<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G2L1cAN8AalVpolcPdgzj6BVA4wEFc70On0gQjk7d1c/edit#

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G2L1cAN8AalVpolcPdgzj6BVA4wEFc70On0gQjk7d1c/edit?usp=sharing

<LisaSeemanKest> (for wcag edit - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G2L1cAN8AalVpolcPdgzj6BVA4wEFc70On0gQjk7d1c/edit?usp=sharing)

<LisaSeemanKest> other issues: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit

Update on Content Usable Survey https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-04-content-usable/results

<LisaSeemanKest> (for wcag edit - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G2L1cAN8AalVpolcPdgzj6BVA4wEFc70On0gQjk7d1c/edit?usp=sharing)

<Rachael> scribe: Fazio

LS: AGWG had a lot of comments about Content Usable Ddoc in response to CFC survey. We need to address the comments

SL: Focus on changes that a will stop it from being blocked

<david-macdonald> Would be glad to join call, but can't seem to get access to call information.

LS: Makae changes after AGWG provides list of requested changes

<david-macdonald> seems like my passward has not beenngiven access

<david-macdonald> if youndrop the zoom link and pwd hear I can jump in otherwise I would need to be given access to COGA owd

LS: can publish Content Usable doc as an AP note instead of AGWG, but it's more advantageous to publish through AGWG

<kirkwood> I wouldn’t be comfortable moving away from AG

<stevelee> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2020AprJun/0329.html

SL: q+

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y3Aq5FkExuk_tJ9hIV8W7wiIlHf8LYOeM6ByFVbwiHU/edit#gid=0

RM: APA option is good backup, but AGWG process is best, should try and make it work first

<Rachael> Fazio: Is it only one person objecting?

<Rachael> Rachael: No, more than one.

<Rachael> ...multiple people support.

<Rachael> Fazio: Concern about government. This is guidance and clearly guidance. We can't control the end use.

<Rachael> Steve: also suprised by the concern. thought it was clear.

LS: APA alternative provides some leverage

I'm in APA too!

LS: doesn't want language that preclude policy makers from using the doc in legislation

+1

LS; structure of having Design Guide in beginning might be making it too similar to WCAG

Readability is, and should not be, big issue

<kirkwood> readbility is very complex

<EA> +1 to what Steve has just said

SL: agrees design pattern placement may be the issue

<Rachael> Fazio: Is it the design patterns or the location of them?

<Rachael> Rachael: Think there is support for the patterns just tone

<kirkwood> agree Rachael in support of design patterns

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y3Aq5FkExuk_tJ9hIV8W7wiIlHf8LYOeM6ByFVbwiHU/edit#gid=0

RM: Policy Makers Appendix was objected too

<EA> academically we are not meant to have references in an abstract, only in the main document.

LS: we were aware policy section wasn't mature. Open to modifying it

<kirkwood> +1 to “considerations for Policy Makers”

<Rachael> I believe this is the updated version: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/responces-to-cfc-april-2020/content-usable/index.html#design_for_everyone

<LisaSeemanKest> chages in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G2L1cAN8AalVpolcPdgzj6BVA4wEFc70On0gQjk7d1c/edit#

<LisaSeemanKest> (change list

<Rachael> Accessibility has traditionally focused on the making the user interface usable for people with sensory and physical impairments in vision, hearing and/or mobility. Some accessibility features that help these user groups also help people with cognitive impairments. People with cognitive and learning disabilities also need improvements to context, language, usability, and other more general factors that impact everyone to some degree. As a result, they

<Rachael> do not fit well into traditional accessibility standards.

<kirkwood> sorry could link to where we are talking about?

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y3Aq5FkExuk_tJ9hIV8W7wiIlHf8LYOeM6ByFVbwiHU/edit#gid=0 row 6

<Rachael> or https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/2020-04-content-usable/results question 4

<Rachael> FAzio: Needs to have people with disabilities weigh in.

<kirkwood> can we work on editing for consensus amongst us?

Silver undermines its credibility

SL: "Just because I cannot speak doesn't mean I don't have anything to say" - Developmentally disabled community

+1 oops that was me not SL

RM; Tone shift needed, softening language, changing failure wording

editors call?

How to go forward (Process)?

<LisaSeemanKest> chages in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G2L1cAN8AalVpolcPdgzj6BVA4wEFc70On0gQjk7d1c/edit#

<kirkwood> going through review process. need to editors call next week. agree with that

<Rachael> FAzio: suggest addressing the language in the single sentence that caused issue

<Rachael> Process 1: Ask WCAG to bring the list of changes in order of how important they are

I don't want to be told what to do by AGWG

<kirkwood> could we put two processes in IRC

<Rachael> Process 2: We address the comments that come in and suggest fixes.

<kirkwood> I am willing too, Steve

Process 2

<kirkwood> process 2

<stevelee> process 1

<kirkwood> don’t know if we will get it from them, will we?

<JohnRochford> process 1

<kirkwood> switch to process 1

<kirkwood> ;)

<EA> yes I have not voted as I am worried about it all

<EA> +1 to them doing it if they do come back and allow us to make it happen in the way we want

<kirkwood> i wonder if we really can get them to do it. agree with lisa

<JohnRochford> Lisa makes a great point. John Rochford switches his vote to process 2.

<Rachael> Melding of 1 and 2: AG prioritizes and consolidates comments. Then COGA suggests fixes

<kirkwood> +1

<stevelee> +1

<EA> +1

<JohnRochford> +1

<kirkwood> well done Rachael!

<EA> Thank you R

<stevelee> +1000

Resolution is a melding process of 1 and 2

RESOLUTION: AG prioritizes and consolidates comments. Then COGA suggests fixes.

<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: Fazio, Rachael, stevelee, JohnRochford, Roy, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest
Present: Fazio Rachael stevelee JohnRochford Roy kirkwood LisaSeemanKest
Regrets: Jennie EA
Found Scribe: Fazio
Inferring ScribeNick: Fazio

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: 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.)