Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

16 Jan 2017

See also: IRC log


lisa_seeman, kirkwood, Thaddeus, Jim_S, Pietro, EA, Jan
steve, mike, it_is_also_a_us_holiday


<Lisa_Seeman> trackbot, start meeting

<Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this

<Thaddeus> Thaddeus Present

<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: kirkwood

<Thaddeus> + Thaddeus present

lisa, asking for introductions

lisa: works for ibm head of task force

action items

EA: southampton university

jan: hjan mcsorley work for pearson

Jim; jim smith works for

<Jim_S> Jim Smith works for Atos

lisa: mike, not recognizing name

thadderus: works for macy’s and UI architect, invite experts

mike cooper: w3c staff contact

petro: work for italy vp of ? europe.

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/actions/open

<Pietro> I come from Italy and I'm Autism-Europe vice-president

petro: autiwsm europe

krikwood: bot checkin wasn’t able to show

EA: bernard is a student in Germany right now

thaddereus: said he’s not getting back to him

theaddereus: he needs to get back to him in order to work with him

Lisa: he needs to send time to taderus onn an ongoing basis. Thaderus is very fliexibel
... next item is delaing with SC manager issue
... we’ve made 39 submissions in success criteria (edits or addtions)

<EA> I have sent a Skype message to Renaldo Bernard regarding the mental health and coga research.

lisa: they assign SC managers to managge proces of getting the success criteria through their processes to get consensus on list, when you think SC criteria ready go to Josha and andtew put on survey and people vote on it. Hope fully get into 2.1

<Lisa_Seeman> : https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1

Link on their wiki on who’s managing which succes criteria

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

our tabel of success criteria with sc assigned

lisa: we don’t have all the high priority, if we don’t get through proces they will be labled at risk which is really not good
... if you take on 2. try and get on another

ji: can look at taking on other stuff

ji / jim

lisa: need to define SC and see if robust. The idea isn’t about SC manager opinon its about reaching a consensus and moving forward
... if its toomany points, its your job to get consensus going so everybody is happy about it. and comfortable meeting the WCAG success criteria
... the WCAG timelines, i think, the February 23rd for the publishing first public working craft.

michael cooper: only a few week, very likely very little ready at this point

lisa: how do we encourage them to move forward?
... very aware my two are quite sticky ones

cooper: difficult for WCAG is overwhelemed by all the SC, to get into first public working draft
... reality not going to get all SC in publi working draft. we are now looking to get them in. WG is quite overwhelmed

mc: working group has a massive amount on their plate. you can draw comments to yours to get attention on this proposal. soounds like you could do it later, not too late to do in march

Lisa: don’t agree with that
... getting into first working draft is really important

MC: only a few are likely to make it into first SC its just reality

lisa: IBM is making talks and are focusing on first working draft, if don’t promote they will not get enough support
... we have prioritized the SC trying to get through the ones that are hight
... high first some medium
... we have prioritized, bugging taking two success criteria , if don’t make into this working draft less likely to get in

mc: agree that earlier better, but will be frequent followup drafts, but don’t agree that first public draft won’t get in
... it would be great to meet bar, the WG is dealing with multiple high priority from each TF in working draft
... we’ll be lucky to get 5, focus on which to get into this draft

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

link to priorites put in

LS: everyone is taking two, if people promote those 2 then they are more likely to get in

Thaddeus: fine to promote the ones I have, not really sure how

<Mike_Pluke> +1

LS: this is the process as i understand it . the one that looking at SC see if their are any issues, SC manager is about building consensus
... to make sure a maority of people are comfortable with it
... don’t take out unless you have proposer and everyone is comfotable. Building consensus and everybody is comfortable
... for examp jk SC, its debilating if changes context for example
... once solve the issue is to build consensus
... try to build consensus on SC once done send to josha nd andrew to then try to get it through

MP: rewording 3.2.4 wether we rewrite existing SC will be discusssed a fundamental question, does it make sense to start rewriting SC, we will know better tomorrow. Quite alot are rewrting existiing ones to hwat extent acceptable we’ll know tomorrow

LS: if its a rewrite then its a rewrite

Jan: he sent me addtional information inlcuding some videso from Josh if haven’t got it i can forward to list
... Josh sen trainnig materials on how to mange SC including some videos that Andrew has made

MP: success criteria managers phase one , contains links to video

<Mike_Pluke> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1

MP: link to video

Jan: will send email to list to all video

LS: there is a sentence in my SC that shouldn’t be there. Don’t know who wrote this. It seems that ‘intentded audience’ its not necessarily a part of SC its a conformace criteria question
... not sure I understand it and where it came from. cna’t remember how got in their

MC: its is absolutely something that is fair saying I don’t understand this

LS: its a note a WG thing, it allows me to put link to issue number
... wnat me to put it into comments area in git hub

MC: don’t put to list put it in github as comments not in thread
... put a link to email in github issue. every email is archived

LS: when I comment in github, i follow email group as well and link to acrchive and comment in github correct?

<MichaelC> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/ GL List

MC: yeah there will be some things happening on mailing list, so wouldn’t attempt to move to github I would put a pointer to mailing list in git hub comments and continue discussion in github
... this is what the SC manager should do, we can only process some of them, there is only so much time to build propslal, only so many coan go through the process.

MP: i have been writing in github on SC who gets to see comment, is it just people onlist?

MC: anyone can see it.
... won’t get an email unless you subscribe to an issue or happens if you comment on an issue
... so SC mangers can handle issues being noticed what you can do, identify preople that would be intersted. Send a starter message to list to get people to subscribe
... does anybod obvject to this as worded is a good example
... unpopular is easy to figure out

JS: is their an erea to see who originally proposed a SC , the original owner

LS: the official proposer for all of them is me

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

LS: they were reworked and extension document we did all together
... if you want to for exmaple EA, resoltion is uptop and should be at bottom, Easiest way is for you and I to schedule a call to get some conversation going on second one

EA: i was getting more concerned would like to schedule a time tomrrow moring i’ll be in lab that will be fine

MC: i do recommend taking questions task force to keep it on mailing list

LS: sometimes we want to talk over on phone call and get nice resolution on call if something like a rewording as long as comments go into github

EA: say we have omsthing where layout has gone worng are you saying go back to coga group rather than the WCAG group, don’t we have to go to WWCAG

MC: we have to to gett consensus if it gets to apoint that it gets confusing, it just needs to go back to WG if needs a fix

LS: succes criteria mangers talkt to proposser meant to go bac to TF, document in comments in github. As a SC criteria your WCAG SC manager does that make sense. You are bringin it through consuensu. you can absolutely go back to TF to do new workign to propose to WG

MC: sometimes the comments form WCAG WG can accross as harsh thats not the intent and take critiques in terms of misunderstanding to make clear as complimentary to each other

LS: a quick talk with me and do new wording, but as a manger you can

MC: lisa you cna be invlved in new wording too, SC can gother the SC manager

MP: i f’e got SC small degree of consensus that its better to split into two. I could put proposal to TF asking if anyone objects. could make same question to WCAG at least I could redraft on github than have new propsal will agree ton pricnicple at least gets one step further

LS: put in comment on new proposed workging and forward to TF to alert TF because not everyon is in WCAG thats in TF
... you can alert task force

MP: you are saying just put in comments, thought michael says to email is that right?

MC: what you are trying to get SC through the process, what will we get something that will yield conses. as far as splitting a SC that will be paritally addrssed in WG tomorrow.

MP: split is no brainer other difficult

LS: just ping me on skype we cna owork on new proposal together

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Acceptance_Criteria_for_Success_Criteria

LS: always happy to talk it over if change to wording

SC for WCAG this is the consensus proposal we have to get it through, the big criteria is if its testible

SC: thats the old docment

<Lisa_Seeman> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria

SC: that is the new one

<Thaddeus> I have to drop off thanks for clarifying the SC manager process. I will be on the WCAG call tomorrow

SC: that it is testable with a high degree of confidence thate is what is important

LS; i’m on skype on phone and focus on SC that is most importnat, plesase be in touch with any question

LS: if anyone on call can take more, feel free to ping me on skype email or any toher mechanism

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2017/01/16 18:05:40 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148  of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14  
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
Present: lisa_seeman kirkwood Thaddeus Jim_S Pietro EA Jan
Regrets: steve mike it_is_also_a_us_holiday

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

Found Date: 16 Jan 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-coga-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]