Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

26 Sep 2016

See also: IRC log


Mike_Pluke, lisa, Rich_Schwerdtfeger
Deborah_Dahl, ayelet_seeman, John_Rochford


<Lisa_Seeman> trackbot, start meeting

<Lisa_Seeman> regrets Deborah Dahl, ayelet seeman

<Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this

<Thaddeus> +Thaddeus presetn

<Thaddeus> +Thaddeus present


<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: kirkwood

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html,

Lisa: first thing is timeline, status and rewording doc. Some have been broken up.
... new document is status document

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

<Thaddeus> Sorry I should have mentioned that I can commit to making a Pull Request on my next SC task this week

Mike: asking about user preferences

LS will work with JK and setup a meeting with Michael to move forward on testing for JK SC

<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:

<Lisa_Seeman> as the default, or

<Lisa_Seeman> 2. via a standardized system setting (for example, the user can choose an option that disables the storage of data) or

Mike: standardize information and user preference

<Lisa_Seeman> 3. as an use settable option that is available throughout the task.

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.

LS: could probably just say user set-able option

<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.

LS: as a defaut it should be user settable
... does anyone disagree with getting this out the door?
... assuma a consensous

<EA> Timed text +1

LS: Timed text is ready to go
... Thaddeus are you ok with deadline, which is about a week?

Thaddeus: yes

LS: Kurt, how are your changes doing?

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?

LS: you don’t want to say rapid feedback?

Kurt: how can you define rapid? for testing.

LS: could say immediate feedback

Kurt: good with that

LS: thinking we change to ‘main modality of the pplication’ or ‘primary modality of application’

Kurt: think I agree with that thinking

Kurt’ let me take a look at the wording will make thos changes and send over as html

Mike: changing from rapid to immediate, seems untestable

Mke: 200 milliseconds people begin to wonder if a transaction went through

Mike; a lot of research went into that number in the past

LS: Kurt, are you comfortable with that?

Kurt: what about along the lines of feedback occurs in same timeframe as any error messaging

Mike: immediate should be quicker that 200 ms

Kurt: rountrip to server times that would be quick, but in browser that would be very slow

LS: if roundtrip to server it would be longer.

Mike: if you don’t get any feedback in 200 milliseconds the user should be alerted pssibly

<Lisa_Seeman> Did you mean: 200 milliseconds etsy feedback

<Lisa_Seeman> Search Results

<Lisa_Seeman> TS 126 267 - V8.4.0 - Digital cellular telecommunications ... - ETSI

<Lisa_Seeman> www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/126200_126299/126267/08.../ts_126267v080400p.pdf

<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).

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

Kurt: I have a problem with testing of this if put a hard number on it.
... depends on external systems

Mkike: as the next possible activity

<Lisa_Seeman> as the next as the next activity that affects the user

LS: as the next activity that effects the user

<Thaddeus> I need to leave the call early - Can commit to the deadline on my tasks

<Thaddeus> Can Commit

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
... that was the one against COGA or WCAG included under techniquest

LS: one of the techniques below. Checking that the content confirsm with technique

EA: I have given all techniques below, common failures etc

LS: will those techniques be testable, will you be able to say decisively that they can do the technique?
... wan’t clear how to test how do you say this paragraph hss gone off topic 2.3.1?

EA: only way you could do that key words not there or change but might not be testable.

LS: could check that each sentence relates to keyword

EA: we have got this assumption that a key point is valid in one paragraph

LS: it should have an obvios relationshiip with keyword of a paragraph. Is that testable?

EA: I think it’s very hard

LS: could it be a clause of the sentence to check if everythin relates. A single point in the paragraph.

EA: I think it is important but difficult to test.

LS: could we say keyword or key point in the paragraph?
... if it is not testable we can’t put it in
... I didn’t mean programatic keyword

EA: we are putting another layer on it may make it harder

LS: do you want to discuss it?

EA: I have familiar layout and need some assist

LS: send me some time in morning

EA: Wednesday morning ok?

LS: 10;30 or so
... your time 8:30 Wednesday morning
... 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
... 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
... next month we are going to make calls on Thursday. We are going to make it an hour later than usual. Is that ok?
... starting next week

EA: when is the second one due by?

LS: moved to about a week and a day, everybody is talking about rewording

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/rewroded%20sc%203.html

EA: have a got to apply that to the one I’ve already done?

LS: yes
... don’t hesitate to ping me on skype

EA: I was concerned about the chunking.

LS: changed modality of user and the content

EA: I’ll go ont the next one

LS: conformance change justification is important
... 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

<KurtM> Must drop for next meeting - thanks Lisa!

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/09/26 17:03:20 $

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)

Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: Mike_Pluke lisa Rich_Schwerdtfeger
Regrets: Deborah_Dahl ayelet_seeman John_Rochford

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

Found Date: 26 Sep 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/09/26-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]