<LisaSeeman> trackbot, start meeting

<LisaSeeman> agenda: this

<LisaSeeman> scribe: Jan

Which SC do we focus on from this point?

Take complicated SCs and see if we want to work on them altogether. Such as plain language and accessible authentication, etc.

LIsa: We have had some difficulty getting SCs through the 2.1 process. Let's try looking at SCs that have to do with the user interface and see what we can get done with some additional calls.

<JohnRochford> Lisa, we can't hear you.

Jan: Lisa - we are having trouble hearing you.

Lisa: This Wednesday - should we look at the SCs that have to do with clear design?
... this would include familiar design, clear control, and personalization

<EA> EA present

+1 for a Wednesday call, but it depends on the time of the call.

<JohnRochford> All: my understanding is that the syntax I used "present+ UserName" is the only way to be sure you are recorded as present.

Lisa: Wednesday is not the best day - let's look at Thursday. Let's look at the hour right after the WCAG call on Thursday.

what else should we focus on: bot's issue paper, user testing issue paper, stage 2 research. (Each needs a lead.)

Lisa: The maximum SCs we will get into WCAG 2.1 will be 6. There's also the supplement, but we don't yet know what that will look like.
... We may have to split our attention between 2.1, the supplement, and then getting back to other issues that we need to address, like the bots issue paper, the user testing issue paper, and stage 2 research

EA: Did you want Neil and I to work on something specific? I find it easier when I am given a specific task - I am struggling with the process for SC management because of the number of emails, etc. I am very happy to work on something more specific.

Lisa: EA - would you be interested in working on a draft of the supplement?

EA: It depends on what is supposed to go into the supplement

<EA> Jan Renaldo Bernard may be able to help with the emotional aspect of web accessibility as his PhD is about mental health issues

<LisaSeeman> -2.1 sc

<LisaSeeman> -2.1 suplent

<LisaSeeman> -personzation specifcation

<LisaSeeman> - persinazion code

<LisaSeeman> - issue paper on bots and userinr testing

EA: We need to get Bernard's perspective on emotional health because he has his Ph.D. on it

<LisaSeeman> -emotional health

<LisaSeeman> indor navigation

JohnR: can we look at the totality of what we have at the moment and try to identify which parts of it are more testable, etc. and try to break those out for 2.1
... I would be happy to help with this because I understand the reliable, testable process well.

Lisa: I am chunking personalization in with familiar

<JohnRochford> Jan, I, JohnR, did not say that. JohnK said that.

Jan: Correction on the name - It was not JohnR - it is MikeP

JohnR: There is nothing more useful than getting SCs approved

EA: Is there a way we can take what MikeP said and split them out so that they can become approved SCs

Lisa: We are going to have to take things out to find what can be used in 2.1
... they want to look at one COGA SC every two weeks, but the deadline for getting SCs in is August 22nd
... we have to be very clear about what what the SCs are so that we can cleary define testability

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

<JohnRochford> Note unrelated to current conversation: The last issue paper I wrote was indeed on *indoor* navigation. John K is working on *outdoor* navigation.

MikeP: Some of the more complex SC seem almost like they are more like Guidelines - would it be acceptable to put new guidelines into WCAG?

JohnR: I think that LisaS is the only person who can really make the decision on which SC and elements of them can be effectively addressed in the time we have left.

Lisa: Do people want to put effort into the programming effort of making personalization a reality - we need programming support in personalization to make it happen.

other bits for process changes such as a page of upcoming calls

<EA> Gottfried Zimmerman may be able to help find a PhD student.

We may want to reach out to Klaus Miesenberger to see if he has a Ph.D. student who could help with personalization development needs. He has a Ph.D. student who is very interested in cognitive accessibility.

Lisa: Would it be helpful to have a calendar that would help us know all of the meetings, responsibilities, etc. that would be a part of our COGA work.
... I am also noticing that people on COGA are not voting. Why is that?

MikeP: I usually look at it, but unfortunately, I don't think that a lot of them are not ready to be included in WCAG. If I could propose simple changes, then I might be willing to vote.

JohnK: I too don't want to put comments in because it is kind of an intimidating process and I don't feel fully comfortable doing it.

Lisa: What if we use our Monday calls to discuss language of SCs that are up for a vote so that we can flesh it out together.

JohnK: I have collaborated with a lot of people on documents, etc., and we use Google Docs so that notes and comments can be put into the document. It's better because you can talk through it and see what is being written.

Lisa: So, what I am hearing is that the process is a bit overwhelming and some people are also not comfortable with the language.

JohnR: MikeP has been doing great work with shepherding accessible authentication, but I don't feel comforable participating because it's not based on the issue paper I wrote, so I don't feel like it's something I can comment about it.

<LisaSeeman> john rochfoward - it is too dfar away from the orignal use case

JohnR: In my opinion, accessible authentication is not based on the issue paper

Lisa: Let's revisit it and put things into the supplement.

<JohnRochford> To be clear, the accessible authentication SC may have been based upon the Online Safety issue paper, rather than the one I wrote on Security and Privacy Technologies. See https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/privacy-security.html

<LisaSeeman> people feal a bit intimdated

<LisaSeeman> jan: all the accessibilty requirements are taking president over new ideas and new case

<EA> + 1 Jan!

<JohnRochford> +1, Jan

<LisaSeeman> makes it hard to particpate in away taht you feel people can respect

<kirkwood> +1 to Jan

Speaking for me, I feel like the W3C work is heavily driven by people who have been in the accessibility field for years, so as a new person to this space, I do not see that there is a lot of room for new ideas or new thoughts from people who are new to the field. It is difficult to communicate on the same level when you don't have the W3C history and can therefore not advocate effectively for new directions.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: Pietro JohnRochford kirkwood Jan LisaSeeman Mike_Pluke EA janina
Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan

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

Found Date: 01 May 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/05/01-coga-minutes.html
People with action items: