IRC log of coga on 2016-09-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:23:11 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #coga
15:23:11 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:23:21 [Lisa_Seeman]
trackbot, start meeting
15:23:23 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs 389
15:23:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2642
15:23:25 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
15:23:26 [trackbot]
Meeting: Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:23:26 [trackbot]
Date: 26 September 2016
15:23:34 [Lisa_Seeman]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:30:56 [Lisa_Seeman]
regrets Deborah Dahl, ayelet seeman
15:31:01 [Lisa_Seeman]
regrets: Deborah Dahl, ayelet seeman
15:36:23 [Lisa_Seeman]
agenda: this
15:36:24 [Lisa_Seeman]
agenda+ review SC, and timelines show status table ,sc todo list:, sc stus:, rewording
15:36:26 [Lisa_Seeman]
agenda+ review sc wording to get to pending
15:36:27 [Lisa_Seeman]
agenda+ Tables agenda+ What have we missed for issues page
15:36:29 [Lisa_Seeman]
agenda+ be done
15:50:38 [Lisa_Seeman]
regrets: Deborah Dahl, ayelet seeman, John Rochford
15:54:44 [kirkwood]
kirkwood has joined #COGA
15:55:19 [Thaddeus]
Thaddeus has joined #COGA
15:55:56 [Thaddeus]
+Thaddeus presetn
15:56:04 [Thaddeus]
+Thaddeus present
15:59:05 [kirkwood]
16:00:10 [Rich]
Rich has joined #coga
16:02:13 [Mike_Pluke]
Mike_Pluke has joined #coga
16:04:11 [Lisa_Seeman]
scribe: kirkwood
16:05:02 [Lisa_Seeman]
zakim, next item
16:05:02 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "review SC, and timelines show status table ,sc todo list:, sc stus:
16:05:04 [Zakim]
..., rewording" taken up [from Lisa_Seeman]
16:05:35 [Lisa_Seeman],
16:05:51 [kirkwood]
Lisa: first thing is timeline, status and rewording doc. Some have been broken up.
16:06:29 [kirkwood]
Lisa: new document is status document
16:07:15 [Mike_Pluke]
present + Mike_Pluke
16:09:09 [Lisa_Seeman]
16:09:19 [Lisa_Seeman]
present + lisa
16:09:57 [KurtM]
KurtM has joined #coga
16:13:29 [maryjom]
maryjom has joined #coga
16:16:40 [Thaddeus]
Sorry I should have mentioned that I can commit to making a Pull Request on my next SC task this week
16:18:27 [EA]
EA has joined #coga
16:18:40 [kirkwood]
Mike: asking about user preferences
16:19:22 [kirkwood]
LS will work with JK and setup a meeting with Michael to move forward on testing for JK SC
16:21:50 [Lisa_Seeman]
No loss of data: The user can easily return to the same point in a task, without data loss, for a period of at least a week:
16:21:52 [Lisa_Seeman]
as the default, or
16:21:53 [Lisa_Seeman]
2. via a standardized system setting (for example, the user can choose an option that disables the storage of data) or
16:21:55 [kirkwood]
Mike: standardize information and user preference
16:21:55 [Lisa_Seeman]
3. as an use settable option that is available throughout the task.
16:23:14 [kirkwood]
Mike: services storing data in session and the restore of information. Standard system setting don’t let outside systems store data. It is a little unclear.
16:23:41 [kirkwood]
LS: could probably just say user set-able option
16:24:19 [Lisa_Seeman]
No loss of data: The user can easily return to the same point in a task, without data loss, for a period of at least a week, as the default, or via a user settable option that is available throughout the task.
16:24:36 [kirkwood]
LS: as a defaut it should be user settable
16:25:18 [kirkwood]
LS: does anyone disagree with getting this out the door?
16:25:26 [kirkwood]
LS: assuma a consensous
16:25:27 [EA]
Timed text +1
16:25:46 [kirkwood]
LS: Timed text is ready to go
16:26:24 [kirkwood]
LS: Thaddeus are you ok with deadline, which is about a week?
16:26:37 [kirkwood]
Thaddeus: yes
16:27:01 [kirkwood]
LS: Kurt, how are your changes doing?
16:27:59 [kirkwood]
Kurt: sent an updated hyml file, sent you one in terms of modality and etsy timeframe for feedback. Could not find where the reference came from. How can you measure in terms of testing?
16:28:09 [kirkwood]
LS: you don’t want to say rapid feedback?
16:28:39 [kirkwood]
Kurt: how can you define rapid? for testing.
16:29:01 [kirkwood]
LS: could say immediate feedback
16:29:07 [kirkwood]
Kurt: good with that
16:30:00 [kirkwood]
LS: thinking we change to ‘main modality of the pplication’ or ‘primary modality of application’
16:30:20 [kirkwood]
Kurt: think I agree with that thinking
16:31:27 [kirkwood]
Kurt’ let me take a look at the wording will make thos changes and send over as html
16:32:19 [kirkwood]
Mike: changing from rapid to immediate, seems untestable
16:33:07 [kirkwood]
Mke: 200 milliseconds people begin to wonder if a transaction went through
16:33:26 [kirkwood]
Mike; a lot of research went into that number in the past
16:33:39 [kirkwood]
LS: Kurt, are you comfortable with that?
16:35:25 [kirkwood]
Kurt: what about along the lines of feedback occurs in same timeframe as any error messaging
16:36:00 [kirkwood]
Mike: immediate should be quicker that 200 ms
16:37:02 [kirkwood]
Kurt: rountrip to server times that would be quick, but in browser that would be very slow
16:37:28 [kirkwood]
LS: if roundtrip to server it would be longer.
16:38:27 [kirkwood]
Mike: if you don’t get any feedback in 200 milliseconds the user should be alerted pssibly
16:38:37 [Lisa_Seeman]
Did you mean: 200 milliseconds etsy feedback
16:38:39 [Lisa_Seeman]
Search Results
16:38:40 [Lisa_Seeman]
TS 126 267 - V8.4.0 - Digital cellular telecommunications ... - ETSI
16:38:42 [Lisa_Seeman]
16:38:43 [Rich_]
Rich_ has joined #coga
16:38:43 [Lisa_Seeman]
ETSI. ETSI TS 126 267 V8.4.0 (2010-06). 1. 3GPP TS 26.267 version 8.4.0 Release 8. Reference ...... for the fast modulator mode (n = 0,…,15) and. )0000000000000040. 200. 560 ..... ms, which is the length of modulated feedback messages).
16:39:55 [kirkwood]
LS: so then it is reasonable you could say achieved within 200 ms unless there is technology delay, occsionally is acceptable. Occasional is not considered a violation
16:40:28 [kirkwood]
Kurt: I have a problem with testing of this if put a hard number on it.
16:41:17 [kirkwood]
Kurt: depends on external systems
16:42:51 [kirkwood]
Mkike: as the next possible activity
16:43:12 [Lisa_Seeman]
as the next as the next activity that affects the user
16:43:18 [kirkwood]
LS: as the next activity that effects the user
16:44:33 [Thaddeus]
I need to leave the call early - Can commit to the deadline on my tasks
16:44:47 [Thaddeus]
Can Commit
16:44:50 [kirkwood]
EA: one of the problems I sas the chunking had a testablity issue. I sent an email on that. I wasn’t quite sure what to do. I t just said testability in feedback. I wasn’t sure if should give precise details instead
16:45:22 [kirkwood]
EA: that was the one against COGA or WCAG included under techniquest
16:46:01 [kirkwood]
LS: one of the techniques below. Checking that the content confirsm with technique
16:46:29 [kirkwood]
EA: I have given all techniques below, common failures etc
16:46:58 [kirkwood]
LS: will those techniques be testable, will you be able to say decisively that they can do the technique?
16:48:22 [kirkwood]
LS: wan’t clear how to test how do you say this paragraph hss gone off topic 2.3.1?
16:49:06 [kirkwood]
EA: only way you could do that key words not there or change but might not be testable.
16:49:24 [kirkwood]
LS: could check that each sentence relates to keyword
16:49:49 [kirkwood]
EA: we have got this assumption that a key point is valid in one paragraph
16:50:20 [kirkwood]
LS: it should have an obvios relationshiip with keyword of a paragraph. Is that testable?
16:50:36 [kirkwood]
EA: I think it’s very hard
16:51:21 [kirkwood]
LS: could it be a clause of the sentence to check if everythin relates. A single point in the paragraph.
16:51:34 [Rich]
present+ Rich_Schwerdtfeger
16:51:50 [kirkwood]
EA: I think it is important but difficult to test.
16:52:17 [kirkwood]
LS: could we say keyword or key point in the paragraph?
16:52:56 [kirkwood]
LS: if it is not testable we can’t put it in
16:53:46 [kirkwood]
LS: I didn’t mean programatic keyword
16:54:38 [kirkwood]
EA: we are putting another layer on it may make it harder
16:54:58 [kirkwood]
LS: do you want to discuss it?
16:55:19 [kirkwood]
EA: I have familiar layout and need some assist
16:55:29 [kirkwood]
LS: send me some time in morning
16:55:38 [kirkwood]
EA: Wednesday morning ok?
16:55:49 [kirkwood]
LS: 10;30 or so
16:56:14 [kirkwood]
LS: your time 8:30 Wednesday morning
16:57:12 [kirkwood]
LS: need to mention feedback from WCAG, we need to make a case why its A or AA in benefits section. Without this it’s broken
16:57:58 [kirkwood]
LS: we are going to need to give justification of A or AA and it will then be clear on benefits. Each please check ouver the conformance level is justified
16:58:50 [kirkwood]
LS: next month we are going to make calls on Thursday. We are going to make it an hour later than usual. Is that ok?
16:59:02 [kirkwood]
LS: starting next week
16:59:12 [Lisa_Seeman]
16:59:30 [kirkwood]
EA: when is the second one due by?
16:59:51 [kirkwood]
LS: moved to about a week and a day, everybody is talking about rewording
17:00:01 [Lisa_Seeman]
17:00:09 [kirkwood]
EA: have a got to apply that to the one I’ve already done?
17:00:13 [kirkwood]
LS: yes
17:00:27 [kirkwood]
LS: don’t hesitate to ping me on skype
17:00:48 [kirkwood]
EA: I was concerned about the chunking.
17:00:58 [kirkwood]
LS: changed modality of user and the content
17:01:07 [kirkwood]
EA: I’ll go ont the next one
17:01:27 [kirkwood]
LS: conformance change justification is important
17:02:13 [kirkwood]
LS: EO has volunteers to write up a bit about user case examples. As soon as we have something in green we’ll ask them to help to fill out. regardeing examples and justifications
17:02:14 [KurtM]
Must drop for next meeting - thanks Lisa!
17:03:15 [Lisa_Seeman]
rrsagent, create minutes
17:03:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Lisa_Seeman
17:03:22 [Lisa_Seeman]
zakim, please part
17:03:22 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees have been kirkwood, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
17:03:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #coga
17:03:41 [Lisa_Seeman]
rrsagent, please part
17:03:41 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items