COGA taskforce 23 April 2020

23 Apr 2020


Jennie, Rachael, LisaSeemanKest, stevelee, Fazio_, kirkwood


<Rachael> COGA taskforce 23 April 2020

* If you need a scribe today, I can, but need someone else to wrap them up as I have back to back meetings

<scribe> scribe: Jennie

WCAG 2.2 Status Update https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0

Rachael: My perspective: accessible authentication should be published soon.
... Hidden controls: CFC should go out
... Findable Help is on the agenda for Tuesday.
... Redundant Entry: pull request is created, just need the CFC
... Error Correction - John did you do doc updates?
... is it done and ready?

Steve: it is renamed.
... I think we thought it was done.

Rachael: Error Correction Processes

Steve: and in brackets Process

Rachael: As long as you are both comfortable, that will move to CFC shortly
... And then Visible Indicators.

Lisa: Alastair asked for the research. He doesn't just want research, he wants to know what we can reliably say to do that can be applied across sites.

<Fazio_> I am compiling it

Lisa: If people find something with a different color increases the awareness...then if that research exists, that's the research he wants.
... Some of the research we gave him was counterproductive.
... it was contextual.

Rachael: I think the research is the #1 thing we need. I see that David is compiling it. What's your timeframe?

David F: It depends on how much research you want.

scribe: Here's the thing: the contextual component being negative - for attention, context is everything.
... If the button doesn't relate to the shape of the text it will contribute to people not noticing it.
... The research demonstrates that contextual is important.
... The studies prove this.
... There is a list of things like contrast, shapes of lines that show saliency, or visual cues.

Rachael: That's what we need. A couple of research studies that show what visual components help with saliency

David F: Different types of cues...sudden changes (flash or movement), inside generating, instruction via a sign or pattern...

scribe: Spotlight but reflect, bottom up control of attention...endogenius control...
... Examples of visual search, target pops out of display.

Rachael: David, I'm hearing what you are saying, but when it says target pops out of display - which aspect that is visual helps draw out the attention.

David F: that's in the meat of the bullets. Contrast does that, shape...

scribe: We don't want to be too prescriptive, but now we want to be prescriptive...
... where will we go with this?
... If we don't want to tell designers what to do...

Steve: they want research that backs it up.

Lisa: To clarify the difference they need when they are making a success criteria they need something measurable
... They need to say did it conform, or didn't it conform. They don't want them to be too prescriptive
... They are looking for something in research that backs up what the success criteria already says.
... That said, we have a ton of research that says this helps. The question is, with the option they are going for, they want to know if it is the right list.
... We never actually gave them a list.
... With all success criteria, you can do them in a way that doesn't help anybody.
... There is a bit of an art to it.
... In the research that I put in, it shows it helps. Can you do it in a way that helps less? Probably.
... They have the research that shows it helps. They want research that shows this is the correct list of attributes that help the most.
... We may not have that.
... The Understanding Document is to make sure that everyone is successful in doing it correctly.

David F: contrast, shapes of line, size - if the target is larger than everything else masking it, that will make it stand out.

scribe: However, the contrast of where you actually need to click is what matters.
... I'm putting it in the Google Doc. I added comments.
... Once it is done, I will put it in IRC.

Rachael: You may want to send the research list to the AG group.

David F: I will do that later today.

Rachael: I wouldn't go much later than end of day today.

David F: ok.

Rachael: Anything else we need to cover on visual indicators?
... I think some will be handled by email as well.

John K: as far as visual indicators, we were trying to put it into the standards of an agency I was working at

scribe: multimodal, or referring to it as modes, not just as contrast. Do we have it in there like that?
... An illustration, as a visual indicator.

Rachael: If you can send that example and the research that would be helpful.

John K: yes I can do that.

Review Edits on Content Usable https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aXSV_OO-a9Ox_FztRbjnHOLPMEPXO9ew6twGt52M9Fs/edit

Rachael: Jennie, Justine, Lisa, Steve, a number of others have gone through and made edits.
... John also went through.
... If someone else sees something they have a concern about, they should speak up now.
... At the end of this discussion, I will ask the group to confirm it is ok to publish.
... Recommendation to move all technical details and WCAG links to an appendix.

<stevelee> +1

Rachael: includes all the of the links to what was done in WCAG 1, and related techniques.

<Rachael> Jennie: I have a concern about the way the links operate for a screenreader user. If you pull up a list of links and sort alphabetically, the links could be confusing. Would this address that concern?

<Rachael> Steve: No.

<Rachael> Jennie: I'm fine with moving them but I'd like a roadmap to address the link text in the future

<Rachael> ...its repetitive link text that goes to different targets. Sometimes the way the link text won't help a person in order of document.

<Rachael> Steve: I think you're right.

<Rachael> ...quality issues in that section,.


Rachael: When we move it out, we can add ARIA labels
... once we move it out it will be in the Appendix, and we can work on the appendix links while APA reviews. Would that be sufficient?

Jennie: I think so

Lisa: I haven't completely finished. Some of the changes once I have seen it in the new format I will be able to see if it does the job. It needs more editing.
... I added more examples.
... This morning I was still writing new examples for patterns that don't have examples.
... There are incomplete sentences.
... I'm actually up to the last objective. I haven't done the appendices or the last objective.
... The voice ones, there are 2 that are similar, but the differences are not clear when you read it.
... I adjusted those.
... That needs to be rereviewed.
... I think it needs a bit more work.
... Because of the deadline, I'm comfortable saying let's go with what we got, and expect some feedback.
... I assume there are others, since I found those.
... In the testing section where we have the objectives, I didn't think they need to be subheadings. We repeat the same 2 paragraphs which is fine when they were in the design patter
... Once you have the same sentence repeated, it is not necessary
... I changed it slightly.
... Instead of having the objective one, I changed it more to testing language.
... Check the user can find what they need.
... Rephrased to make it more testing type things, then you have the bullet points.

(Lisa lost audio)

scribe: I think we need to where we pointed to things like Etsy, or the style guide
... what the US Government has, we need to move those to the wiki
... and point the document to that section. I put this into the comments.
... the document keeps freezing on me
... Where we have links to W3C specifications, and see if we can just make that a section of the wiki resource page
... I have not done the appendices at all

(Lisa lost audio)

Rachael: Will you have time to finish before end of Friday?

Lisa: What do you mean by finish?
... Could I get that last objective read over? Probably

Rachael: I think I can create a new version of the Google doc

Lisa: You can start that already.
... but objective 9 is the one I need to do.

Rachael: For everyone else who has done editing, are there other concerns we should discuss as a group?

Steve: The bit of text that was repeated, is that about including people with....

Lisa: yes!

Steve: That's fantastic

Rachael: Any other things people want to bring up?

Resolution request to move forward with APA and AG review of document

Rachael: This is now a request to this group - we would send out a CFC to COGA today

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: +1 if you are comfortable, 0 if ambivalent, -1 if no
... If Lisa can finish her review, all changes move to github, then APA and AG get the github version

Steve: I am checking between the 3 sections that all lines up
... I should have that done by the weekend definitely

Rachael: We are asking to overlap certain processes
... CFC is a call for consensus
... It is not that we won't continue to edit, but we would get edits from others at the same time
... We need their review before it goes for wide review.

Lisa: we can clarify that we will be adding some editorials, examples
... We may also do a bit of reordering
... So we have ok'd what we will be doing

<Rachael> Jennie: As a person who has been reviewing AG documents. For me, if I was not familiar with this, the reordering would be difficult. Can we have a concrete list of what we expect?

<Rachael> Steve: Since the last draft?

<Rachael> Jennie: Based on my understanding, we would put what we have in github. I am comfortable with editorial changes. I think reordering feels like it would be a difference.

Rachael: We are asking for their review
... We will go and brief
... They will read through it, and they will provide changes
... Then we will go back in 2 or 3 weeks
... Tell them here are the changes you suggested
... Here are the changes we made

Steve: The abstract and introduction have not had any attention in a while
... that may be something we should do
... I'm not sure how much work that is.

Lisa: That's one of the things I did look at
... Most of the problem was things being repeated because they had been moved around
... I crossed out one of the sections that repeated just 2 paragraphs above.
... That's kind of what I am saying - once we put in these kinds of changes we can read it over again
... We have an easy reading summary at the beginning that is very different
... It has been looked at.
... While they are doing their review, I think we can go through another review of everything
... and make sure it reads consistently

Steve: Ok

Lisa: we can read it over, and hopefully just copy over any changes we want to make, rather than the whole document
... We have approval to make iterative drafts.
... Before we publish, we will send them a list of changes anyway.
... I think we are ahead of the game.
... We don't have to mention reordering - this is just editorial.
... If we don't specify that we will be moving stuff around, people will be fine with that.

<stevelee> +1

<Rachael> +1

<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: Any negative 1s that we should be aware of?


Rachael: OK then we will send out the Call for Consensus, and it will close in 48 business hours

glossary terms

Rachael: Please respond to that email with a +1

RESOLUTION: Move forward with working group review

Rachael: We have to talk about glossary terms. Are there any we want to make sure go into this draft going forward?

Lisa: I think so. Cognitive and learning disabilities, impairments,
... Working memory
... Having those terms defined will help it make more sense

<kirkwood> long term memory

Lisa: I think Jennie and Steve made a page

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

<Rachael> Jennie: I haven't gotten back to this. I can devote some time to this over the weekend.

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

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

Rachael: Here is the link for COGA terms that need to be clarified

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

Lisa: we have a table that Jennie made
... I'm thinking we just need a definition, not short easy language

<kirkwood> could we describe the link in irc? sorry ;)

<kirkwood> not sure the latest

<Rachael> Current state of glossary terms: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lWTTYjzoCDx6goBCMH7pI72nsuIGu35JDu1hYGlyCwY/edit#gid=0

Rachael: My concern is which subset of these do we need to get a definition for

Lisa: Can we suggest at the top of the google doc we have a table and keep it down to 5 or 10
... just the terms, and then people can have 24 hours to put in another term that they think is really important for this draft?

Rachael: I think that is fine - is everyone ok with that?


Lisa: At the top of the glossary doc that says it is moved

<Rachael> Glossary document to list terms: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1poEoQjuWdAfWM3aOGPCwJRx7EvBsAtQ_99sGyS9Jlgc/edit

Lisa: Certain words, without their meaning, the meaning of the document can do

<Rachael> ACTION: If you feel there is a term that needs to be defined in this version of the document, please add it to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1poEoQjuWdAfWM3aOGPCwJRx7EvBsAtQ_99sGyS9Jlgc/edit before tomorrow morning.

<trackbot> Error finding 'If'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/track/users>.

Rachael: Any other thoughts? People know what to do?

Review Edits on Content Usable https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aXSV_OO-a9Ox_FztRbjnHOLPMEPXO9ew6twGt52M9Fs/edit

TPAC - Would you go if travel restrictions allow? Would you participate if its virtual?

John K: When we are talking about the terminology, like early stage dementia...

scribe: In the US they keep away from the term dementia in some communities
... I'm not sure we are defaulting to language, culture, like the language of colour vs color
... How will we handle this?

Lisa: I think we are meant to go with the US wording, but we are combing the WHO and the US terms
... People living with dementia is used sometimes
... I would say a person living with early stage dementia as the right phrasology
... If that is considered offensive, we need to know that and use the least offensive phrase

<Fazio_> +1We could just put in a disclaimer also saying we understand there's cultural differences in terms an we don't mean to offend or something like that

Lisa: We have a way to use the terms consistently throughout

+1 to David's suggestion

<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: Anything else on the glossary?
... Next question is around TPAC
... +1 if you will attend if we have TPAC in person, would you want to attend a COGA meeting in person

<LisaSeemanKest> 0

<stevelee> +1


<Rachael> +1

Rachael: It would be in Ontario

<Fazio_> I'll be at TPAC

<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: Correction: in Vancouver, BC - west coast of Canada

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: If we had a COGA meeting, if TPAC was virtual, would you attend a virtual COGA meeting?

<kirkwood> definitely virtual


<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: Does anyone have thoughts they would like the decision makers to take into account?

Lisa: We have a good document, good time to go to TPAC.
... When would it be?

Rachael: 26-30 October

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2020

<kirkwood> will not be attending in person

<Rachael> Jennie: For those of us who work in government, it may be very difficult to get funding and approval to go becuase of cancelations, covid, etc. Time approval is easier so virtual would be much easier to approve. Next fiscal year's budget will look very different.

David F: Jennie - is your government agency a W3C member?

<Rachael> Jennie: Invited expert.

<Rachael> David: Invited expert grants are possibe.

Issue resolution - Subgroup to process

Rachael: we will have to start addressing issues before going for wide review. Think about if you will have time do that.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: If you feel there is a term that needs to be defined in this version of the document, please add it to https://docs.google.com/document/d/1poEoQjuWdAfWM3aOGPCwJRx7EvBsAtQ_99sGyS9Jlgc/edit before tomorrow morning.

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Move forward with working group review
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/04/23 15:02:30 $

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)

Default Present: Jennie, Rachael, LisaSeemanKest, stevelee, Fazio_, kirkwood
Present: Jennie Rachael LisaSeemanKest stevelee Fazio_ kirkwood
Regrets: Abi
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: if

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]