<LisaSeemanKest> rssagent. publish minuits
<LisaSeemanKest> rssagent, publish minutes
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list
<Fazio> preesent+
<scribe> scribe: Rachael
Lisa: Move the agenda a bit. Start with actions.
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Actions_2
Lisa: Lisa action's not yet complete
Rachael: I sent out an email and announced the meetings. So far noone but Lisa, Steve and I are signed up. We can strategize today.
Lisa: Glossary action item. We are goign to address that later. Is there anything else you want to bring up?
Jennie: I think the conversation later will suffice.
Abi: That's fine.
Lisa: Do we want to see if there are any more urgent terms to review? Is there someone else you want to put on the list or is that action item done?
Steve: The collecting terms action item?
Lisa: Yes
Steve: I haven't come across any more. I looked through the document but not the spreadsheet.
Lisa: We were going to look through the spreadsheet to see if there is anything.
Abi: There is one term, executive function, that is under priority 2 that I'd like to move up. We use it 26 times.
Lisa: That is exactly the term.
+1 to moving that term to priority 1
Lisa: If you google, you may not get a clear definition. Can I mark the action done?
Jennie: Yes.
<kirkwood> done
Abi: I am happy to have it marked as done
Lisa: We can mark it as done and come back if needed. Does that sound OK?
<kirkwood> could we put link in?
Rachael: Did we all agree to moving executive function?
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
Lisa: I don't think so? Does anyone have a problem?
<stevelee> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lWTTYjzoCDx6goBCMH7pI72nsuIGu35JDu1hYGlyCwY/edit#gid=0
Steve: No, already being worked.
Lisa: Image subgroup, anything to report?
<Jennie> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TeSP612Z9Zf7Srojdbq0te615CE0g5wB6puCBVLXziw/edit#
Jennie: I didn't get a chance to
work with John K on this. I did start to draft some
requirements. (see link)
... go to the bottom of the document. John, could you review
that?
kirkwood: Yes, will do.
Lisa: Do you want to put that out to the list?
<kirkwood> will do
Jennie: I think John should review it first and send it to the list once he's ok with it.
kirkwood: Sounds good.
Lisa: I'd like to move to item 4 before we get into bigger things.
<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f4NhQMtQthDbShVje3evTqELBa9eR6eSyoA31Jjlgm4/edit#
Lisa: Can we just pass it?
... likely both in the meeting and on email.
Rachael: This also needs to be reviewed and approved by the AG. One goal is to reduce friction as decisions move between the taskforce and AG so they need to OK it.
Lisa: I think this needs a bit more time that we can give it today. I'd like people to look at it. We did notice something missing. Sometimes we post to the list and it doesn't get the response needed.
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Proposed_Actions_and_changes
Lisa: I am adding a section for
proposed actions and changes. People can put proposals in the
wiki and we will see it when reviewing action items.
... First thing is to email the list. Second is to post to
wiki.
Abi: Are there instructions on how to add items to the wiki and does everyone have access to the instructions?
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Proposed_Actions_and_changes
Lisa: You click Edit and then add it but we can put instructions there. We can also bring it up every now and then.
<Jennie> +1 to instructions
Abi: It would be helpful if there was some guidance on what information to include. People should take ownership.
Lisa: I will add a note to add your name. Is that clear?
Abi: You have to sign in to get the edit button?
Lisa: Should we have this as a Google doc?
John: I think to the google doc.
That is my 2 cents.
... I think that is more flexible and understandable.
Rachael: I am concerned about 2 locations. Can we provide instructions and offer the alternative of emailing Lisa, Rachael, Steve and Roy?
John: Also concerned about two locations.
Lisa: Steve had suggested gitub.
Steve: We have been working on action tracking. This is right at the beginning of it. As I understand it, if people have something they want to discuss then they should send it to the email list. Then if there is no response, then they add it to the wiki page.
Lisa: Exactly, with all the other
actions that people review every week.
... is everyone else comfortable with the suggestion of adding
instructions and giving an alternative option of writing to
Rachael or Lisa to add an item?
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
+1
<Abi> +1
<Roy> +1
<kirkwood> +1
Lisa: I think this is important. This helps people have a voice. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Straw Poll: +1 if you are happy, -1 if not happy
<Jennie> +1
<stevelee> +1
Lisa: I think we are there. David?
David: Fine with me
<stevelee> https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues/154#issue-682524682
Steve: What I did this time and
how I think we work, is I created a summary
... There are 54 patterns. They are really fundamental. It is a
significant part of content usable but it would benefit from a
systematic review.
... this is to improve it for the audience and to prepare it
for the web version.
... I went through the patterns and suggested what is needed.
Some small editorial changes, some large editorial changes,
some tweaks for audience, and sometimes we describe the user
needs. In 1 or 2 places, the content was in another pattern. In
some places, the getting started was missing..
It would also be good to get more examples. And possibly some of the user needs didn't meet the pattern. I think there is a range of things that can be done. Right now though we are doing work on the main edit. There are 54 of these things. I am happy and motivated to do this.
scribe: There is a new W3 member called Understood. They help with education of children. One member provided really good quality feedback. She was a senior editor in Time. She suggested slightly more of a pattern change.
Lisa: What is confusing me is that I created a google doc for everyone to add comments. You have opened several other documents.
Steve: One issue is whether we
have to break up the document. I want to make changes. I want
to make sure the taskforce can review the changes. I created
one document with my comments and I can move those over. Then I
created a new version with the differences. How can we best
handle this so we can easily review the changes?
... Should we do this in phases?
Lisa: I would like to suggest. We had a google document on the cleanup. Can you put all your comments into that google doc? That is what Betty was reviewing and I will be looking at it. I would like to have all the information in a single place.
Steve: I have summarized it into one issue.
Lisa: Can you put it into the wiki?
Steve: I want to make sure everything is reviewed.
Lisa: Can you put it all on the same page on the wiki?
Steve: Which page?
<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/List_for_final_edit
Steve: I can. I'd like to discuss
the example I have provided.
... I am stuck on how people can review both patterns.
Steve: I find everything in one
long document.
... I think we'll get swamped becuase of the changes.
Lisa: I see three issues. Issue 1 is how we store the diff and make changes to a pattern. Issue 2 is how and where we store the high level. Issue 3 is it needs more air time.
Steve: Issue 2 isn't an issue. I'm fine with the wiki
Lisa: Last week we asked Betty to do a review. We should ask everyone to review the document carefully. Clean it up and send it to the list.
Steve: How can we present a bunch of changes to the taskforce for review?
Abi: Steve is going to update the wiki page. Are you looking for us to approve the changes you want to make?
Steve: yes
Abi: You are proposing that we structure the patterns the same way and you have proposed how that should look?
Steve: Yes, I've simplified the pattern.
Abi: Can I separate this into two
tasks? 1. How we all move forward in editing this document
going forward and 2. Review Steve's proposal? Can we have two
emails?
... We can discuss week's on how to edit and use our time.
Maybe that is a subgroup
<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kFIuq0jqWmqNHuv7zP-XpKB8TIeU6xmKTIxUZfuvooM/edit#heading=h.uguy7h2n5641
Rachael: As process gets worked, think about how to keep AG and APA updated on big changes. Maybe issue.
Lisa: Steve, did you use track changes?
Steve: I didn't on my document but will on the main document
Lisa: Lets discuss the process at
11.
... whoever wants to join can join in. I will ask you to not
include the stuff for the website.
+1
Steve: Yes.
... I have proposed a template.
<stevelee> User need
<stevelee> What to do
<stevelee> 1st paragraph: 1-2 sentences, with 1st sentence always starting with action verb. - current 'Description'
<stevelee> 2nd paragraph: "This can be achieved by:" followed by bulleted list of specifics - current'More details'
<stevelee> 3rd paragraph: "To get started," followed by short, very specific tip - current Getting Started'
<stevelee> How it helps: max of 4 short paragraphs
<stevelee> Examples: 2 x "Use" and 2 x "Avoid" in every pattern? Or maybe 2 for each, whenever possible?
<stevelee> Related Patterns: for Web version only, appear in side bar - max 3
<stevelee> Related WCAG SCs as Related Patterns.
Steve: Something concerning me
was that we have description which tells developers what to do.
Then we have examples and other sections that also tell
developers what to do. So this suggestion is a merge of those
sections. (see above)
... that is the only change to the template.
<kirkwood> Does that eliminate how it helps?
Lisa: My take is that we've moved the template around a few times historically. We called the More Details "Annoying details" in the face to face because it turns people off. It has stuff that may not always be relevant. It has exceptions.
Steve: Though it may be boring,
it is often what the developer needs to do.
... they may need thinning down.
Lisa: Thinning down would take a lot of time. There is a lot of logic around the current order. Basic what to do, understanding why.
Steve: Since 3 sections, hard to know which is important. I didn't come across the exceptions. That makes sense as a separate section. Much of what I found was better fit in the beginning,
Lisa: We separated it out in order to allow people to have an aha moment. The getting started was for what someone shoud focus on.
Steve: that isn't how it always is written. Often it is what you need to do before you do the pattern.
Lisa: That isn't what it is meant
to be.
... Meant to be a single A alternative.
Rachael: Any chance that the content is in the wrong place vs. the template itself is wrong?
Steve: Yes,
... I don't want to give people an out.
Lisa: That is why we called it getting started. Maybe we should describe the template in the introduction.
Steve: So we could keep those sections and move some of the content. Is everyone ok with changing "Description: calling it "What to Do"?
Lisa: I don't know.
... Maybe put that question to the list.
kirkwood: I don't like categories that say more details or description. You have to have that in context. What are you describing. What are you giving more details of? I think "What to Do" wording is much much better.
Steve: What started me was that "More details" came after "How it Helps" Was it more details about the pattern or more details abotu how it helps.
<kirkwood> i have an aversion to “more details”
Lisa: You wanted to change the description to What to do? Maybe we need a longitudinal look at what is in more details. Maybe we should call it exceptions.
Steve: Anything that gives it more context.
Lisa: limited time. Lets try to do 10 minutes of the glossary.
Abi: Would it be best to go over where we are and what we need to get finished? Rather than digging into a defintion?
Jennie: I am unable to make most of next week's call. I am fine either way.
Abi: I also wont' be able to make the first part of the next call. Shall we discuss the learning disabilities defintion?
Lisa: I think we should work on process. They are close enough to go through and +1 them. If there is no comments and 4 +1 they could go in. Does that sound reasonable?
If we can get people to go through over the next few days, we can give a clean version. There are couple of definitions. Cognitive and Learning disabilities has had a number of additions.
Abi - I'd like to have a discussion of learning disabilities and whether we should have one.
Lisa: I'm going to ask everyone.
We have two definitions. Can you +1 the ones you like? At least
for the priority 1.
... lets just do everything.
Jennie: I want to be sure we cover the learning disabilities because I think it will affect the others.
Abi: I just talked through the email. Over the past couple of weeks, we've been looking at learning disabilities. It has problems.
Lisa: We have that the definition was approved last week. Is that incorrect?
Abi: The work was done before.
I'd like to go through because there is a bigger issue.
... when we looked use in different countries and in medical
use, we found a large difference in how North America uses it
compared with other countries. When we say "learning
disabilities" only, we can be adding confusion since many users
use it in different ways. Also, since we have had broad
contributions we may have used it inconsistently. "Learning
disabilities" is used 15 times. We believe we have an editorial
approach for removing
the use and then we can not include it in the glossary.
scribe: the actions we identified
is the section in 2.2 where we go through cognitive and
learning disability examples. We can add an example of a
learning disability to that example set to give context. During
editing, we can often use "intellectual disability" instead of
"learning disability". Used in the professional community and
DSM.
... often we use it in a list of disabilities. We can look at
those examples and be more clear in what we mean. It may be
related to specific area and another diagnosis would be clearer
such as dyslexia. There are also examples where we said
"learning disabilities" but we really mean "Cognitive
disability" so it would be better to say either "cognitive
disability" or "cognitive and learning disability"
Lisa: We'd agreed on a learning defintion but your main proposal is to remove it where possible and clarify when not?
<kirkwood> +1
+1
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
<Jennie> +1
<Fazio> +1
<kirkwood> well done
<Abi> +1
<stevelee> +1
<Roy> +1
Lisa: Please +1 if you agree, -1
if not
... we also need to make sure we are consistent with the
glossary.
<Jennie> * Good job Abi!
Lisa: thank you. That is
passed.
... Please, please put +1 in the glossary document.
<LisaSeemanKest> abi+
Abi: Do you want me to put this into github as an issue or the wiki?
Steve: Add the +1 as a comment.
<Jennie> In comments helps us track timeline
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 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/John:/kirkwood:/ Default Present: LisaSeemanKest, Jennie, stevelee, kirkwood, Rachael, Abi, Roy Present: LisaSeemanKest Jennie stevelee kirkwood Rachael Abi Roy Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 03 Sep 2020 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]