15:27:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coga
15:27:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/15-coga-irc
15:27:54 <lisa> zakim, this will be  WAI_CogTF
15:27:54 <Zakim> ok, lisa
15:31:12 <lisa> agenda: this
15:31:14 <lisa> agenda+  review SC  https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html,
15:31:15 <lisa> agenda+  the supplement - next steps
15:31:17 <lisa> agenda+  accessible authentication
15:31:18 <lisa> agenda+  personlization?
15:31:20 <lisa> agenda+ What have we missed for issues page
15:31:22 <lisa> agenda+ be done
15:31:32 <lisa> regrets: Pietro , jan
15:55:23 <JohnRochford> JohnRochford has joined #coga
15:56:59 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #coga
16:02:51 <JohnRochford> present+ JohnRochford
16:03:03 <kirkwood> present+
16:03:06 <lisa> scribe: kirkwood
16:03:06 <JohnRochford> Indoor Wayfinding issue paper = https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/wayfinding-indoors.html
16:03:12 <Mike_Pluke> Mike_Pluke has joined #coga
16:03:17 <lisa> present+
16:03:30 <Mike_Pluke> present+ Mike_Pluke
16:03:34 <lisa> Agenda+  i ndoor Wayfinding issue paper = https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/wayfinding-indoors.html
16:03:44 <lisa> zakim, next item
16:03:44 <Zakim> agendum 1. "review SC  https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html," taken up [from lisa]
16:05:24 <kirkwood> Lisa: discussing first item on page, which ones ready for and which number in wCAG and other userful details
16:05:34 <lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html
16:06:27 <kirkwood> LS: Minimimize uyschecker areas now have new wrding people should
16:06:28 <lisa> wcag issue 13
16:06:39 <kirkwood> LS: people should check
16:06:44 <lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/13
16:07:20 <kirkwood> LS: we’ve got a new version of wording and Mike and I thought it would go through but feedback wasnt good
16:07:40 <kirkwood> LS: work with Mike G to try to work it out
16:08:00 <kirkwood> LS: timed events got food feedback but didn’t go through
16:08:16 <kirkwood> LS: try to put together a consensus call
16:08:43 <kirkwood> Mike: where should we be looking
16:09:13 <kirkwood> Sherry: is there anyone sharing a screen, wondering what should see
16:09:21 <kirkwood> LS: we are on IRC channel
16:10:14 <shari> shari has joined #coga
16:10:24 <lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/13
16:10:27 <lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html
16:10:50 <kirkwood> LS: this is the link with all SC and what we are thinking of doing next
16:11:44 <kirkwood> LS: the plan of what we want to do next for the next two week the plain language one, accessible authentication and help are the most important ones
16:12:00 <kirkwood> LS: accessbile authentifcation for help
16:12:32 <kirkwood> JR: last week offered to creat ammaterial and sent to mike when he comes up for ait can continue
16:13:01 <lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/23
16:13:14 <kirkwood> LS: we have sent it to survey and “accessbile authentification”
16:13:40 <lisa> plain lang, provide support, authifcation, personlization
16:13:50 <kirkwood> LS: plain language, provide support, accessible authentification and personalization are the most important , Do we agree?
16:13:54 <lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html
16:14:04 <kirkwood> LS: take a look at status document
16:14:25 <JohnRochford> +1
16:15:15 <kirkwood> LS: is anything here is more important than the ones above that we are chosing?
16:15:23 <kirkwood> present+
16:15:53 <kirkwood> Sherry: what is meant my critical features?
16:16:17 <kirkwood> LS: if we devide clear purpose into two might be better
16:16:40 <kirkwood> LS: if divide into two might be better to get it through
16:16:50 <kirkwood> LS: issue 26
16:17:20 <kirkwood> LS: i think we agree that this is the ones we should look at right now
16:18:30 <lisa> action: lisa to explain the plain lang sc to wcag
16:18:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-211 - Explain the plain lang sc to wcag [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2017-05-22].
16:18:41 <kirkwood> LS: plain language is going to survey now, it will get difficult feedback. There is stuff that needs to be clarified and may be o Hoping we can do that. Maybe write an cation to explain plain language success crtieria
16:19:00 <kirkwood> LS: we will see how it goes after tomorrows call
16:19:07 <JohnRochford> BRB
16:19:32 <kirkwood> LS: provide support we need clarity and what is a long document.
16:20:39 <kirkwood> Sheey: have done quite a bit of reasrch an trying to define what a long document is. It is defined based upon a partiuclar population. We are looking at the drfinition of an abstract. which is defined as 120 words or less.
16:21:11 <kirkwood> Seey / Sherry
16:21:41 <kirkwood> Sherry: haven’t had a lot of luck
16:22:07 <kirkwood> Sherry: originally 300 words or more was definition of a long document
16:22:31 <kirkwood> Sherry: anyone else have suggestions? I’m kinda tapped out
16:23:11 <kirkwood> Rochford: I think I have everything you want and more. I have a wealth of articles and research about this. If you want a separte call I could do that
16:23:25 <kirkwood> Sherry: how are they defining long documents?
16:23:40 <kirkwood> Rochford: don’t have answer off hand but could do a separate call
16:24:34 <kirkwood> LS: all we are asking for rtally is one or two keyword identified, when does it need help, a summary, or something that helps people. Abstracts starting at 150 words could be a start
16:25:08 <kirkwood> LS: going up to three hundred words is a long dcoument. We hust need evidence backing things up
16:25:20 <kirkwood> hust/just
16:25:32 <lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32
16:25:54 <kirkwood> LS: haven’t submitted review just needs to be done
16:26:26 <kirkwood> Rochford: as long as link to most recent,
16:26:35 <kirkwood> LS: provide clear support
16:26:37 <lisa> action: John send us some reserch on what is a long document for providing support https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32
16:26:37 <trackbot> 'John' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., jfoliot, jkirkwoo, JohnRochford).
16:26:45 <lisa> action: JohnR send us some reserch on what is a long document for providing support https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32
16:26:45 <trackbot> Error finding 'JohnR'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/users>.
16:26:55 <lisa> action: JohnRochford send us some reserch on what is a long document for providing support https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32
16:26:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-212 - Send us some reserch on what is a long document for providing support https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32 [on John Rochford - due 2017-05-22].
16:27:23 <kirkwood> LS: review latest draft in issue 32 which i think i9s provide support
16:27:49 <kirkwood> kirkwood: the shortname in table is help and it might need to be changed
16:28:19 <lisa> action: JohnRochford to review  https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32, https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30
16:28:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Review  https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32, https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30 [on John Rochford - due 2017-05-22].
16:28:26 <kirkwood> LS: i think plain language is ussue 32
16:29:35 <kirkwood> LS: John and Mike on accessible authentification to work on it
16:30:17 <kirkwood> LS: set a time and need to draft soonish
16:30:36 <kirkwood> JohnR: i have drafted it and thats what I said to Mike
16:30:50 <kirkwood> LS: review WCAG surveys
16:31:21 <lisa> review the sureys at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/showq
16:31:57 <lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/minutes-history
16:32:55 <kirkwood> LS: the titles are difficult search through emails with keywords to fins survey. Strongly recommend finding the right survey
16:33:54 <lisa> action: JohnRochford and Mike to get new draft of accessible authtification
16:33:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-214 - And mike to get new draft of accessible authtification [on John Rochford - due 2017-05-22].
16:34:48 <kirkwood> LS: there is a good chance after looking at survey and have a bit of a call about plain language tomorrow. If so what do we put forward of those really important ones?
16:34:58 <kirkwood> LS provide support or help
16:35:09 <kirkwood> LS: going to get rid of complex contante
16:35:23 <kirkwood> LS: just need to define how something is ‘long'
16:36:16 <kirkwood> LS: John if you can get theat to the list to Sherry and Me tomrrow so we have anouth SC to put forward in case plain language doesn’t move forward
16:36:50 <kirkwood> LS: send the long defintiion document to the list
16:36:59 <kirkwood> LS: the COGA list
16:38:03 <JohnRochford> I'm departing now before I am assigned another action item.
16:38:07 <kirkwood> LS: in the meantime Sherry think what I will do is write c a comment about the different things we looked into put them into the gitub issue so can see the research and if necessay will close that issue and that this is an outstanding thing what the right number is
16:38:17 <kirkwood> Sherry: thant make sense
16:38:22 <lisa> action: lisa to add comment on long dosument  to issue 32
16:38:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-215 - Add comment on long dosument  to issue 32 [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2017-05-22].
16:38:25 <kirkwood> Sherry: yes its issue 32
16:38:50 <lisa> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32
16:38:53 <kirkwood> LS: does anyone have any other comments on that SC ‘help’ latest version
16:40:27 <kirkwood> LS: Mike: its unusual to have a broad scope and then something very specific seems out of character
16:40:45 <kirkwood> LS: i’d be comfortable putting out and seeing if there is a problem with that
16:41:22 <kirkwood> Mike; if someone has a system for navigation think specific language about cardinal dirctions
16:41:42 <kirkwood> LS: do we want frms? going back to the issue
16:42:13 <kirkwood> LS: just seeing correct for forms and context sensitive help
16:43:43 <kirkwood> LS: giving form for former heading, multipage or dynamic forms, maybe this needs to be rethought very critically to see what we could cut
16:44:17 <kirkwood> LS: context sensitive help for search form is rather tricky might need to revisit
16:44:35 <kirkwood> LS: Sherry would you want to set something up to take this over
16:44:47 <kirkwood> Shrry: Jan and I willcontinue to work together on it
16:45:38 <kirkwood> LS: probably should have somone else to work on it to get more perspective of what is likely to make it fail consensus
16:45:58 <kirkwood> LS: for instance what is on form might be problem
16:46:30 <kirkwood> LS: we could do multipage form
16:47:29 <kirkwood> LS: think need followon call for this
16:47:50 <kirkwood> Sherry: we can set a time now
16:48:04 <kirkwood> LS: could do tomorrow before WCAG call
16:48:55 <kirkwood> Mike: i think I could do that one
16:49:10 <kirkwood> LS: it would be nice if John Rochford to joing
16:49:29 <kirkwood> LS: set that time for tomorrow to see if can put in place so it can go to surevey
16:49:46 <kirkwood> LS: keep in on skpe
16:49:50 <lisa> zakim, next item
16:49:50 <Zakim> agendum 2. "the supplement - next steps" taken up [from lisa]
16:50:43 <lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19CvGpbNn1MecK9iRO7MOhafCaVjIajyV2BjNz2OZZZY/edit
16:50:44 <kirkwood> LS: next ttem is supplement which finding link for here
16:51:19 <kirkwood> LS: wondering if we want to do any next steps?
16:52:05 <kirkwood> LS; there is a question of having nomnitive sections, mobile and low vision don’t need it to look like this, but might want to do them anyway, not sure how it will play out
16:52:39 <kirkwood> LS: hope ther will be nomnative sections, don’t know it supplement should be this format
16:53:03 <kirkwood> LS: do we want it to look like a nomnative doc
16:53:40 <kirkwood> Mike: be careful to change language and might need to do a bit of rewording,
16:54:30 <kirkwood> Michaeal; ddon’t think it should be nominitive document. Should be well structured
16:55:25 <kirkwood> LS: do we want to wait with supplement until we have a nominite section and non-normanitive section
16:55:44 <janina> present+
16:56:39 <kirkwood> Michael: it will slow down, trying to put nomrmnitive into it will just mess us up. thinke attmept will have poor cost benefit. If it turns out can add normnaive we techniclally could add. Don’t see how it work with niminitive section
16:57:04 <kirkwood> Janina: this is janina
16:57:57 <kirkwood> LS: the other issue there were criteria mad by WCAG doesn’t mean its nomnitive but allow for user testing there is a lot more leway
16:59:26 <kirkwood> LS: a supplement could be a place where things are for cognitive issues, its still worth having a well wrtitten document and a company could have some guidance
16:59:54 <kirkwood> LS: think personally like to have it be able to incorporate into policy
17:00:41 <kirkwood> LS: for critical service do everything that is testable such as critical servies and emergency services
17:01:58 <kirkwood> Michael: a few quick reactions, no concerns guidance if we use normnative or conformentce may cost some things. One reason can do supplemental guidance can work foaster and lose speeding up possibilty
17:02:26 <kirkwood> LS; need a diffierent name for best practice
17:02:53 <kirkwood> LS: ask people like to be usable by policy makers?
17:03:57 <kirkwood> Michael: willing to be usable by policy makers, but not written for it
17:04:25 <kirkwood> JR: don’t think it should have normative material
17:05:04 <lisa> we  dont have quarum now
17:05:15 <lisa> pick this up next time
17:05:31 <kirkwood> Michael: information as long as we don’t have normative wording
17:06:54 <lisa> rrsagent, make logs public
17:07:09 <lisa>  rrsagent, create minutes
17:07:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/15-coga-minutes.html lisa
18:00:15 <lisa> https://w3c.github.io/coga/techniques/
18:00:22 <lisa> https://w3c.github.io/coga/extension/
19:15:37 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #coga