<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Updates for design patterns - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#heading=h.ckxdbkrztzlc��

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> did anyone join the call?

trying

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe: steve

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> next, zakim

WCAG 2.2 - See https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22_yesno/

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements

we can vote on the survey, bear in mind as well also implies acceptance of acceptance critera for SCs

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Be feasibly testable through automated or manual processes, i.e. take a few minutes per page with current tools.

a couple are of concern like this above

lisa: feels this is not good for a standard

"current tools"

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Avoid creating a requirement for something that is already required by an existing Success Criterion - so we cant upgrade part

JR: a few minutes per page for a manual page checks might be OK for CogA users - but a longer time might be required

so number 2 could be a concern

Jennie - can you clarify what part 2 is

Lisa: I believe 2 minutes testing is saying should be enough to for someone to manual test a page
... ie you can;t test in less that say 5 mins

Jennie wonders if we could add a work to differentiate user testing for people with CoGA

Lisa: anyone one would take more than 5 minutes for some SC tests
... another is avoid taking part of an existing criteria and upgrade for nAAA to aa (say)
... feels like it excludes coga

jennie - think of exampels that already fail 2

eg reading order - for PDF we walk the tag tree and that can take more than few minutes

so might is not a realist time constraint for existing SCs

Lisa I agree checking alt attrib text can take longer to check

again, checking all ARIA roles are correct

So saying saying new things must be quick to test is worrying

seem to follow 2.1 and some people not wanting to increase time

so feel 2.2 good but acceptance have propblems. Obviously Every one has their own vote

jennie: are invited experts allowed to vote

lisa: yes
... once somehting fails the acceptance_requirements that is it and SC is out.
... also annoying that is now no longer easier to upgrade

:EA

EA: feels it hard to take these sort of votes with out discussing so have a better technical understanding

In this case also concerned about acceptance requirements restrictions

:find yes/no votes hard in general

Though can add comments

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> If you cannot use this on-line questionnaire, you may send your answers by email to cooper@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,akirkpat@adobe.com,acampbell@nomensa.com,shawn@w3.org,ran@w3.org using the text version of this questionnaire.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> and concider this my responce

<Jennie> +1 to that!

<EA> +1

<kirkwood> +1

janina: the system has possibilty but not used in this particular survey

jennie: feels mentoring in group memborship would help - has ask before

<EA> +1 to just in time training as we all have day jobs as well!!

janina: have you see the art of concensus doc

jennie: some people like me do not learn form long documents but prefer on the job 'agile' trainng

lisa: this might be important as people have joined and left after say 10 weeks

janina: wcag is harder because of intensity depth. APA is very different - so Jennie not the only person

suggest Jennie replies to list to make it publically noted - and also request a "buddy system"

jennie: I will also follow up with Michael as mentioned related thing before

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ackj

Review the time table for this year, and confirm our goals See https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/PlanningPage

better link if you get 404 - https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/PlanningPage

lisa: need to start planning for the publication date for Design Guide

we had agreed several actions but now might want to do more

and should not push back deadline again

for "Design Patters" decide to remove the notes about needed more work

<Jennie> +1 to done within 2 weeks

if you feel might not finish in 2 weeks MAXIMUM please update us

<EA> +1 to helping Jennie and Steve

lisa: Glenda has family issues that will block her so I can help with hers

Only leaves a few left

https://mit.webex.com/meet/slimlee

<Jennie> Regrets for that call

:Lisa we have an open call 1 hr after this call. Would another be useful for Jennie?

Jennie: need to wait to see what weather is doing before I can commit to another meeting

EA: also can't commit join another open meeting

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Objective 8: is Adapt and Personalize

Lisa: agreed with EA will send Patterns like Clear Text for review

due to confusion some comment for "Objective 8 put in wrong place. The one that needs review is Support personalization and adaptation

John: I will be on todays follow on call

Updates for https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/

janina: On reviewing the work of jannie, EA, Steve I had and aha momement

I may have beeing trying to solve to many things in my feedback

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16OA95LpFAcHWb5Y_4wS65q64gEEWf1AYNfmt2_Pjd6A/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=110409080524773921565

Cognitive Disabilities are completely hidden so we need to have human interest stories to make it clear

<Jennie> Found it! https://docs.google.com/document/d/16OA95LpFAcHWb5Y_4wS65q64gEEWf1AYNfmt2_Pjd6A/edit

So suggest we pull out the user stories int oa new doc

<kirkwood> +1 to Janinana

for once yet another document is a good idea

<kirkwood> user stories document

then they can be linked to form various places including the gap analysis

and could be enhanced with videos

so then Gap Analysis would not be try to do 2 things

Steve: am +1 for this as long as is focused - meets many objectives

lisa: we are in agreement here

janina: we will have to get official approval for yet another document and I will start

<Jennie> Signing off - going to my next meeting. Have a good week.

lisa have a central 'repository' of user stories needs agreement and I think we are getting there

we need tp decide how to fit into out timelines

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> working user stories will be a central delivble

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> +1

+1

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ackl

<EA> +1

<kirkwood> +1

These are similar to issue papers is some ways

should we have issue papers review?

Lisa: I think we do not have clear agreement on wha tthe GA looks like

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/#topic-1-authentication-and-safety

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/#topic-1-authentication-and-safety

janina: no but we will simplify the GA by removing the story an leaving just the resulting gaps

Lisa: can janina take an action to review again in light of User Stories removed?

janina: yes

rssagent, make 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, Jennie, kirkwood, stevelee
Present: MichaelC janina Rachael LisaSeemanKestenbaum Roy JohnRochford johnkirkwood Jennie kirkwood stevelee
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: stevelee
Found Scribe: steve

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

Found Date: 21 Feb 2019
People with action items: 

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.)