24 Sep 2020


Abi, Jennie, LisaSeemanKest, Rachael, kirkwood, stevelee


<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: Jennie

actions and updates https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

Lisa: I made the wiki page for what to do on issues.
... Abi has an issue to work on issues related to the glossary.

Abi: I am hoping to get to that this weekend.

Lisa: I will put that with a date of next week.
... Steve - you have identified the patterns that need more work, and more issues. Super.
... John K did you manage to work on improving the icon set?

John K: Yes we did. Justine has a designer we are working with to finalize the designs.

Lisa: Great. This can go in during the last week. Thank you.
... I also have John getting a review of glossary terms.

John K: Yes. I did do that, and we put the edits in the terms document. I got input from a neuropsych doctor at Mount Sinaii

Lisa: You put comments into the Google doc?

John K: Yes

Lisa: Were there any important changes?
... I can take an action to review them as well.
... with Abi
... We can see if changes need to be made.

Abi: Just to clarify, I sent the link to Jennie, John and yourself with a cleaned up version of the glossary as agreed.
... Here's the link

<Abi> cleaned up glossary https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yhUuD33NgBDf25GOtR4R2yOtxYw2Ztts1QFwOLS6wpI/edit

Abi: there were a couple of comments that had gone to the list before that.
... That already includes the comments that were on the list.
... The easy reading is in there as well.

Lisa: Do we need to do another CFC - were there substantial changes?

Abi: No. I suggested I put that into github, but I would need someone to confirm the process on that.

Lisa: Yes! We have the document there, and I have terms in there already. We can add these new ones to it.

Abi: if you can send me the link, I'm happy to do it.

Lisa: The editorial review, E.A. is busy on that.
... Jennie - I saw the email with the instructions for the images.

Jennie: We have questions about the file type and size; confirm if we can credit the designer; and dates.

Lisa: I can confirm with Roy.

John K: Do we credit people?

Lisa: I can ask Roy and will CC you.
... unless Steve or Alastair happen to know?

Alastair: generally avoid copyright issues.
... Is it external people?

Lisa: yes

Alastair: I don't see a problem. As long as they are happy for them to be used and potentially copied. They will be used under a W3C copyright.
... The way we normally do credits is they get an attribution as a contributor.

Steve: there is a section at the end.

Lisa: OK I need to write an email, and CC people, and that can be forward to Michael with what I think you have said, to double check this.
... So that is the next step.
... Are there next steps?

Jennie: I think that once we have the confirmed ask, then we can all forward to designers we know.

Lisa: Ok I will confirm, and hopefully get a response. I will do this on Sunday or Tuesday.
... We also want to review the actions - a lot of the patterns that Steve put down, but we need to move to Alastair's agenda item

wcag updates from Alister

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Main_Page

Alastair: Starting with the W3C wiki
... We have 90-100 issues being raised on WCAG 2.2
... We need volunteers, but also need input from COGA as part of the process.
... We are dealing with them in github.
... Starting on the wiki page: there is a WCAG 2.2 issue tracking and resolution
... If I open one of the topics, there are just the issues raised against them.

(displaying issues related to Accessible Authentication"

David F: Have you sent this link out to us already?

Alastair: It is in IRC
... Going to the Issue Tracking and Resolution is a good way to start.
... (reviewing the issues for Accessible Authentication)
... The process is an issue is raised, people comment, then the group decides to respond to the comment or update the criterion or documentation.
... (opening one of the issues)
... You can add a question if you need clarification. If you think it doesn't meet the original aim, you can add in this comment.
... If you agree with this, and feel it won't undermine the success criteria, then say "yes that seems like a good update."

Jennie: I am having trouble assigning an issue to myself

Alastair: Connect with Michael Cooper to try to resolve.

Lisa: Are you comfortable having people reply here?

Alastair: Yes.

Lisa: will there be a formal response?

Alastair: We have a process. If we are responding back because we aren't changing things, or there is a disagreement
... We write "Proposed response" and then bracket hr bracket, then draft your response
... This goes to survey, group meeting, and one of the chairs will come back and reply or update.
... It is perfectly fine to publicly put a proposed response.
... If you prefer to do this more privately, send it to the chairs list.
... As long as you are being polite, there is no reason to do this publicly
... If there are updates to documentation, and if you are comfortable with it, you can create a pull request.
... Take a branch off of master, call it Issue (then add issue number), make the change
... If you are not comfortable with this, copy it into another format, like a Google doc, and you can contribute that way as well
... If you are interested in one of the success criteria, you can contribute comments
... As long as you have a log in for github
... If you are able to propose a response, or write an update, that is even better
... (going back to the Dealing with an issue section of the wiki)
... (read through the options)
... I find that making a summary is really helpful
... You can add a label of "ready for survey" and this puts it into my feed of things to take back to the group

David F: Do you want us to just start commenting?

Alastair: In the Assign column, if nobody is assigned
... Level 1: please do comment
... If you can take it on and come up with a response or a change, please do assign it to yourself
... Please avoid ones already assigned to someone else

David F: If you comment, you do not need to assign it to yourself. But if you do, what are you committing to?

Alastair: If somebody has suggested edits, are these edits good? You are trying to determine if they are good. You will move the issue along
... enough that we can bring it in front of the group
... to put together text that can go in front of the group
... Once there is a concrete response, then that is when we get to "survey ready" label
... Either the response needs to be a comment, and you type in the comment "Proposed response"

Steve: There is the proposed response, and then proposed updates

Alastair: Sometimes people propose clear responses, but other times they are less clear
... Sometimes the response is "we already have this on another success criteria and it is fine there."
... Sometimes we just need to add more examples in the understanding document.

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

Lisa: Could I have the link for the draft of 2.2 you are working against?

Alastair: This is what the public is commenting on.
... Anything we have already changed or agreed is here
... in the latest editor's draft

<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Issue_tracking_and_resolution

Alastair: It is best to use the version that the public is commenting on

Lisa: thank you Alastair for letting us know what the process is and walking us through it

Alastair: Please help as you can.

* I am working on the ones for Findable Help

* Just will be working with Michael to get access to assign them to me

Lisa: How long to process all issues?

Alastair: A couple of months, but we are also working on the Silver public working draft

assign new actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Proposed_Actions.2C_Items_and_Changes

Lisa: Steve took a look through Content Usable, and identified patterns that needed more work.
... There will be more and more items that we need to do
... For the patterns, it is for people to make a proposal
... We have 3 items here in our list, and 10 patterns
... One item is to review all objective text and make them consistent

Steve: that is correct, and some were missing

Lisa: And make sure they are of a similar type and length, to feel that they are written by the same person
... And this is different than the summary

Steve: if you are new, you can look at the summary, and then drill down.

Lisa: that is one of the actions
... Another is to merge similar patterns about log ins
... There is one about possible new patterns, and I don't know if we have time for that today

Steve: Yes, it probably needs to be an agenda item
... There is also the fragment ids. Think about the hash - they have been added in some places
... If you click in the index on the left, it jumps you to that item

Lisa: We can put that into the last editorial task

Steve: that may need some discussion first

Lisa: I think it can be done in the editorial call

Steve: For the patterns, I tried to go in with a developer's hat and identify what may not be clear, need more explanation

Lisa: What we have is a document

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wffN29_8YxjeL4E_wUHtKt6AGo0q3d--6cx2zZjThgg/edit

Lisa: It is in the key documents.
... You copy it, under file it has directions
... You copy the original in the left hand column, and write your changed version in the right hand column
... Bold any changes you have made
... We have changed the template slightly, but it is very similar to what it was
... And that kind of should help you through it
... If everyone could take a pattern, or two patterns, or the items above
... If everyone could take a pattern or review objective text. Over the next 2 weeks.
... Preferably the next week

Steve: I can work through them this week, next week

Lisa: David do you want to take one?
... We have patterns that are low quality, so they don't fit the template
... We want everyone to take one pattern, or what they can complete in the next two weeks.
... We also need someone to review the text under the object, and make sure it is consistent
... And maps to the summary section

<LisaSeemanKest> acl a

Abi: If we are taking more than one pattern, should we aim to take them from different or the same objective?

Lisa: Whichever you prefer

Abi: Should we avoid or deliberately select ones we have worked on before

Lisa: I would say avoid
... This will provide a broader review

David F: In that case you can randomly assign me to

Abi: I'm ok with random assignment as well. One for sure.

Jennie: yes, please assign me one randomly

<kirkwood> you can assign me one

Lisa: I won't assign one to Rachael because she has other tasks.

Steve: Will we be putting this into the tracking spreadsheet?

Lisa: I think we should assign them here.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wffN29_8YxjeL4E_wUHtKt6AGo0q3d--6cx2zZjThgg/edit

Lisa: make a copy of this document
... then add this URL to the tracking spreadsheet
... Copy your old one in the left hand column, new one in the right hand column, bold anything you have changed

Steve: I will do 5 for now

John K: Should I have editing access?

<Fazio> Can you put these links in an email, please?

Jennie: Which version are we checking against?

Lisa: good question.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kFIuq0jqWmqNHuv7zP-XpKB8TIeU6xmKTIxUZfuvooM/edit#

Steve: I added it in a link under "original pattern"

*thank you!

John K: You can randomly assign me one

Lisa: OK if no one wants to review the objective text, and Steve is doing 5, I will do that

Steve: Once I am through my 5, then I can try getting to the objective text

Lisa: Ok, if I have time, I will assign it to myself
... or we can work together on it

John K: you have your name next to 5 of them?

Steve: not yet
... In the Design Guide Tracking, the first sheet is tracking
... That's where you put your name

Lisa: I will assign people tonight when we get off the call
... Then I will an email to the list so everyone can see where they are
... I will move them up to actions

actions and updates https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

process review https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Process_proposal

Lisa: I think we have taking up the process review
... I have sent this to the list a few times
... Hopefully everyone is ok with it

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f4NhQMtQthDbShVje3evTqELBa9eR6eSyoA31Jjlgm4/edit#heading=h.9wbk125kdfid

Lisa: We could close it now if there are no other comments
... If we agree on the call, I will put it to CFC on the list
... Small items we will either agree in email or on a call
... It is hard to quantify what is small
... But for those we can agree on a call or in an email
... For medium issues, such as other working groups write an issue and we want to make a response
... then we will do an agreement on the email list and on the call
... And we record these decisions
... We will have a wiki page with decisions
... Large items, and an example is publishing the glossary.
... Or asking working groups to publish Content Usable
... We agree on the call, agree on the email list, and wait 2 working days.
... That email will have attention grabbing subject lines
... like CFC action required
... Then the decision will be recorded on the wiki page
... Then there were discussion points
... discussing until all opinions have been expressed
... We won't use a survey if others are not comfortable

*I need to drop off - can someone wrap up notes?

<Rachael> +1 to decision policy

<kirkwood> +1

<Abi> +1


*Thank you Rachael - dropping off now

<Fazio> +1

<stevelee> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<kirkwood> must drop

RESOLUTION: Move the decision on the decision policy to a list (it is a large item)

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Move the decision on the decision policy to a list (it is a large item)
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)