<scribe> scribe: alastairc
<kirkwood> sorry my audio is out.
Lisa: There are a couple of
things added to the gap analysis. 1st was the 2nd para in the
abstract, linking to the make-usable document (appendix)
... 2nd thing, we merged in Jan's summaries of additional
issues papers.
... that's a pull request at the moment, not quiet merged
in.
... sections 3 -7 are the new issue papers, they did get merged
in, but the embedding needs sorting out.
<lisa> into section 2
Lisa: teh current sections 3-7 should be sub-sections of 2
<kirkwood> yes
AC: Probably sub-sections of 2.3?
<lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/#finding-your-way-around-this-document
Lisa: yes, 2.3
<kirkwood> very good
<lisa> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018May/0002.html and
<lisa> [12:01:11] * Zakim ... https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/transfer-usable-to-html/content-usable/usable.html#accessibility_guidance
My updated suggestion: Many aspects of making things usable for people are closely associated with the context, and what is appropriate in one context is not always appropriate elsewhere. This means it is very difficult to provide guidelines that are always true or false for every context which means they are either difficult for one person to test without user input, or do not apply to every website.
<kirkwood> could you link to the google doc you just mentioned
<kirkwood> I have some real problems with language, but I don’t want to mess with things.
<kirkwood> OK I don’t agree then
<kirkwood> Its a very good start to build on
<kirkwood> “cognitive impairments are essentially usability issues”
<kirkwood> this is a meanimizing statement “A lot of issues that affect people with cognitive impairments are essentially usability issues”
<kirkwood> meanimizing/minimizing
<JohnRochford> I have to go now. Ciao everyone.
Lisa: disagree with the statements & wording within section 1.2, suggest we comment out for now.
AC: I think it makes some important points, we'll need to get it back in later, after a group review & updates.
<lisa> 1.2 commented out - add the picture to section 5
<lisa> add usebilty testing with people wiht cogntive disbilites to 2.3
Lisa: Move the pictuer to section 5, and add a point to 2.3 about usability testing with people.
<kirkwood> no
<lisa> no objections
(No objections
<lisa> if we make these changes we can go to cfc
<lisa> +1
+1
<Jan> +1
<kirkwood> +1
Lisa: I did a merge pull request,
but indenting went wrong, need to fix that but it will be
ok.
... Don't think Shari updated the tables...
Jan: I think she did, but has
other things to deal with today.
... she was genearally happy, just need to be clear about the
purpose, and would be good to focus the content a bit more.
Lisa: Just finding the tables, I
did add the editors notes to the table, not sure they've been
merged yet.
... I added things, need to ask Roy to merge things in.
With the CFC changes for section 1.2 of the make-usable doc.
<kirkwood> yes!
AC: Noting the yellow helped.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Wcag21-understanding-documents#List_of_understanding_docs
list of understanding docs for review ^^
<kirkwood> best practice suggestions wanted, correct?
<lisa> correct
Lisa: What do we want for the next steps?
<lisa> wayfinding of the documet
Lisa: Wayfinding of the document
<lisa> updatign the tables according to the editors note
<lisa> get section 1.2
<lisa> background on disbilites section
<lisa> design requirments
<kirkwood> agreed on wayfinding
Lisa: I think the wayfinding is
key, and important to Jan/Shari.
... and the design requirements.
... want to get these in front of people, so we can make it
better quicker.
<kirkwood> I’m not sure either
<kirkwood> whichever will get us political buy in
<kirkwood> ;)
<kirkwood> no political with in w3c
<kirkwood> not policy
<kirkwood> yes agreed on design requirments, very much so
<kirkwood> +1 to Alastair
Lisa: don't think the policy will make as much sense as the design requirements, at least first.
AC: I think the (meaty) design requirements will be most useful to feed into Silver later, so would be my preference.
<lisa> ACTION: lisa to put this into our wiki
Lisa: I'll put the priotisation into the wiki
<trackbot> Created ACTION-285 - Put this into our wiki [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2018-05-10].
Lisa: No objections or extra comments?
(none heard)
Lisa: could start with the sub-group meeting on monday?
AC: Bank holiday in UK.
Lisa: I could do it, but if it's
a holiday for some people... start the week after.
... please check your action items, send me a call-request if
you get stuck.
<kirkwood> sorry don’t think i’m around next week
Lisa: Ok, no sense to catch up on
monday then.
... we'll catch up next thrusday then.
trackbot, end meeting
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) Default Present: shari, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, Roy, kirkwood, alastairc, JohnRochford, lisa, Jan Present: shari LisaSeemanKestenbaum Roy kirkwood alastairc JohnRochford lisa Jan Found Scribe: alastairc Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: lisa WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]