<LisaSeemanKest> agenda: actions and updates: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

<LisaSeemanKest> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/coga/gap-analysis.html

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: jennie

actions and updates: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

Link without " https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

Steve and Roy moved the patterns from the Google doc to the HTML version.

<JohnRochford> I'm on the phone, muted, just how everyone likes me.

Steve copied Jamie's and Abi's.

Jennie: that subitem assigned to me is actually John K and myself. We should have this to Steve by the end of Friday.

<JohnRochford> Lisa, we can't hear you.

Audio issues seem to now be resolved!

<JohnRochford> I am here

* MichaelC: thanks for adding the names into WebEx. Makes it easier to scribe!

EA and Steve discussed the editing going on for adding Abi's information to the Content Usable document.

Steve: I have updated that section of the Content Usable document, as was in my task list.

Lisa: back to the Google doc that moved to HTML - the Patterns. Are there things that need to be done prior to me reviewing?

Steve: the only thing I think is still missing is a few of the patterns we already talked about.

Roy: I remember some patterns in the document listed in the table, and some of them are marked as merged to other patterns.

Steve: yes, I went through those, and tried to ensure those were all there. It would be great, Lisa, if you went through and double check that.

Lisa: I don't want to review them twice. Are there other things yet to be there?

Steve: just the few bits left we are discussing remain.

Lisa: It sounds like we need a few things remaining.

<Fazio> can you put the doc link in IRC

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

Jennie: Once John K and I have finished, we will send a note to the list.

Lisa: I will note the two we are waiting for, and we can track this.
... sometimes as I go through them, I see things that could be made simpler. Should I make changes and put them to the list, or how should we do it?

<stevelee_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HG5I-nkIRkDPXaDfcQ9v7q4SgAkYbAen1rV5cSlZWls/edit?usp=sharing

<stevelee_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/design-doc-transfer/design/index.html

<JohnRochford> Accessible Authentication update: I updated and submitted it to the working group of Alistair, Andrew Kirkpatrick, and John Foliot. I have a conference call with them later today.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Timelines_and_actions

Group is currently discussing the planning page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

Primary item, bullet 1: patterns document from the Google doc https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

Discussing comment process going forward.

Lisa: currently only open for commenting.
... when people are reviewing, we will have to send big comments to the list, have 48 hours to respond. Is that ok?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HG5I-nkIRkDPXaDfcQ9v7q4SgAkYbAen1rV5cSlZWls/edit?usp=sharing

Lisa: there is a new Google document (above) and you can add comments in here like spelling mistakes.
... I will do a formal review of the document, and if you have large changes, send it to the list so we all see it.
... when there are like 20 things I want to change, not just editorial things, I'm going to put this into an email and send it to the list.
... you can do either, it just is that as an editor I need a way to finish my review.
... Does that work for people?

+1

<Rachael> +1 with the thought that if people need more time, they should ask within the 48 hours

Lisa: any objections to this process?

<EA> +1

Now onto the second bullet point: changes for content usable.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

Lisa: Steve and Abi were reviewing 1.2 definition. Is this finished?

<LisaSeemanKest> * Steve add Abi's rewrite of [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1StcdCLBUebaSWF7f4DfJtqliQisKyC_5OoNAxqxOc0I/edit?usp=sharing 1.2 definition] to the Content Useable HTML doc

<LisaSeemanKest> it was 1.2 gap anaisis

<LisaSeemanKest> section 4 content useable

Lisa: section 4 of the content usable, which is the same as section 1.2 in the other document - they are similar, and we liked what was done with 1.2, so Abi was going to rework it.

<stevelee_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/usable-doc-update/content-usable/index.html#background

Steve: so I took the Google doc (Abi's rewrite) so I put it into the link pasted above

Lisa: I will have a look and see how it works.

Rachael: you had asked me to edit Content Usable: where should I put this?
... I have been editing Content Usable - you sent me an email asking me to do this.
... I have been doing this in a Word document.

Lisa: the normal thing to do would be to do it as a github branch.

Janina: I think using Word for something we want as HTML may not be best. Maybe a smart notepad? Other suggestions from the group?

Steve: can we follow the same process as the design document? Google doc, then edit it there?

Lisa: we could do that, but we are confusing 2 issues.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable/

Lisa: Rachael is discussing a more serious edit. The question everyone has: before we make our next publication, other than editor's notes, what other things do we need to do before we publish? Just an iteration.
... does anyone have any questions on this?

Janina: No questions because people are confused or haven't done it yet?

Steve: if Rachael is working on it, do we need to wait until she is done?

Lisa: this would be other than editorial reviews?

<Rachael> Big ticket items I see: Section 5 User Needs; Decision about american or british english; some of the editor's notes are big

Steve: it definitely needs some work, and the purpose and users being clearer would be helpful.

<Rachael> how to integrate the design requirements into the user needs

Lisa: the design guide is the appendix.

EA: I'm concerned because we have repetition and the document is becoming very long. Will a web developer look at it?

<Rachael> Decision about Section 7 vs. new Coga Gap analysis.

Jennie is +1 to EA's comment

Group discussed Rachael's comment above re Section 5

Lisa: it is hard to get multiple documents published.
... it will be easier to get everything collected into one document, and get everyone to comment that there need to be multiple documents.
... Janina - if just a resource, will it ever get published?

Janina: atleast for myself in APA (I can't speak for others) I'm most looking for is user needs/user scenarios/user stories close to concluded this year.

Lisa: the action items end up taking the whole meeting, and we were going to discuss this today.

Janina: this would benefit WCAG 2

Lisa: Rachael - is it ok if you do your edits in a separate branch, and we will review them, and then try to resolve it for the rest of the group?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAvyzUb4cG9kp1Ao5o2UJ5Ar4cOfRTyrxBjxYzABUb4/edit#heading=h.r62kfejr3d8z

user needs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAvyzUb4cG9kp1Ao5o2UJ5Ar4cOfRTyrxBjxYzABUb4/edit

Janina: any chance you can give me a quick export to HTML?

Lisa: I can send it to the list.

Janina: yes that would be great.
... can everyone do the present plus (use symbol) on IRC? This helps with the minutes

Lisa: Does anyone else have comments on the User Needs for COGA document?

Jennie: I would like to have more time to review, if possible.

Lisa: please send comments ahead if you will not be at the next meeting.

Steve: is this duplication with the design guide in part of the patterns?
... can we decide what goes where?

<Rachael> +1

Lisa: what we were thinking of doing is using includes
... we could have them as a repository, and they can be included in the different places, so the same user needs can be cross-referenced in the gaps analysis, the design guide.

Steve: why is that better than a link?
... as a designer, they may not be as interested in the background.

Janina: I strongly agree with this. You want a fair amount of human interest. But you don't want to replicate this in the technical information because it will get in the way. Referencing it is all you need to do.

Steve: what to do - pass/fail is appropriate.

Janina: the cross linking is good, but don't overburden them.

Lisa: EA - is this what you were discussing before?
... we can reference them, and then we don't have the duplication.

EA: yes, I agree.

Janina: you may want to include a paragraph or two, not everything that is in the other document.

<EA> +1 to what Janine just said

Lisa: the user needs section in the designer guide would say "see these user needs." Give a few sentences about why it is important, and then link to the user needs.
... EA is this a step in the right direction?

EA: yes.

Lisa: are there other areas?

EA: it is hard to say while we are still doctoring the document.

Lisa: ok
... will the usable document, once the personas are pulled out, then it becomes more like an introduction to the design guide.
... let's move to English vs American spelling.

Michael: for which words?
... the official W3C spelling is American English

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: Jennie JohnRochford Fazio stevelee_ Roy MichaelC janina Rachael JustineP EA LisaSeemanKest
Found Scribe: jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie

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

Found Date: 09 May 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.)