<Rachael> agneda+ User Stories https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xmmQkuZLEG014zDRVkgr3QLyINb7BNvWxqL7POn6Ei8/edit?pli=1#
<Rachael> scribe:
<Rachael> scribe: Rachael
WCAG 2.2 Jennie's was up this week (Find help). Went well and she is working comments.
John: Have been addressing comments and feedback. Some unsure how to address. Overall I think its going well.
Rachael: This is a hard process to ensure something is clear.
JohnR: Sometimes things are changed and then changed back
Rachael: Show changes and call out when we go back?
JohnR: That is what I am doing
David: I aslo.
... I am ready to go on the first of mine. Some light comments.
Advisory but after alastair's comments. So just add glossary
term. No other comments.
... still need to do 2nd one. Similar understanding documents
with slight differences.
... How does everyone feel about that?
Rachael: I think it makes sense.
David: Premise of 2 different SC is the same so I am using a similar understanding document.
Michael: If the understanding document is too similar, then it may indicate the SC should be combined. If the intent is similar then that would be ok.
Abi: Can we revise the understanding document as it progresses?
Michael: Yes but the chairs are asking for a fairly well developed understanding documents along with the SC to ensure the working group retains intent and to better understand the SC from the beginning to avoid holes.
Abi: Giving the time involved, it seems like a lot of time to develop them to be completely different. It would be more efficient to develop them in parrallel.
Michael: I think that is the intent
David: I think we are doing that, working on it as we go. Evolving document.
Abi: It is quite difficult to support the process in the meeting. Is there a way to participate asynchronously?
David: I emailed out the SC I am
working on for review to COGA. Please make comments.
... I think Jenni is doing the same.
Abi: I have seen requests for more input but its hard to do if I can't attend
Rachael: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0
<Abi> Scribe: Abi
<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/telecon-info_ag
Rachael: this is potential 2.2
SCs
... and the AG call in information
<Rachael> zakim take up item 2
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Developer_resources
Lisa: sharing link to resource
guide
... relates to action item to get up design guide and page of
useful resources
... easier to publish in the Wiki site so suggesting we can
start to add resources and then we can share the link
publically
... this is a summary of resources for developers who are one
of our key audiences
... this is a draft page as a proposal. Includes links to other
projects. We did have criteria for judging what projects we
should add
... this allows us to signpost to resources developed in other
projects for working with COGA users
... we can build up a list of resources
... wanted to check if people like the idea of this page, any
comments, should we add external resources?
David: there are lots of organisations which have guidelines
<Rachael> Abi: I think its a good idea. My biggest challenge, particularly with mobile app developers, is to take people with cog disabiltiies into account. A resource like this would be helpful.
<Rachael> ...I think in terms of adding projects, if we add lots of projects, they may overlap and contradict each other. Particualrly some of the guidelines. Sometimes suggest different areas. How do we maintain clarity and ensure that the materials are consistent?
<Rachael> ...it feels like a lot of work.
Lisa: these projects should be in
addition to our resources and add value. They should be the
backup resources.
... we should be integrating resources in tools (e.g. personas)
where possible
... we should actively avoid overlap
<Rachael> abi: are they providing additional resources or evidence?
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Main_Page#Key_Resolutions
Lisa: Resolutions state what research we accept. We avoid citing without checking research if it is commercial or if we are aware of contradictoty research
David: we should do fact checking but we should put in a disclaimer if we are sign-posting resources.
Lisa: we have a disclaimer
<Rachael> Do we want to move forward with a developer resource guide?
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
+1
<Fazio> 0
<JohnRochford> +1
<Rachael> +1
<JohnRochford> dog says +1
<Rachael> Do we want to include outside resources?
0
<JohnRochford> 0
<Fazio> 0
<LisaSeemanKest> +1 for completary stuff that went though helsiki commitie or similar
<Rachael> Resolution at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Main_Page#Key_Resolutions
David: are we putting outself in the postition that we will keep on reviewing content?
Lisa: this is what the resolutions cover
<Rachael> abi: I agree with David. I've been in that situation. If the resources are that good, we should be referencing them in our content and that would then reduce us being overwhelmed with approaches. If we are trying to keep it narrow, why isn't it in our resources?
<Rachael> Lisa: I was thinking of consent forms
<Rachael> abi: Why isn't it in our user testing? Why on a separate wiki page?
<Rachael> Lisa: we've had this as a to do for a while. I put it on a wiki to get it done.
<Rachael> Abi: Is there a better way to integrate them without raising these questions?
<Rachael> Lisa: The Easy Reader Project is a W3c project
Lisa: we can say they need to have a direct link
<LisaSeemanKest> coga task force
<Rachael> Can only include outside resources that have used coga work or have a w3c relationship?
<Rachael> and only provide limited examples?
<Fazio> I’m really concerned about scrutiny
+1 if they are presented as limited examples
Lisa: a COGA link = implemented our guidance
<Rachael> abi: I understand it if these were commercial resources there would be a risk. From an academic perspective. You are looking at peer reviewed resources and projects. These will go through scrutiny
<Rachael> ...I think we are only linking to W3C or something with extensive peer review. We should present it as limited examples that supplement
<Rachael> ...we should just discuss the wording around it more.
<Rachael> ACTION: LisaSeemanKest update content and send to list. Will try to close on list
<trackbot> Error finding 'LisaSeemanKest'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/track/users>.
<Roy_> ACTION: Lisa update content and send to list. Will try to close on list
<trackbot> Created ACTION-319 - Update content and send to list. will try to close on list [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2019-11-14].
<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xmmQkuZLEG014zDRVkgr3QLyINb7BNvWxqL7POn6Ei8/edit#
Lisa: discussing User Stories
Rachael: we are on objective 4
<Rachael> Objective 4: Prevent the user from making mistakes and make it easy to correct mistakes when they do occur.
Rachael: take objective 4
Abi: take objective 5
David: take objective 6
Rachael: we can ask others to take on 7 and 8
Lisa: please post comments in the document and also send a summary to the list.
<Fazio> What list?
Lisa: to the email list
<Fazio> Thought so. Ok
<Rachael> WCAG 2.2 Current Schedule: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U9dm8rFsyPLu_LeSmdJRKdNdXmQ2nlUFcC7clUFglzw/edit#gid=0
<Rachael> trackbot end meeting
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: Rachael, LisaSeemanKest, Fazio, JohnRochford Present: Rachael LisaSeemanKest Fazio JohnRochford Found Scribe: Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael Found Scribe: Abi Inferring ScribeNick: Abi Scribes: , Rachael, Abi ScribeNicks: Rachael, Abi WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 07 Nov 2019 People with action items: content lisa lisaseemankest send update 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]