16 Aug 2018


shari, Jan, alastairc, Roy, kirkwood


<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> clear agenda

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Zakim 3. next version of the gap annalisis https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html - approve and proof read

<scribe> scribe:alastairc

timelines https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page and uri https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page#Timelines

Lisa: Timelines, for gap-analysis we're lookign to publish an itteration in August. In this case, finding your way around better, and addressing some issues raised.
... We have some must-do items, and some wish list.

The key items for the next publication were wayfinding, and separating out the make-usable document. We have that as a separate doc.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable

Lisa: As we're trying to get this out, we wanted to suggest a URI (URL) for approval.
... we were thinking of coga-usable
... do we like that? Or any other suggestions?

JK: I like that, seems very straightforwrd.

<kirkwood> +1

Lisa: I'll put it to the list, check people are happy with it.

Shari: The URL is fine with me, something else to raise on the design doc.

Lisa: Would like to decide what we do for the next publiciation, so making actions and deadlines.

The WCAG survey

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018Jul/0032.html

Lisa: The AG group asked for feedback on this processes. My understanding is that we hated them, we put together two docs of changes that didn't happen, found it very difficult.
... more likely to get change if we say what the problems are/were.
... Based on those docs, had a couple of meetings with the chair & W3C.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sprgvsr9rFGxPyVTMar-l-eHIe5jPP6FywUkd0Jlm9E/edit

AC: We're taking stock, rather than in rush for publication.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxhXLpsqIy5p6zZHxlsSvjmhUjFqSFGCgE4eelRJxH8/edit?ouid=110409080524773921565&usp=docs_home&ths=true

Lisa: those are the two docs from before

AC: Thanks, will take a look.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html

Lisa: We have a new version of the gap analysis, we had a couple of issues we can process.
... JohnR wrote an easy read summary, we should proof read now.
... Jan, Shari, issue that we weren't sure who it was for?
... the main doc is for people making standards, whhat was the appendix is more general

John's summary: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018Aug/0013.html

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coga-comments/2018Jun/0004.html

Lisa: One issue was having the easy reading summary
... another was this comment

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coga-comments/2018Jun/0000.html

Lisa: duplicate paragraph

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html

Lisa: Main gap analysis is for standards people.

<kirkwood> that is the working draft from 16th of agust and appendix has been removed from main table of contents

Lisa: I can see right now a problem with "A." for the appendix, the A.1 A.2 etc should be updated.
... A couple of people mentioned a paragraph duplicated, we can take care of that.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html


<kirkwood> Ialistair could you put the steps you are saying in here?

<kirkwood> I would much rather have in a google doc

<kirkwood> but whatever people want. just commenting in github is fine if need to thats fine

AlastairC: Would prefer issues on Github

Lisa: Others would prefer editing in Google docs.

AlastairC: Then suggest only changes are done in google docs, or the google doc is the place for comments, like an issue.

Lisa: Could have a read-only google doc, and people only make comments on the doc, not changing it.

Jan: What about the track-changes?

John: I'm happy with that, see the current and the changes with 'track changes'.

Lisa: Ok, a to-do item to create the google doc.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> John's summary: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018Aug/0013.html

Lisa: Where do we want to have it, and are we happy with it?
... Johnk, could you take another stab at this?
... probably goes in the introduction?
... it's meant to be an easy read summary of the gap analysis.
... I think needs a bit more work for the easy read bit.

<kirkwood> discussing making “easy reading summary of the gap analaysis”

Lisa: is anyone happy with it?

AC: Generally good as a replacement for one of the top paragraphs, we can use it whilst doing the review.
... In the intro

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> 4. design criteria - were do we stop for the next version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit?usp=sharing [from

AC: Just suggest the top bit includes "which focuses issues people with cognitive disabilities have, and what standards makers can improve:"

<kirkwood> if the summary is put into a google doc I would participate in editorial of summary

JohnK: I did some edits in the design doc, let me check

Lisa: I added in from the last meeting, a bit on usability testing into the theme.

AC: I'll work on the usability testing questions...

Lisa: We've still got quite a few to do, how about we team up a bit?

Shari: Looking at my assigned design req, the links just give me text on providing text on providing feedback. Do I take that text and make it simpler? (Language)
... just realised, once I started, I wasn't sure what was needed. The content is written, is it just a case of transposing it?

Lisa: The content is there, but written for WCAG, so very testable, but harder to understand. The scope was narrower in many cases.
... so what we can do here is write short easy to understand sentence(s).
... at the beginning we have a template we're using. The first one is well filled out and reviewed, people happy with it.

Shari: Ah, ok, I was just confused the language was already there.
... I modify the content to be easier/

Lisa: We know what we want, just hadn't been able to fill it out.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit#heading=h.n3p4akmtiy7n

EA: I looked in the one which I was involved in, small chunks of text. It was intended to be against long paragraphs, but has been mistranslated ever since.
... trying to explain that is really hard, how to be succeed this time?

Lisa: We can use an example and explain that, how it works, without it having to conform to a particular framework.
... in this case we adjust these to match what we had in mind.

rssagent create minutes

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.152 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/08/16 15:11:11 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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: shari Jan alastairc Roy kirkwood
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: 

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]