<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe:stevelee
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe: stevelee
alastairc: we have been preparing for Wcag 2.2 by reviewing the process and acceptance criteria
noticed comments from people on the TF so reporting back
will be making updates, followed by call for a acceptance
<alastairc> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0
A time is tight in parallel will be looking at ^^^
survey tomorrow on who will be working on what
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_working_process
a list of things o go into a template
for coga would like at least one person wiling to work on a one of the new SC
also 1 to 3 no coga people to join a form a group
say 2-4 weeks
so we can create a backlog of these tasks
aim to review 2 SCs for 2 weeks
then a week to update and if resolves issues will progress it
will be an iterative process working through the backlog
so SCs that doent make can get put back on backlog for another itteration
In summary: 1 week for drafting - then the sprint process - 1 week review + 1 week for updates
use survey to state 'objections'
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements
Lisa' comments to SCs were discussed in group meeting
most were agreed with others saying similar
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements
for silver should be easier to add design patterns and supplimental guidelines
lisa: up to chairs how the process is formulated
eg we could ask for conformance on removing user need -
based on a user need
people might be able to vote on if a user need should be addressed and then proposal and then vote on proposals
ie not just say we will ignore a proposal so user need is not met
current process makes it easy to object and drop a user need
alastairc: that should be manage before the proposal when setting up small working groups of 4-5
lisa: we did that before with coga SCs when external exports reviewed before submitted as SCs
small sub groups involving mix of people
even so the wider review kicked them out
alastairc: at TPAC main concern was so many at once made it hard
<Glenda> Wondering if the comment Lisa just made on “ETSI” is in reference to this cool doc? ETSI EG 203 350 V1.1.1 (2016-11) Human Factors (HF); Guidelines for the design of mobile ICT devices and their related applications for people with cognitive disabilities
<Glenda> because that doc is AMAZING!
lisa: need to ensure the reviewers understand the user needs before reviewing
this new process kicks things out rather than alow rework to make it fit other SCs
Lisa: in response to Glenda's Q - yes but ETSI process is complicated
Mike Pluke knows it well.
<Glenda> This is a direct link to the document I finally read…that is so wonderful. https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_eg/203300_203399/203350/01.01.01_60/eg_203350v010101p.pdf
alastairc: Another problem with 2.1 process was when SCs at review stage more than 1 champion per SC - some not coga TF
thats' a quite significant change since last time
LisaSeemanKestenbaum: definitely a good thing.
alastairc: can we add user needs to the SC
LisaSeemanKestenbaum, but people may not read it when they vote.
we want ot avoid people voting against AND saying they didn;t understand the user need.
alastairc, I don;t recall that specific aspect
alastairc, we do have ability to ensure survey comments that are already answered will be ignored.
Jennie, One of my jobs is to teach standard and how it applies
wondering if criteria might need a supporting 'understanding' document?
alastairc, sometimes there was limited time to get to get the bottom of a SCs before another turned up
alastairc, for example small groups could provide some of the techniques work that caused problems previously.
LisaSeemanKestenbaum, we've all be trying hard to get things through. Is there any point in discussing with a view to optimsing
would like a chance to review the process against optimal or is there not time
alastairc, the spec needs good initial drafts will
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#
Jennie: I will finished my review tomorrow by deadline
steve: I did mine but didn;t email people
LisaSeemanKestenbaum, all can you look and ensure you reviews are done .
process is do review and then mark completed in review column in the table
when all complete please ping me.
Can anyone volunteer to pick up one of Jamies as he is too busy
<johnkirkwood> on irc but lost audio
the following will do them: steve, david, lisa
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> John are u ok with the reviews?
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> should we reasign them?
do make sure you email the person when you review so issues get dealt with
johnkirkwood, could you email lisa with an update as you have audio problems now
<johnkirkwood> ok thats fine yes
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/coga/design/#theme2
<janina> leave
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> +1 to publish now ,
<Jennie> * Jennie leaving for my next call. Bye!
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> 0 is add more content glossary
LisaSeemanKestenbaum, what should we add them intordictions and glossary
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) Present: MichaelC LisaSeemanKestenbaum stevelee Jennie Glenda kirkwood janina Roy Fazio Regrets: abi ea Found Scribe: stevelee Found Scribe: stevelee Inferring ScribeNick: stevelee WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 11 Apr 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]