COGA 19 March 2020

19 Mar 2020


Jennie, Fazio, Rachael, MichaelC, 1, stevelee, LisaSeemanKest, JohnRochford, Roy, kirkwood


<Rachael> agneda?

We are working with our Department of Health for Minnesota on their materials.

<scribe> scribe: Jennie

Check in on WCAG 2.2 SC https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0

Lisa: Anyone interested in working on COVID items in an accessible way, please connect with me by email.

Rachael: 2 success criteria proposals have gone to PR - please respond to the survey
... Those are in email, not survey
... Search for CFC in your emails

<Rachael> CFC - Add Accessible Authentication to WCAG 2.2

<Rachael> Re: CFC - Add Redundant entry to WCAG 2.2

Rachael: These are to make a decision to get them into the WCAG 2.2 draft - final ok

John R: So far, all the responses to accessible authentication are positive.

Rachael: Only 1 negative response to the other.
... Essential controls will hopefully go out next week for CFC

Lisa: Can you tell the list when it is there?

Rachael: Yes
... I will take an action to forward to the list the CFCs as they come through.
... The face to face for WCAG is on the 24th and 25th, and 2 of those sessions will be on the remaining SCs, and this will be the last pass.
... Most of them are almost ready to go

<Rachael> Meeting 1, Tuesday 24th: 9:00 - 11:30 GMT

<Rachael> Custom interactions, dragging, touch target spacing

<Rachael> Wednesday 25th: 15:00 - 17:30 GMT

<Rachael> Error Correction, Fixed refernce points, visual indicators and findable help

John R: Where is the face to face?

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas#Upcoming

Rachael: It is virtual

Lisa: Do we need to register?

Rachael: I don't believe so. It will be on Zoom this time.

David F: Will we turn on video for this?

Rachael: I will find out

Michael: Video capability will be there, but I don't think we are expecting people to use it.

Rachael: SCs in first call are those that those in Europe wanted to attend.

<JohnRochford> Jennie: (John does not know what you just said.)

Jennie: Regrets are all that is required if you regularly attend, no RSVP or registration required.

<JohnRochford> Thanks!

* No problemo

Discuss Priorities for Next Version of Content Usable

Rachael: Last week we discussed Content Usable, and agreed to finishing up and publishing the new version.

Roy: We need to have an announcement about the document.
... We need to prepare a WAI ID email for the announcement.

Steve: This a more formal announcement that goes out to the public.

Rachael: For this initial draft?

Steve: Yes, that is what Michael said.

<Roy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/cc/wiki/WAI_Announcement_Drafts

Steve: Gives Shawn a heads up. And starts the wide review process.
... Would you like me to draft it?

Rachael: There is a draft in our email already. Steve, if you want to make it fit the template that would be great.

Steve: Yes

Lisa: I would send it to APA

Rachael: OK

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-QEijzzX6TTi_7wnNk2mu-9-Sgh9srmxNCMqJK_hZPg/edit#heading=h.fcb9l2nm7pn7

Rachael: The other decision we made was that edits and high priority items, and work through any of those fixes, and aim to fix a fully edited note through the parent groups along with WCAG 2.2 so we get both the COGA related SC out at the same time as this document.
... There is a list Lisa put together of a potential schedule
... and we have a potential priority list.

<kirkwood> [fyi sorry having some audio-out mic issues on my end]

Rachael: We need to decide which items will fit into this tight schedule

Lisa: We should review the schedule, and what the priority list is
... and assign things.
... I got the impression from Judy that she wants more involvement of the Working Group
... We were going to do a working group draft in May, but maybe we should do a CFC?

Rachael: Michael - I thought if we asked for feedback it would be enough

Michael: We need to actively solicit and react to feedback from the Working Group.
... When we transition to Note, we do need a CFC for that.

Lisa: We were going to do a draft for the Working Group in May, and a wide review draft in June
... so we give them an extra month before the wide review draft

Michael: That is ok. 1 month might not be enough to get all the feedback and address it.
... It is a long document, and it will take time to address comments. You might want more buffer.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-QEijzzX6TTi_7wnNk2mu-9-Sgh9srmxNCMqJK_hZPg/edit#

Michael: As long as it dovetails with other responsibilities, but these things always take longer

Rachael: Would about July and August - is 2 months enough?

Michael: I think so

Rachael: I will change this to end of June 2020 for wide review

Lisa: We don't have to address every single comment for the wide review draft, but we do need to address the important ones.

Michael: If there are comments that are unaddressed, and someone from the working group feels they should have been we may have a problem.

Lisa: I would still keep the original deadline which gives us a month.
... that way we can always let it slip because we are answering comments.
... If we have important feedback and it takes us more than a month, and it does.

Rachael: Based on this we have 1 month to add any new patterns and address priorities.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-QEijzzX6TTi_7wnNk2mu-9-Sgh9srmxNCMqJK_hZPg/edit#

Rachael: We have this priority list.

Steve: Michael you said before we transition to note

Michael: Note is a formal stage. Wide review is not part of the Note track.

Steve: The wide review is done first?

Michael: Yes

Rachael: We have editing listed (moving patterns, creating short names)
... Does anyone disagree that we need to do that?
... The next item is the structure. We had a conversation 3 meetings ago about some headings having all caps, others have italics. We cannot get that changed quickly in the template, but we will work towards that.
... Our best option is to flatten the structure and remove as many H5s and H6s as possible.

Lisa: I'm assuming we are not dealing with them now, correct?

Rachael: Yes, reviewing priority list.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: Please put in +1 if editing is a priority


<kirkwood> +1

<JohnRochford> 0

<Fazio> +1

Rachael: Since there are no -1 we will do editing

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to all of them

Rachael: Please put +1 for structure


<Fazio> +1

<JohnRochford> +1

<stevelee> +1

Rachael: OK we will do restructuring

<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: Next one: adding scenarios if they are missing

Lisa: John has done a lot of work on the Wayfinding Issue Paper, but we won't have time to go through enough review.
... So we would add a wayfinding scenario to one of the people.
... With the knowledge we have, follow them through, and if there is a pattern missing, add it
... Just like with the Mental Health paper.
... 80% will be in
... we might miss a pattern but capture what you have so far.

John R: I think I wrote the Wayfinding Issue Paper in 2016.

scribe: It has been stalled forever. If this is the way we can go forward with it, that's fine with me.

Rachael: Other comments or thoughts?

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Fazio> 0

Rachael: +1 if you want to add the new scenarios: wayfinding, voice interfaces

<JohnRochford> +1

Rachael: OK, so we will do that
... Next one: Mental Health paper - extra user needs we did not catch on the last review.
... Questions on that one?

Lisa: I think it can come after the priority for Wayfinding and voice interfaces.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: +1 for Mental Health?

<JohnRochford> +1

<kirkwood> 0

<Fazio> +1

<stevelee> 0

<JohnRochford> My latest list of wayfinding technologies: https://www.clearhelper.org/news/wayfinding/

Rachael: Last one we have here is reviewing the alt text for all the images.

Lisa: Review all text
... Have another round of reading it over and checking it

John R: The Easy Read folks and I have been in conversation recently, and they want Lisa to be included and I will talk to you about it offline.

Lisa: OK

Rachael: Any other thoughts?

Lisa: When we hit the priorities for the wide review draft, there are things that are just as important, but we think we can get another iteration in a month.

<JohnRochford> Jennie = transcriber extraordinaire

Lisa: We might have someone working on the glossary at the same time.

* Thanks John!

Lisa: Some things just cannot get done in a month.

Rachael: Can we just approve doing another review through for consistency and editing?

<kirkwood> +1

<stevelee> +1

<Fazio> 0

Rachael: +1 or -1 for reviewing all text

<JohnRochford> +1


Rachael: Lisa, your point is a great one. The other items are 2nd priority, and they will go into draft after the Note is published.
... does anyone feel strongly enough about these that they go into the first set?
... (reads through document)
... Anyone think any of those are critical?

Steve: my edits?

Lisa: they should be in the draft

Steve: there were others after a thorough review of the patterns.

Lisa: OK, then we need those back in, but I don't know if it can be in the April draft

Rachael: We need to be done with the major edits from the COGA point of view by April

Lisa: New patterns, that needs to be done by the April draft. If they are not done, they don't go in.
... We can add the glossary afterwards, because that is useful clarification.
... That needs to be done for the wide review draft, at least for the critical terms, but I don't think we can do it by April.
... We can tell them we are working on a glossary.

Rachael: Anything else that needs to move up?
... I'm not sure we can add more personas

Lisa: That's right

Rachael: 10 is our cut off for the wide review?

Lisa: I'm not sure what you mean
... After April we can't make more changes to the patterns, or add new scenarios.
... 5 is the absolute cut off.
... And then in April, we can do the new iteration.

Rachael: Can people give a +1 to including the glossary without cross referencing?

<kirkwood> could refresh me on current location of working glossary?

Steve: Do we have a list of those critical terms?

Lisa: It's a big job because I don't know if we have enough time.

Rachael: Other comments on doing this or not?

John K: Can someone provide the location for the glossary?

Lisa: It should be on the wiki

Rachael: I'm hunting for it

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

Lisa: We have the glossary, and the decisions we made as we were editing

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

Lisa: Jennie was collecting glossary terms, and I will find that

Jennie: that was also Steve helping :)

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1poEoQjuWdAfWM3aOGPCwJRx7EvBsAtQ_99sGyS9Jlgc/edit

Rachael: This would be a very big job for us to tackle.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lWTTYjzoCDx6goBCMH7pI72nsuIGu35JDu1hYGlyCwY/edit#gid=0

Rachael: Does anyone feel strongly we should solve the glossary for the next draft
... finish it for the next draft in the next 4 weeks

Lisa: If someone wants to take it on, based on the definitions from the WHO, we could do it, and it would be a lot of work.

Rachael: Since no one feels strongly, we will leave it in the wide review draft.
... Can you +1 to leaving it where it is

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<stevelee> +1


Lisa: I think we should start working on it, just not promise to get it in

Rachael: Anything else you feel is missing that we need to put in here?
... OK
... Any volunteers for working on these 5 items?

Jennie: I'm happy to have tasks as assigned, knowing that COVID extra tasks may take some of my time.

Rachael: I'm tempted to say that Lisa, Steve and I should take the restructuring.

Lisa and Steve: yes

Rachael: Wayfinding review?

<kirkwood> feel if could work with John on that

John R: I volunteer John K!

Rachael: Can both Johns work on it together?

John K: Yes

Lisa: It might all be covered. We did include it as we were writing the patterns, but did we do it thoroughly?
... Seeing if our scenarios contain enough of them
... Check the user needs first.
... If something is missing, then we have to follow through.

Rachael: Sometimes it is as little as adding a sentence.
... John R I don't see a response from you.

John K: I am not sure if I totally understand the status without John R.

Lisa: I think we should make a call? Can someone work with John K on it?

Steve: I can probably do it.

Lisa: Maybe Jennie should start working on the glossary.

Rachael: Maybe we take Steve off of Structure, and put him with John K

Steve: I will try to divide up my time equally!

Rachael: David can you do a double check on the Mental Health paper?

David: Yes

Rachael: It is a second pass.

David: What's the time frame?

Lisa: I would say 2 weeks.

David: I'm just cross referencing with the mental health paper?

Lisa: Just make sure the user needs are there.

David: Right.

Lisa: The one we left out was triggers.

Rachael: OK

John K: Regarding the glossary, I can have those at the Neurcognitive Rehab facility in New york look at it as well when it is in the form it needs to be

scribe: If it is shared with me, I can pass that on.

David: Can you send me a current link to the paper with a comment to look for the triggers?

Rachael: Absolutely

<kirkwood> ping me on glossary too… I can neurocognitive look at it for US med terms

Rachael: Last ACTION: final review for consistency. EA volunteered for that. Anyone else willing to help with that?

Lisa: I am

Jennie: I am

Steve: I can give it a go too

Rachael: Thank you
... Jennie can you work on the glossary focusing on critical terms?

Jennie: Yes, as long as other tasks don't pull me away

CSUN Replacement

Lisa: It seems we can have an informal call, where we can invite more people, especially working group members, and have some networking.
... If we go for something more, such as widely inviting people more than 2 or 3 people, then it is a big project
... My proposal is maybe in the next couple of weeks we do an informal call
... If anyone from the parent groups want to come, that's fine
... In terms of a bigger thing, we should wait until after August, and then we have the publications we can talk about at the same time.
... Does that sound sensible?
... We talked about next week doing one of these calls - do people want to do it next week?

-1 only because of the 2 AG face to face meetings

<kirkwood> +1

<kirkwood> oh forgot about AG

<kirkwood> -1

Jennie: I still want a COGA call, just not extra big

<LisaSeemanKest> yup

<stevelee> -1

<Fazio> 00

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/03/19 15:01:18 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the 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)

Present: Jennie Fazio Rachael MichaelC 1 stevelee LisaSeemanKest JohnRochford Roy kirkwood
Found Scribe: Jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie

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

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

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]