the decision even if it isn't their preferred choice

Neil: needs the list of people coming to the ftf

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: ayelet
Inferring ScribeNick: ayelet

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Chaohai_Ding IPcaller John JohnRochford Katie Katie_Haritos-Shea Lisa_Seeman Mary_Jo_Mueller MichaelC Michel Mike Mike_Pluke Neil P1 P19 P4 P9 Rich_Schwerdtfeger Ryladog Tony_Doran aaaa aadd aaee ayelet https inserted janina lisa maryjom neilmilliken richardschwerdtfeger slee trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Susann_Keohane E.A._Draffan

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

Got date from IRC log name: 13 Apr 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-coga-minutes.html
People with action items: lisa

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