19 Nov 2020


Jennie, stevelee, Rachael, LisaSeemanKest, Fazio, Roy, .5
David_F, John_R, Abi, Justine, EA


<Rachael> Questions from issues that need discussion https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit#heading=h.f830s7ypu4na

<scribe> scribe: Jennie

Rachael: Meeting next week?

Meeting Next Week

<Rachael> -1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<stevelee> +1

Rachael: +1 if you can make next week

<Fazio> +1


<Roy> +1

Rachael: The meeting is confirmed for Thursday, with a few people not able to attend

Status updates and Actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Timelines_and_actions

Rachael: due to American Thanksgiving
... I have a branch of github
... I can send an email when I am done, with a summary, and a link to the github
... Is that sufficient or would you prefer something else to review the changes?

Steve: Regarding the ones in Google doc - have you been resolving them?

Rachael: Yes. But it was getting to the point where it would not load, so I was clearing it out. You can go back to the original version to see what it looked like

Steve: Have you addressed everything?

Rachael: I am 60% of the way done

Lisa: It can be hard to see the changes in a dif when there are so many
... The summary will be helpful

Rachael: I plan to send a summary of the changes that were made, along with other links

Lisa: These are editorial

Rachael: Yes, things we judged to be editorial

Steve: Can you give us a way to read the entire thing?

Lisa: I tried to load the document and I still have problems

Rachael: I will break it out into pieces if need be
... If you need something else, let me know
... Lisa and I are working on the merge process for the glossary

<Fazio> she sent regrets

Lisa: We are thinking of making an update even though we are not finished the editorial
... with the glossary merged in
... The one change will be the glossary
... We wanted to put our glossary in, but it is not editorial - it is quite a big change
... It changes the meaning, clarifies the meaning of the document
... If we want to do it alone with the next release, we could get a lot of feedback
... We haven't sent it for wide review comments
... If we process some but not others, people will wonder what happened to their comment
... If the only change is the glossary, we can be clear we have not added the other changes
... We can reinforce that it is for an international audience
... We can try to control the message
... Asking for comments about the glossary ...Summary: we will publish the last version, plus the glossary

Steve: That seems like a good idea along as Michael and Roy are ok with it

Rachael: That is the agreed upon approach

Steve: How does that impact the release we were going to make with the other changes?

Rachael: I think the agreement is that we won't do another review and changes before the next publication
... We made our schedule to match WCAG which is also beyond
... So this should match
... We need to continue to push actively
... Then we can bring together all the changes at the end

Steve: The rest of the document depends on the glossary, so this is good

Lisa: If we added in other changes, it would muddy the waters

Rachael: Any other questions regarding the glossary?

<Rachael> Proposal: Publish the glossary with an unaltered version of content usable for a review of the glossary

<stevelee> +1

<Rachael> Please +1, 0, -1

<Rachael> +1


<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Fazio> 0

<Roy> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish the glossary with an unaltered version of content usable for a review of the glossary (after CFC on COGA lis)

Rachael: I will put that on the list
... Does anyone have an update on the editorial review?

Lisa: I think I'm in the middle of the 3rd objective in the Design Guide
... The document is really large

Rachael: With regards to the patterns
... Is anyone stuck?

David F: I am done

Rachael: Who does it go to for a 2nd pass?

David F: Accessible log in

scribe: I sent it to everyone last night

Lisa: I was going to review Steve's, and Steve was going to review the other ones
... Regarding Betsy' text
... I edited the objective text
... We can review and ok it
... If not, it is in the list of documents.
... Someone should rereview

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GWvDsahWqpk-kGI4alhzOZtae7uGsXg7dzYkJI2clx0/edit

Lisa: Betsy did a lot of work, I did the edits

Rachael: I think it is on our agenda for later

<Rachael> Jennie: Need an extension for the timeline.

<Rachael> Lisa: Suggest 3 weeks

<Rachael> Jennie: Don't want it to be too long.

<Rachael> ack: LisaSeemanKest

Lisa: If we have to do another release because of the glossary
... I don't know what the time is for asking for feedback

Rachael: I will work with Michael to get that done

Lisa: We cannot make another release before the comment time
... If we release on Monday, then we need time to process issues
... It is sounding like a month
... We need to know the absolute minimum
... If it is more than a month then I don't know what we do with the glossary

Rachael: Roy - can you create the version of the document that is the unedited current version master plus the glossary today?

Roy: You mean add the glossary in our github - it is 11:30 here my time
... I can added the glossary tomorrow my time day time

Rachael: I would want to send it to the AG
... Roy, if you can do that early in the day your time tomorrow

Lisa: We have standing review to publish

Rachael: Let me ask Michael

Lisa: If the glossary is small enough
... APA already said we can publish because we can have small iterations
... We added a glossary, clarification

Rachael: She also suggested we come to APA and talk about it
... shall we move this to the editor's call?
... Is that ok with the group?


Roy: Which section do we want to add? Section 7?
... After the Use Cases?

Lisa: after the appendix
... It is what we have in TR now, with an addition section
... We also have to update where we ask for user feedback

<Rachael> Jennie: Just to clarify, in terms of the graphics, we can ask for submissions to come in until December 10th

<Rachael> ....review the week fo the 14th

Rachael: Any other actions anyone wants to call out?

Roy: We have already changed the icons in the summary section

<Roy> https://w3c.github.io/coga/content-usable/#summary

Roy: Michael had to fix icons in the summary for that

Rachael: The format?

Roy: yes the format

Rachael: If it is just the format, I wouldn't worry about it
... Anyone object to that?

Review the objective introductions https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GWvDsahWqpk-kGI4alhzOZtae7uGsXg7dzYkJI2clx0/edit

Rachael: within these objectives is the work Betsy did, that Lisa reviewed

Lisa: It needs an editorial pass
... I added some content
... I put in some background about the user
... things like "what is working memory"
... We need people to check that they look consistent

Steve: I've done that already, I went through the whole thing this morning
... The patterns were not mentioned in the objectives, so I added a mention

Lisa: Did you check for spelling?

Steve: I did, but it was hard to read
... I can take a copy and do that

Rachael: Why don't we save another version, accept all changes and then Steve can review that

Lisa: I sent an email about the editorial pass I did

Steve: In objective 6 - it was a lot longer than the others. Maybe there is a bit too much in that one?

Rachael: Is someone else willing to do a final look after Steve?

Lisa: People are shortening the patterns, and then information ends up no where
... It is really important to understand why this matters
... I would be tempted to keep it in both
... We should discuss this at the editor's call

Rachael: OK we will move that conversation to the editor's call.
... Do we need a 3rd person to review? We could request EA or Abi

Lisa: Looks like John Rochford has reviewed

Rachael: Hearing no volunteers, I think we will move forward with these
... I can send to the list in case anyone wants to take a final pass

Email with changes from Lisa's editorial pass

Lisa: We have good examples and bad examples
... People didn't like that
... Sometimes it doesn't work
... It started to look while I was editing repetitive
... Use this, don't use that
... Some have longer examples to explain it
... We may need a really good clarification of what to do
... Do we want to go through the patterns and add a full list
... When we say use something, avoid something
... Without the cases
... It is incomplete
... If you have good example, bad example, it is not incomplete
... When you say "use this" but they are not in there
... It looks incomplete
... I'm revisiting this issue

Rachael: I believe originally it said pass and fail or good and fail, and fail was the word causing issues
... It was a request from WCAG

Lisa: I think we could use the word good and bad

Steve: It is a really good point
... How complete should they be?
... The examples section is to give a taste
... Bearing in mind it cannot be exhaustive
... Should you start with a story, then have text with do this, do that
... It could make it consistent
... I think I would rather have good examples
... I like the stories, but they can get long
... Techniques

Rachael: The document is long top to bottom
... Another heading takes up a line no matter what
... Examples of good patterns or something similar might be something worth considering
... We shouldn't feel like it has to be a 2 word heading

Lisa: A word of caution: we are delaying our publication ab bit
... But there will be a version 2
... We can make sure all the examples have a consistent style
... I would be ok adding an introductory sentence
... Something like "Use short...something like..."
... I would be ok with that
... Or changing something across the board
... Steve has some great ideas but it would take a few months
... Changing how the examples are to be consistent would be across the board
... When I did the wide review reading, some things that said "avoid, for example a library"

Steve: I thought you were suggesting making changes to all of them

Lisa: If we use avoid, then we should add this to all of them

Steve: you would be happy to change the title name?

Lisa: 1 or the other
... But it has to be a minor edit on the ones that are lengthy
... Unless someone wants to work on all the avoid cases
... But we would have to avoid it
... Another thing, we say use icons
... We should probably have notes for them
... Maybe we can add them to the icons we want to make?

Rachael: Do we have a resolution?
... The easiest thing is to edit the long ones, and add in the text
... I'm concerned about avoid - not having every single avoid
... We could say "examples to use" "examples to avoid"
... Why don't we move this to the editor's call?

<Rachael> Jennie: Justine was working with the icons. Do you think it should be part of the same set?

<Rachael> Lisa: Yes. That was justine.

Lisa: I think I sent her an email
... I will send an email
... to Justine

Rachael: Do we have a resolution on what to do with the examples?

Lisa: I think we might be able to do a bit of both
... Have the main cases, even if we don't have every case

<Rachael> Proposal: Rewrite the examples by adding a short introductory sentence that meets the verbal pattern. Review all examples to see if any obvious ones are missing.


<Fazio> 0

Steve: I would like to see an example

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<stevelee> +1 but want to see example

<Roy> +1

Lisa: I will try and find one

<Rachael> +.5

*that kind of day?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#examples-3

RESOLUTION: Rewrite the examples by adding a short introductory sentence that meets the verbal pattern. Review all examples to see if any obvious ones are missing.

Lisa: Here is an example

<LisaSeemanKest> 0.54

Steve: I did notice that some of the patterns have no examples, so we need to add a few more

RESOLUTION: Rewrite the examples by adding a short introductory sentence that meets the verbal pattern. Review all examples to see if any obvious ones are missing.

Rachael: I am not sure that we have enough time to do the last agenda item
... We have talked today about the timeline
... Is there anything else we can do to move this forward

<Rachael> Questions from issues that need discussion https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit#heading=h.f830s7ypu4na

Rachael: Are people willing to pick some of those up?
... Would it make sense to do a 1 day meeting sometime in December?

*I can't do that, our time is pretty booked right now

Lisa: I think people need help to know when to do what

Rachael: You are suggesting providing more instruction next meeting in regards to the issues?

Lisa: They can be challenging
... People can take a small issue

Rachael: If people have suggestions, please share. If there is a way we can think about this, we are really getting down to these needs to be done to make our timeline

Lisa: Maybe the 1st 10 minutes of the next call - we can think about what might be more doable
... then send to the list

Steve: That helps
... Having a meeting scheduled where people can bring their questions works well

Rachael: There is an editor's call after this meeting for those that can make it

<LisaSeemanKest> when is the next one

Rachael: I thought it was in gitub
... It should be in its own section

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/coga/blob/master/glossary/index.html

Rachael: It is just a matter of merging it

Roy: OK I will try to do this tonight

Rachael: If it is not until tomorrow I will just put a delay

<Rachael> zakrrsagent, generate minutes

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Publish the glossary with an unaltered version of content usable for a review of the glossary (after CFC on COGA lis)
  2. Rewrite the examples by adding a short introductory sentence that meets the verbal pattern. Review all examples to see if any obvious ones are missing.
  3. Rewrite the examples by adding a short introductory sentence that meets the verbal pattern. Review all examples to see if any obvious ones are missing.
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/11/19 16:22:41 $

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)

Default Present: Jennie, stevelee, Rachael, LisaSeemanKest, Fazio, Roy, .5
Present: Jennie stevelee Rachael LisaSeemanKest Fazio Roy .5
Regrets: David_F John_R Abi Justine EA
Found Scribe: Jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting

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: 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]