See also: IRC log
<Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this
<Lisa_Seeman> (also see https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAGand https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/techniques/index.html)
<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: mike_plike
<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: mike_pluke
<Lisa_Seeman> next item:
<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/actions/open
<kirkwood> kirkwood+present
<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/symbols-non-verbal.html
<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Pre-publication_checklist
Symbols work from Chaohai ongoing - needs to be processed according to the checklist of how to format etc.
John's distractions section he has gone through the checklist waiting for second pull request
<ddahl> original emotionML description https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2016Feb/0046.html
Debbie - Emotional markup - not written an issue paper (but should close original action)
<Rich> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/links-buttons.html
Rich - Links and Buttons - done link to follow
Not just links and buttons (despite name)
The potential features in section 11 is floating - but not removed because someone originally added it
Rich suggesting that other documents should follow the proposal format that he has adopted
Maybe the linksa nd buttons and "Easy personalisation" sections should be separated out as they are different
Not everything has followed the original proposed "Issue Paper" template
<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Open_Issues
Personalization issue papers are, together, a mess - may ask Ayelet to rationalse these
Lisa, Ayelet and Mike to work togather to try to produce a coherent personalization section
May Jo - Flat Design - paper "lacks a lot of meat" and is missing sections that are included in other papers
Correction - Mary Jo not Mary Jo!
<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/voice-menus.html
The "voie menu" issue paper is a template that can be used to help improve flat design
Janina not finished with Web of Things paper - needs another week.
Modality issue paper - think John Rochford has completed (not on call)
Thaddeus has already accepted the "numbers" paper
Providing graded help - Thaddeus has volunteered
Michael has agreed to check the "numbers" paper and come back to Lisa
Volunteer needed for Metadata - come back to this later
<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG
Lisa has asked people to look at "Proposal for WCAG" (above)
Readers need to undertand what is meant by "testable" - not machine testable but will be the case for most people
Plenty of exceptions are added in several requirements
Trys to avoid reference t ocurrent "hot" issues like "flat design" requirements given in more generally applicable terms
John Foliot querying how the COGA work will be handled - rolled into WCAG 2.1 or an extension (John used the term "profile")
John's use of "profile" refers to WCAG 2.0 + COGA extension (for example)
The extension model has the disadvantage that it appears discriminatory - i.e. it is acceptable to not include people with certain impairments
<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG
Michael: This discussion is best held in the WCAG group and not the Task Force (with representatives of the COGA TF present).
<JF> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models
John Posted the above link as it discussed the issues being discussed.
Michael proposing how to move the material forward from the wiki to a Github draft.
Michael expressed concern that WCAG will say that the material is too detailed and not suitable as WCAG Success Criteria.
Lisa suggesting that techniques can be separated out.
<KurtM> Kurt dropping
Michael: Perhaps one solution may
be to move some of the bullet points as part of definitions,
thereby tightening the success criteria
... The problem is likely to be that WCAG will focus on the
non-standard way of writing success criteria and not on the
substance
Lisa suggests asking the chairs to give the document a pre-review before deciding to submit the document for a full review
John has volunteered to give a quick review
<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/links-buttons.html
<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: ddahl to write up understanding emotions as issue paper following the template from flat design [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-coga-minutes.html#action01]
<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: mike ayelet lisa to work on personlisation issues papers and what needs to happen is https://www.w3.org/wai/pf/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/pre-publication_checklist. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-coga-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-170 - Ayelet lisa to work on personlisation issues papers and what needs to happen is https://www.w3.org/wai/pf/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/pre-publication_checklist. [on Mike Pluke - due 2016-04-25].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/May Jo/Mary Jo/ Found Scribe: mike_plike Found Scribe: mike_pluke Inferring ScribeNick: Mike_Pluke Scribes: mike_plike, mike_pluke Present: JF Janina kirkwood Debbie_Dahl Rich_Schwerdtfeger Regrets: Susann_Keohane E.A._Draffan ayelet_seeman john_rochford Got date from IRC log name: 18 Apr 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/04/18-coga-minutes.html People with action items: ayelet ddahl lisa mike WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]