Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

14 Feb 2019


MichaelC, janina, Rachael, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, Roy, JohnRochford, johnkirkwood


<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XdI8vuEunDOcIJ0kY2eKGpCKxndEvflEDp737Q148IQ/edit#

<alastairc> Link for the WCAG 2.2 survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22process/

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> loging in on webex is acting up

<stevelee> apologies - having issue with my bank - on phone

<scribe> scribe: Rachael

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe: Rachael

gap anlysis update

We will review the pending items and look at the timeline. I think we will have to let the next publication slip though I'd rather not let it slip too much.

John: I'd like to add something to the agenda. Will we be participating at TPAC?

Lisa: I don't know the dates and information for it.

John: September.

Lisa: Any other items?

<JohnRochford> TPAC: 16-20 September 2019

Lisa: New page of outcomes of the South Hampton meeting. If you've forgotten what you signed up for, you can look at it.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/2019_FTF_meeting_outcomes

Lisa: The timelines is another useful link

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

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> timelines: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/PlanningPage

Lisa: Our timeline for the gap analysis was that we would make the next round of publications by February.

Even if we don't want to make a final, we may want to make agile releases. Please consider. Our next release is schedule at the end of this month. So we only have two weeks. We may want to let it slide to 3-4 weeks and do a release.

That would be the gap analysis and design guide

we are late. It was meant to be January, we moved it to February. But should we move it to mid March. I'm worried about letting it slip more than that. I'd like to revisit that discussion at the end of the call to reach consensus.

Gap analysis subgroup did fantastic work. Can we get an update from Steve on how thats going?

Is anyone on the call from the subgroup?

Janina: They have a plan to get together in the near future. I am waiting to edit.

When you are going through the changes. It is a demo of the shortest one. Would you rather a delay in publication or put this in for each one?

<stevelee> sorry - still on call with bank :(

Janina: I think we should update all we are going to update before we publish.

Lisa: Do you support publishing the revised structure?

Janina: Its a lot of work to publish. What feedback would you want from it?

Lisa: So what would be enough?

Janina: We should make progress with current plan.

Lisa: Can you send a plan?

Janine: I don't have a list of who all in the group.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/2019_FTF_meeting_outcomes

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> subgroup Jennie, Jamie, E.A.& Steve are to clarify the user experience for 3.1

Lisa: The link includes the subgroup.
... So you'd prefer it be perfect?

Janina: I'd like to see where they are and ensure its useful for everyone

wcag 2.2 update

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Link for the WCAG 2.2 survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22process/

Lisa: Next update is about WCAG 2.2. I don't think Alastair is on the call but I spoke to him before.

Michael: The working group is still considering whether to do 2.2. I personally think its highly likely.

Lisa: I put the link in for the survey that alastair sent.

Michael: There will be a new survey so this link is older.

Chairs will be putting out a final survey.

Lisa: Hopefully we will get a new survey. Michael, will you send it directly to the COGA list?

Rachael will take the action to send the new survey out to the COGA group.

Lisa: If you want to vote, some information to know is that a vote for WCAG 2.2 is not a vote against Silver.

Both could be good for us. If we do get more things into WCAG 2.2. The way Silver is being constructed is that a way to get points is to conform to WCAG.

So WCAG 2.2 becomes relevant and has advantage for us.

With the volunteers offering to help it through, WCAG 2.2 shouldn't hurt our timeline.

Lisa: The silver subgroup had a call, but John, Jeanie, and Lisa came but many others couldn't make it. I sent out the recording and we started to put together 2-3 templates.

This subgroup is Rachael, JohnK, and Lisa

Rachael: I don't need an additional meeting. Sorry about confusing the dates.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> support apis: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#

Lisa: We did one on common design patterns. I started one on APIs.

I wanted to put it in and see how good the template is for tricky things.

If you want to finish the clear language one. That is what we agreed to.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Rachael , Jamie, John Kirkwood (Lisa to arrange sub call)

Lisa: Rachael to coordinate call to finish up the two templates. Rachael, Jamie, and John K.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Rachael , Jamie, John Kirkwood (Lisa to arrange sub call)

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: rachael to coodinate subgroup for silver protping

<trackbot> Created ACTION-311 - Coodinate subgroup for silver protping [on Rachael Montgomery - due 2019-02-21].

Lisa: Any comments?

design guided https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#heading=h.dgd1m22rf

Lisa: The design guide is an important deliverable. We each are meant to do three. Some stepped out. Are any finished?

Mine will be ready soon. I will send them to John K for comments.

Lisa: Is anybody stuck? We could have a working call this week?

Would that be useful?

<johnkirkwood> yes potentially for me.

JohnR: It would be useful to have an open call.

Lisa: Lets set a time and give it a shot. Monday is a holiday for some. Who would not be able to make Monday?

Rachael: I cannot

Lisa: What about the same time as this call on Monday?

<johnkirkwood> yes i may be able to do it Monday

We can have an open call at the same time as this call on Monday the 18th

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: send out an invite for the call on webex

<trackbot> Error finding 'send'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/users>.

<scribe> ACTION: Steve to coordinate webex for Monday

<trackbot> Created ACTION-312 - Coordinate webex for monday [on Steve Lee - due 2019-02-21].

Lisa: Anyone who can join in can do so.
... What is the minimum we want to do to make this useful?

Then we can redo the schedule according to that.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#

Lisa: We still have 15 left that are not assigned. Assuming 5 of us working, we will each need to write 3 and review 2.

Do we want to put out a partial (lots of options) or push it off till March?

Steve: I'd rather go for quality

Lisa: We could give ourselves 3 weeks and what is done is done.

Lets make a final decision next week but I want to take a straw poll. Do we publish in the next 3 weeks or take 5 weeks?

Please put what you think into IRC

<JohnRochford> No opinion have I.

We could work on it for 3 weeks and remove anything not done.

Or we could write for 3 weeks, review for 1.

Lisa: 3 weeks gives us a chance to do what is assigned and then 1-2 more.

Steve: Do we need to reserve time to look at overlaps?

Lisa: Once we've rewritten all of them we will want to do another stab at gaps. Then look at overlaps at the next stage.

We will also get feedback from others.

This approach is what I'm tempted to do. What I'm a bit afraid of, is that without deadlines, it won't be prioritized

If we delay it another month we may not get done.

Rachael: May have a better idea how fast we can get through it after open call

Lisa: In terms of our priorities, our design guide and gap analysis is a higher priority than the silver prototype.

I will send at least one to silver

Time lines - updates https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/PlanningPage

Steve: If you can send out the meeting invitation today, people can add it to their schedules.

Lisa: We won't be ready to publish in 2 weeks but we can slip a few weeks.

We've already discussed timelines as we go.


Is there anything anyone wants to add or is uncomfortable with?

John: I would like to know if there is interest or plans to do something at TPAC?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019

<JohnRochford> TPAC link: https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019

Sept 16-20. Location is in Japan. FUK is airport code

John: I'd like to consider it.

Lisa: It doesn't conflict with Jewish holidays.
... I think I can go. I'd be interested.

Who is interested?

Michael: You need to tell staff contact that you want a room. WCAG is likely to meet.

Lisa: I think we should make an effort to go. We should have a good design guide and gap analysis by then. Even if we let it slide a bit. We should have something worth looking at. Its good to disseminate that material at TPAC.

My take is that if enough of us can get there, its worth going.

John: I think you are correct.

Lisa: Pencil it in and see what's necessary to get there.

Its more likely to get a number of us there if we are aware of the date now so we can budget, etc.

Michael: We will have to make a commitment by June.

vedios and student

Lisa: One other agenda item with John Rochford in mind. We talked about making videos on user needs. We can do them on a shoestring budget. I thought if there is a media department in a University they are often looking for projects. Getting across user needs hosted in W3C sites would make a great student project.

It could be good for them and us.

JohnR: My university doesn't have undergraduate students but the University of South Hampton does. I do have media staff so I may be able to provide technical support.

Lisa: A lot of us are associated with universities. If so, see if we can reach out to see if there is interest.

JohnR: there are some videos on user needs available. I can share them with you.

Lisa: Are they public domain?

JohnR: I think so but don't know for sure.

Lisa: Lets start putting together a video library. Or make a media page of already available videos.

or even a cartoon. They will help us communicate the point.

Lisa: Should I make it a wiki page or Google doc?

I'll make a page and we'll see how it goes. Wrapping up call.

trackbot end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: rachael to coodinate subgroup for silver protping
[NEW] ACTION: send out an invite for the call on webex
[NEW] ACTION: Steve to coordinate webex for Monday

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: 2019/02/14 16:01:25 $

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)

Default Present: MichaelC, janina, Rachael, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, Roy, JohnRochford, johnkirkwood
Present: MichaelC janina Rachael LisaSeemanKestenbaum Roy JohnRochford johnkirkwood
Found Scribe: Rachael
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael

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

Found Date: 14 Feb 2019
People with action items: rachael send steve

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

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]