13 Dec 2018


present, janina, stevelee, Lisa, kirkwood, MichaelC, Roy, Jennie, JohnRochford, Glenda, alastairc, Lisa_, Rachael, johnkirkwood, Chaohia_Ding, EA
alastairc, alister


Updates ( pubications -Roy)

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Meetings/Jan_2019

<alastairc> scribe:alastairc

<Lisa> scribe: alister

<alastairc> scribe:alastairc

Lisa: Have some important updates - we've published.
... do we want to publicise that we've published?
... lastest version of usable is there, but have a lot more to go.
... wanted to publish end of Feb.

MichaelC: The point of publishing is to publicise. Some announcements have gone out, but WAI will also publicise in January.

Lisa: The wiki page now needs updating, so it goes to the TR page.

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

<Glenda> +1 to early draft announcement (encouraging people to read and perhaps even be inspired to join COGA TF and help)

Lisa: big changes will be the design requirements being filled in. Please take a look
... we also have the face 2 face page up, sent to the list

<Roy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Meetings/Jan_2019

<Roy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Meetings/Jan_2019#Registration

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Meetings/Jan_2019\

MichaelC: We need everyone to register, so please do that if you are going.

<Jennie> Thank you! Working on permission change :) Hope to have an answer within the week.

Lisa: Some people needed the page there for applications, if there are any changes let me know.

EA: If people want, I can book a table. Let me (EA) know.

Michael: We can put that in the registration? Roy will action.

EA: Thank you Roy!

Lisa: Look at the agenda, if there's any concerns please let me know.

Janina: Question about teleom provisions, will we have any? I'd like to call in.

EA: We have the facilities for telemeetings. It's a boardroom, there's a setup we can arrange.

Michael: We can use webex.

Janina: Just need to let the University people know we need to use WebEx.

EA: Note that the University will probably not be around until 9am.

Michael: Let's co-ordinate about that outside of this call.

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask about telecom at the face to face?

<Glenda> what airport are folks flying in to?

<janina> ack

Lisa: Suggest I update the google page, to co-ordinate when people are landing. Enable people to wait at airport and go together.

<Jennie> +1 if I get to attend in person

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Meetings/Jan_2019

actions (janina, papers , design) https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/actions/open

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page#Layer_3._Making_it_better

Lisa: Janina has a proposal. For context, the wiki page shows the three layers.
... Layer 2, gap analysis. Main consumers are standards makers, if they are making technology / standards they can see what needs to be done/changed.
... Layer 3, about making it better for the content providers. People outside W3C.

<Lisa> draft :https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/

<Lisa> (current draft)

Janina: Speaking to the purpose & goal of this to the wider W3C community. I.e. who's affected and how it matters.
... This impacts specs & guidelines.
... The usual pattern with standards is to first lay out a use-case, a scenario, explaining the problem to solve.
... helps create the list of requirements.
... then look for where it might be implemented in a 'normative' spec.
... a lot of that exists in COGA docs, but it's a bit of a firehose.
... Would like to take a 'less is more' approach, which should be more effective.

<Jennie> Apologies - need to drop off the call early today. Signing off.

Janina: I think we've created more for various reasons, and the impact is being diffused. That's my main concern. We can talk about the details as we go.
... we need a starting point that talks about the people & scenarios.
... have good versions of that in the "user research" doc, but you'd have to know it was there and dig in a lot.
... so first suggestion is a 'start here' point. I thought that would be the gap-analysis. Maybe that's not right, but need a 'start here' place.
... Currently that would be section 1.2, but there's a lot of conclusions rather than setting up the scenarios. It's the shortest section. There's no cross-link to the use-cases/scenarios in the user reserach doc.
... I don't know that's the most effective way to tell that story. I'd rather see those moved into section 1.2. The 'user research' doc goes further than W3C needs.
... Need to keep the 'start here' focused, make the case, and lead off from there.
... When I started reading through this was "yea, but I don't get it". How is it different from doing a good job on creating web content? I went to see what would happen, looked for "good web design". Got some pointers to irrelivant things, but most resources specified the same criteria in section 2.1.
... what's the point here? That it matters more for people with cog impairments? We run the risk of leaving people confused that there is no special point to make.
... Last point in section 2 & issues papers, is confusing how people with disabilities deal with certain scenarios with some new tech that it being developed.
... not sure that the 'web of things' is that new, it is the interface we're talking about.
... if we talk about *how* you design well for people with cog-issues.
... the rest is details on how you do it.

<JohnRochford> +1 to the Janina's approach

<johnkirkwood> +1

Abi: Just wanted to add a point as newcomer to the gap analysis. I find it confusing in purpose. Some of section 2 is design & tasks, and some is specific to certain disabilities. wasn't clear on purpose, was it type of difficulty or activity?

Lisa: we've done that it both directions, 2.3 is list of issue papers, with problem and solutions for further work.
... in section 3 it's the other way around, taking the issues first, then has user stories with solutions.

Abi: Agree that should be 1 in the same document. As we already have user research, then some of the points about difficulties could be moved into the issues papers.
... things like flat design & security, which seems good for design. Then have stuff on problems people have with Maths, which seems of a different type.
... some people would like it from view of how-to, but researchers / policy makers are interested in specific groups.

Lisa: Starting point should be the specific groups in this doc?

Abi: Starting point should be from developers perspective, when considering aspects of content development & design, these are the potential problems. The details of *why* they arrise should be in the user research, cross linked.

Lisa: It's the structure of section 3, e.g. forms, then anything relevent to forms in the same structure: user need then problems/solutions.
... so structure of table 3 would be the starting point?
... Do we want to start with the area of develepment, or the area of issue? Technology focus or user focus?
... I think it has to come from the tech point of view, and we have separate docs for authors.
... so much interplay, overlap between different disabilities.
... so needs to be technology first.

Janina: Not clear about tech-first?
... interface issues, or security / web of things.

Lisa: People should be aware we also have the docs for authors, which focuses on practical advice on what to do.
... Abi, is it ok to start from that point of view?

Abi: If the audience is writing standards, that's different. I think it terms of task, action the user is intending to do. Why they have that difficult is secondary.

Steve: What does Janina think of the roadmap being in the document. I thought it made it feel like an in-progress document rather than authoritative.

Janina: There's a lot of roadmap in there, there's way too much content. Focusing would make it more powerful. Starting with the user-stories is important.
... Focus on what makes it different for people with COGA, e.g. passwords are a problem for everyone, what's different.

<Lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/#table1

Lisa: If you have a look at the roadmap section, that seems to be the structure you're asking for.
... 1st thing is about the users, that leads to user stories.
... then it gets to potential solutions.
... everything else moves to an appendix.
... structure of section 3, that seems to be the task related bit.

Janina: What in there what's different for someone with a cog disabilitity?

Lisa: It starts with the user-need.

Janinia: That's a key point, what's different?

Lisa: Ok, so need to add more about the different impact on users there. E.g. in the web security text.
... it's a matter of extent.

<JohnRochford> Janina: To the question you just asked, a significant difference between sexual-abuse safeguards for people with cognitive disabilities, especially intellectual disabilities, is that they don't recognize such abuse well, and safeguards have to account for that.

Janina: less concerned about struture, want to make sure the difference is clear.

Steve: The left column is spot on, it describes that.

Lisa: What's the actions? Move the issues papers to an appendix?

Janina: Need to slim down, too much digging involved.

<Lisa> Aj

<Lisa> ac j

<Lisa> ac l

Abi: Demontrating that this ... (got cut off)

<Lisa> abby we lost you

<AbiJ> sorry we are having problems with our network

Janina: Lisa had a great examples of dislexia compared to discalcula, things like that would help.

Lisa: could merge some sections?

Abi: With cog disabilities, need to make clear it's a barrier, for general population it is a usability / preference thing. Could be in intro of gap analysis.

<Glenda> +1 coga barrier versus an annoyance/usability issue for general population

<stevelee> +1 make 3 main content!

Lisa: Section 3 to core content, increase use-case in each one, move issue papers we move to appendix and cross reference.
... Should be simple, but make doc smaller.

trackbot end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2018/12/13 16:02:56 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Layer 2/Layer 3/
Succeeded: s/Layer 1, background information/Layer 2, gap analysis/
Default Present: present, janina, stevelee, Lisa, kirkwood, MichaelC, Roy, Jennie, JohnRochford, Glenda, alastairc, Lisa_, Rachael, johnkirkwood, Chaohia_Ding, EA
Present: present janina stevelee Lisa kirkwood MichaelC Roy Jennie JohnRochford Glenda alastairc Lisa_ Rachael johnkirkwood Chaohia_Ding EA
Found Scribe: alastairc
Found Scribe: alister
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Scribes: alastairc, alister

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]