01 Aug 2016

See also: IRC log


kirkwood, JohnRochford, Debbie_Dahl, Rich_Schwerdtfeger


<scribe> agenda: this

are people able to log into webex?

i am getting the meeting is not availible

<jkirkwood> sorry don’t have (can’t locate) webex password

scribe JohnRochford



next item


<JohnRochford> ddahl: discussing chat features, and conversations with bots or humans

<JohnRochford> ddahl: In response to a question from JohnR, says that, as long as everything is handled properly, it should not matter whether the agent is a bot or a human.

<JohnRochford> ddahl: Though we do know that bots aren't being paid to get people quickly off of chat.

<JohnRochford> Lisa: Sometimes speech is not the easiest process, and text is easier. With text, you can take it at your own speed rather than listening to people who are speaking without pause.

<JohnRochford> Lisa: Perhaps the most important domains that this is most important are health and safety.

next item

next item


<JohnRochford> Lisa: We are looking at Table 3.

<JohnRochford> Lisa: Example of minimizing errors is that it should not matter what format a user enters a date.

<JohnRochford> Lisa: Will correct, in the table, "... with unwanted loss of data ..." to "without unwanted loss of data ...".

<JohnRochford> ddahl: should we say something in row 2 like "if there is not an easy way to prevent mistakes, then there should be an easy way to correct mistakes".

<JohnRochford> Lisa: Requirement is to use known techniques to prevent errors.

<Zakim> ddahl, you wanted to ask about mistake correction vs. mistake prevention

<JohnRochford> John: There should not be conditional relationship between prevention and correction. Easy correction of mistakes should always be available.

<JohnRochford> ddahl: It's implicit in the requirement that prevention is preferable.

<JohnRochford> Lisa: Perhaps we could add techniques for improving or assuring user confidence.

<JohnRochford> KurtM: For a user to get a summary of where they are in a process (could be confidence building).

<JohnRochford> Lisa: About the process-logging idea, we haven't included what's left to complete.

<JohnRochford> Lisa: Need to add to log proposal: done, pending, current

add log: done, pending , current


<JohnRochford> Lisa: status would be done, pending, current

<JohnRochford> Lisa: There should be communication, for each user action, about whether or not it was successful.

<JohnRochford> ddahl: I don't think we want to bombard users with success messages.

<JohnRochford> ddahl: There should be judgement about how much confirmation should be done.

<JohnRochford> KurtM: Perhaps an assistant or caregiver could review info (from log, for example).

<JohnRochford> Lisa: Yes, with user permission.

<JohnRochford> Lisa: I really like that.

<jkirkwood> was JohnK: “Perhaps an assistant or caregiver could review info (from log, for example).”

<JohnRochford> JohnK, I apologize for guessing your voice incorrectly.

<jkirkwood> ;) no problem!

3.1.1 Timed event are not used except for the situations listed below.§

(See COGA Techniques 2.9.1 )

Sessions time out after 20 hours have elapsed

Where security may be at risk a session can time out after half an hour of disuse

Where financial or sensitive information is at risk the time out can be shorter

Timing is essential to the function of the content - such as some tests.

Where there is an exception, the content must conform to WCAG 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable, so long as

The function to turn off, adjust or extend the timing are controlled by simple action and labeled with simple text.

A user settable time minimum must be provided to complete any controlling action. Note that all user setting must be easy to set and use standardized techniques when available.

The user can be made aware of the time out limits, including the length of the warning - this condition may be deleted

The user can easily return to the same point in a task, without data loss.

as the default

standardized system setting (example the user can set that the data is not stored)

option to set user preference that has a conformance interface and is directly available at each stage of the task.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/08/01 17:00:38 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/statis/status/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Lisa_Seeman
Inferring Scribes: Lisa_Seeman

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: kirkwood JohnRochford Debbie_Dahl Rich_Schwerdtfeger

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: 01 Aug 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/08/01-coga-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]