<Rachael> scribe: Rachael
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Timelines_and_actions
<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11zD_-yePfku549aedni1JvfVLcvp2micQ4Own5c06is/edit#
Lisa: We discussed sending out
requests for review of the content usable. We have a table to
track it. I didn't see much movement in the document. Did
anyone manage to do much dissemination?
... reminder to send out this document. We want feedback often
and early.
<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11zD_-yePfku549aedni1JvfVLcvp2micQ4Own5c06is/edit#
The email is a relaxed email. It doesn't say its a final draft. It says it is early and request feedback. If people just see a final draft then ask for something different, it is much more difficult. Put your name down next to an org and send it.
johnkirkwood: I am working on
sending it.
... Are there any organizations we don't want to send it
to?
Lisa: No, I don't think so.
Abi: I don't think its ready to
send out to general forums yet but I will reach out to
individuals within those organizations.
... accessibility specialists yes, general practitioners who
might use the advice, not yet.
Lisa: Janina, have you made progress on the personas?
Janina: Not yet.
Lisa: Jennie, you are working on the glossary. You just took that on last week but has there been any progress?
Jennie: The request from last
week's meeting was to draft a document with column headers and
send it to the group to review and approve. Once approved I
would fill in the document. I sent the structure out earlier
today.
... if everyone could take a look at it and send out comments,
then I can get it updated.
Lisa: Changing action to
Everyone: Look at Jennie's email about the glossary and
respond.
... That is something on everyone's to do list.
... Abi, have you gone through the personas and identified any
that are missing?
Abi: I am planning on doing that tomorrow.
Lisa: Steve has an action to put
pictures. Steve and Roy are not here today so we will pass on
those.
... we have weekly updates on WCAG 2.2. Jennie, John, and
Rachael - do we need to make time for that today?
Jennie: We're currently working through just a little bit of it. I think its easier if I send mine to the list.
Lisa: The editorial group has
action items. It will take us a couple weeks until we bring
something back to the group. We are meeting weekly.
... Then there are silver. We were going to have Shawn and
Jeanne join the call. I don't see them online.
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
rm: can cover that
ls: Note on the call time, you can now join 10 minutes before start; I find the extra time helpful
ls: my recollection is we made a couple prototypes in context of a model they had
rm: we built templates of SC transformed to Silver
they reviewed
they´re now focusing on conformance model
that´s what we wanted them to discuss with us
Conformance model is how you score accessibility in a new framework
in WCAG 2.x it´s pass / fail, at three conformance levels
Silver is thinking of points for criteria
you´d get bronze / silver / gold overall based on points you get
lots of open questions, e.g., should bronze correspond to WCAG 2.x AA?
do you provide additional points based on more critical SC?
E.g., seizure inducing is highly critical
There are several models under consideration
<Rachael> 1. Are we evaluating the right things when we compare the different proposals?
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit
<Rachael> 2. Does COGA have comments on the individual proposals?
e.g., risks, gaps
<Rachael> 3. Does COGA have input on what we should be measuring?
this gets into how you score
there´s a lot of risk of unintentional bias in how we assign points to SC
ls: very important because people focus on what´s measured
if coga stuff is measured, it´ll happen, otherwise it won´t
do we want to submit input individually, or as a group?
aj: suggest individual review followed by group discussion
<Jennie> Is there a timeline for these responses? E.g. is there a deadline by which we need to provide the feedback?
a group input will help ensure they are explicitly receiving the coga view rather than a collection of individual views
rm: they´re actively working on this, but a lot of stuff, so a few weeks
ls: that´s not long
is this out to wider community?
js: there´s standard wide review from W3C, but maybe not at this stage
ls: there´s so much to review, hard for people to participate
maybe we could do an online workshop to go through this as a COGA group
jk: would like to see all the comments in one place
so we can bounce things off each other
ls: this is all in separate docs, you want in one?
jk: yes
rm: it´s a ¨sheet¨ not a ¨doc¨
ls: that ok?
jk: yes
<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: LisaSeemanKest
michael: silver want limited feedback - not wide review yet
<johnkirkwood> workshop of just coga task force, i was thinking.
michael: one document and
workshop is realy hard
... and they have too much to do
<johnkirkwood> didn't want to mess up what they are doing. fair enough
<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC
jd: happy to provide feedback but unsure where
not sure I can participate in an extra meeting
would like an alternative, like the doc for comments
ls: how about we set up a working call and start adding to a comments doc at the same time
can use call to cross-fertilize as we go
people could also comment out of sync
will that work?
jk: sure
if it helps to find all the bits and pull them together
rm: could copy their docs into a space for us to comment
though hard to keep up to date
or we could request access for individuals to comment in their docs
<johnkirkwood> + to a COGA a group response.
<johnkirkwood> +1 to a COGA group response
<Jennie> +1 to providing a more unified response.
mc: they try to be open to lots of input mechanisms
but in practice work in gdocs
I think we need a group response, they need to know the TF is ok with the result
js: the process of forming a consensus view is stronger
and has more weight with them
<Abi> +1 group response
ls: maybe do email list discussion
then colate
rm: maybe instead of by doc, by question
e.g., somebody could look at measurement, somebody look at evaluation
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit
<Jennie> From my notes:
<Jennie> Question 1: Are we evaluating the right things when we compare the different proposals?
<Jennie> Question 2: Does COGA have comments on the individual proposals?
<Jennie> Question 3: Do we have input on what we should be measuring?
ls: worried you gotta review everything to address these questions
js: maybe it´s too early to get in depth
maybe give feedback when they have a more well-defined approach
ls: how about comments to list, group discussion, after which we have better input on question 3
then we´d know better if we want to answer question 2 or 3
jd: a high-level review would allow us to give input on general consensus
see if we have consensus even on that
<johnkirkwood> +1 to reviewing in a general sense and starting to high-level concepts.
<Jennie> I can do some reviewing
<Rachael> I have weighed in on the evaluation criteria but haven't had a chance to dig into the proposals beyond the calls. I can take a pass at the proposals this week along with Jennie.
<johnkirkwood> sorry can't do this week
ls: so Jenni and Rachael looking at proposals
I´l look at question 1
aj: I can comment on email or gdocs
we should have quorum for next week
and hopefully the week after
last week of August will probably be holiday
<Jennie> Just to confirm - are we cancelling August 29th?
ls: yes, 29 Aug we´ll cancel
<LisaSeemanKest> https://w3c.github.io/wai-coga/coga-draft/guide/understandable/
and may cancel week before
ls: there´s a written version, good for version control
also considering an interactive version mined from the written version
<shares screen>
collapsible TOC
<Jennie> Link without extra quotation mark: https://w3c.github.io/wai-coga/coga-draft/guide/understandable/
Overview followed by general objectives which expand to specific patterns
aj: more readable
jd: need to fix color contrast
is this an overall site issue, or local?
mc: if overall, it´s WAI, they´d prioritize
otherwise local, easy to fix
jd: focus outline is different color in different places, the yellow one is too light
mc: think it´s fine to the collapsible TOC as the main version
ls: no, policy people need a printed version with all the content
mc: it´s standard to have an ¨expand all¨ feature and when printed everything comes out
ls: a ¨web-like¨ version is less authoritative
<johnkirkwood> need to logoff best, jk
<mc disagrees>
<johnkirkwood> ;)
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/scirbe: lisa/scribe: LisaSeemanKest/ Succeeded: s/objects/objectives/ Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** Present: LisaSeemanKest Rachael MichaelC janina Jennie johnkirkwood Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Found Scribe: LisaSeemanKest Inferring ScribeNick: LisaSeemanKest Found Scribe: MichaelC Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC Scribes: Rachael, MichaelC, LisaSeemanKest ScribeNicks: Rachael, MichaelC, LisaSeemanKest Found Date: 01 Aug 2019 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]