Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

15 Oct 2020


Justine, Jennie, stevelee, Roy, Rachael, kirkwood, Abi
Justine, Justien


<LisaSeemanKest> Note i will be late if i can come

<Justine> scribe: Justine

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: Justien

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

<Justine> Lisa: Working on getting Content Usable to a note. Next several weeks will be task-heavy.

<Roy> q

<Justine> Rachael: Will be sending a list and changes with proposed responses within the next week or so.

<Justine> ...have been tracking issues and putting changes in a branch.

<Justine> Lisa: Abi, you were going to look at Glossary-related issues. Status?

<Justine> Abi: Only two issues were tagged as glossary, one of which has already been addressed. Other issue needs to be examined from an editorial perspective.

<Justine> ...one issue was that a glossary was needed for terms that were not used consistently

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/coga/labels/glossary

<Justine> Lisa: We might have addressed comments in the preceding link already (glossary link)

<Justine> ...would you send a summary to Listserv as well? We should tag as an action item for discussion if needed.

<Justine> Abi: Would you share link to latest version in Google doc?

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

<Justine> Lisa: Rachael has been going through editorial issues. We should coordinate issues related to Glossary.

<Justine> Abi: will send a summary by Monday of actions that need to be taken.

<Justine> Lisa: We have an editorial call on the 27th...

<Justine> Rachael: Abi, will add you to the invitation. Anyone else?

<kirkwood> can add me too.

<Justine> ...we also have a standing editorial call after the regular COGA meeting for the next few weeks.

<Justine> Lisa: EA, would you send Abi the invitation (and John Kirkwood)?

<Justine> Rachael: ....sending you the invitation now.

<Justine> Lisa: Abi, you were also going to update Github version of the glossary?

<Justine> Abi: Haven't gotten to that just yet.

<Justine> Lisa: When you are ready, make a branch and then we can review.

<Justine> Lisa: Justine and John, status of icons?

<Justine> Justine: Ready for review, will post to Google docs shortly and share a link.

<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: lisa read over the google doc version of the content useable

<trackbot> Created ACTION-330 - Read over the google doc version of the content useable [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2020-10-22].

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

<Justine> Lisa: Steve will also conduct editorial task with patterns.

<LisaSeemanKest> steve editorla pass on the pattens (not being worked on)

<Justine> ...would be useful to have a few people conduct editorial review.

<Justine> Steve: Seems that some comments from EA are actually questions...

<Justine> Lisa: Yes, I need to look through the file. We can do that during an editorial call.

<Roy> https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues/199

<Justine> Roy: Preceding hyperlinked issue actually contains multiple issues that need to be broken out into individual issues.

<Justine> Rachael: We did not get through all issues and still need to review some either during this session or editorial call.

<Justine> Roy: Issue 199 consists of at least 24 separate issues. That way we can easily track which issues are closed/open.

<Justine> Rachael: I was referring to EA's issues/comments....

<Justine> Lisa: Roy, most issues have multiple comments. This is a particularly big issue, "medium" size would be considered about 10 issues.

<Justine> ...what do you think about current process? Do we need to further break out in Github or in Google Doc?

<stevelee> +1

<Justine> Rachael: There is a benefit breaking out into individual issues for tracking purposes and metrics collection.

<Justine> Lisa: Not everyone can use Github in this forum. At this stage, it might be too late to change our handling of the process.

<Justine> Steve: Github is for tracking although issues can be put into same Google doc. Either Roy (or myself) can help with Github.

<Justine> Lisa: We want to wrap up over the next 3-4 weeks or so.

<Justine> ...I can help with tagging.

<Justine> Rachael: Roy, can you clarify your intent to break 199 into new, multiple issues for each item?

<Justine> Roy: Yes

<Justine> Steve: ...if you add "#199" to new issues it will help to facilitate tracking.

<Justine> Roy: I will split 199 into separate issues.

<LisaSeemanKest> roy split all the issues

<Justine> Rachael: Note that 198 is also multi-pronged and will need to be split. Others as well...this is a large task.

<Justine> Lisa: Suggest that we take an "all or nothing" approach to splitting multi-pronged issues.

<Justine> Rachael: I agree. If you split one, you should split them all.

<Justine> Roy: Will begin with 199 and work from there...

<Justine> Lisa: Most groups use Github as main point of focus but that doesn't work for COGA.

<Justine> Steve: Tracking issues lies in Github but actual discussion and proposed course of action can lie in Google docs.

<Justine> Lisa: Splitting one issue when other multi-pronged issue could be confusing.

<Justine> Rachael: If we don't want to split existing issues out, suggest only splitting out new issues as they come in.

<Jennie> +1 to John's suggestion

<Justine> John: Sounds good. Working between Google docs and issue tracker -- would be good to have a clear explanation of all Google docs and associated links to Github issues as header or footer. Will tie relationship b/n Google docs and Github issues.

<Justine> Lisa: Footnotes would work.

<stevelee> +1

<Justine> Rachael: Let's shift this topic to the planning call unless there are any objections.

<Justine> Lisa: Steve and John worked on patterns and those are now ready for review. Would anyone like an action to review?

<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: lisa review john and steves pater

<trackbot> Created ACTION-331 - Review john and steves pater [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2020-10-22].

<Justine> ...I will take the action to review. Has anyone else finished patterns?

<Justine> ...Abi, Jenni, and David all have patterns in progress.

<Justine> Steve: John, I've added a few comments to your patterns.

<Justine> Lisa: Jennie, Abi, do you need help with patterns or just need more time?

<Justine> <both responded that more time is needed>

<Justine> Lisa: Jennie, how is image subgroup coming along?

<Justine> Jennie: John and I should have that wrapped up within a few days.

<Justine> Lisa: Let's skip ahead in the agenda.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f4NhQMtQthDbShVje3evTqELBa9eR6eSyoA31Jjlgm4/edit#

<Justine> Lisa: We haven't addressed all comments on the decision policy. Some issues have already been handled and don't require approval. Policy has been approved and we should just review comments to ensure that everyone is comfortable with current version.

<Justine> ...sound like a reasonable approach?

<Justine> Steve: I have a couple of comments that aren't listed in current document.

<Rachael> Final Wiki: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/COGA_Resolution_Processes

<Justine> Lisa: will need to re-open CfC

<Justine> Rachael: We agreed to move forward to CfC, received consensus, but I linked to incorrect document. Looks like we have two identical versions.

<Justine> Steve: seems like there was a miscommunication somewhere

<Justine> Lisa: Let's focus on major issues.

<Justine> Steve: I felt that decision making process was lacking details on tracking and final outcomes.

<Justine> ...can external parties or only TF members be involved in decision making?

<Rachael> The link is on the wiki but here is the direct link: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/COGA_Resolutions

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

<Justine> Lisa: On Wiki page (the final version) only link to AG was missing. The Wiki page contains the official document.

<Justine> ...this is the COGA resolution.

<Justine> ...resolutions will be kept at this location with date/link.

<Justine> Steve: Are we tracking decisions that are actively in process?

<Justine> Rachael: That is on our Actions page.

<Justine> Steve: How does a review by each disability-group fit into decision making?

<Justine> Rachael: We will reach out when a decision affects a particular group.

<Justine> Steve: ...just wondered if we needed more detail on how the process would work.

<Justine> Lisa: These are the guiding principles for how a resolution is handled.

<Justine> Rachael: We want to leave this open because we might want joint meetings where reps from other meetings could be invited. We shouldn't restrain ourselves, leave options for eliciting feedback.

<Justine> Lisa: We are pursuing a consensus vote.

<LisaSeemanKest> education and outreach = eo

<Justine> Steve: ...was wondering if decision process needed to change if involving others outside of COGA.

<Justine> Rachael: I don't think so.

<Justine> John: Do you want to formalize the process of reaching out to external groups?

<Justine> Steve: Was wondering if we need to formalize a process when we need to include external groups or experts from other fields.

<Justine> John: That might be a larger question for the W3C.

<Justine> Steve: If document meets its original intention, I'm fine with that.

<Justine> Lisa: Should we leave the document "as is" but open an action to draft an approach to dealing with external comments?

<Justine> Steve: Yes, I'm happy with that.

<Justine> Lisa: Let's put it on our action item list. Seem okay?

<Justine> Steve: Yes

<Justine> ...if it doesn't affect the standard making decision process, okay with me.

<Jennie> * Apologies - have to drop early. Have a good week.

<Justine> Lisa: Justine commented on the need to include research-supported recommendations. That was included but has been dropped for some reason.

<Justine> ...should we include references to research as part of the section?

<Justine> Steve: We could add that it should be backed by research.

<Justine> Rachael: What about including in overarching statement?

<Justine> Lisa: Does this mean we need to go through new CfC?

<Justine> Rachael: We can open new one or postpone going to AG.

<Justine> John: Was it perhaps removed during an AG meeting?

<Justine> Lisa: Is this small enough to avoid a CfC?

<Justine> Rachael: Let's do a small CfC? Only requires 48 hours.

<LisaSeemanKest> Add to agreement- Ideally based on research-supported recommendations

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Abi> +1

<Justine> Lisa: I will draft the CfC

<Justine> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> +1

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

<Rachael> draft resolution: Accept adding a bullet to the decision policy agreement section on Ideally based on research-supported recommendations

RESOLUTION: Accept adding a bullet to the decision policy agreement section on Ideally based on research-supported recommendations

<stevelee> +1

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: lisa read over the google doc version of the content useable
[NEW] ACTION: lisa review john and steves pater

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Accept adding a bullet to the decision policy agreement section on Ideally based on research-supported recommendations
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/10/15 15:05:12 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/liked/linked/
Default Present: Justine, Jennie, stevelee, Roy, Rachael, kirkwood, Abi
Present: Justine Jennie stevelee Roy Rachael kirkwood Abi

WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Lisa, EA, John, R)
Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Betsy

Regrets: Betsy
Found Scribe: Justine
Found Scribe: Justien

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 186 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Scribes: Justine, Justien

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

Found Date: 15 Oct 2020
People with action items: lisa

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]