<LisaSeemanKest> clear agenda
<scribe> scribe: Rachael
<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: Rachael
Jennie: Designer had questions so we have time to chat so she can update.
Lisa: You have also been dealing with issues. You also had a pattern. Do you want me to remove you from that?
Jennie: Yes, please remove me from the patterns. Can the issues be extended?
Lisa: I think we need to resolve it soon.
Rachael: Need to resolve this week or early next.
<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y4k8AnYZDZe2JMV--WCoX34XvEUmBl1spGJSGSfHAQo/edit#gid=0)
Lisa and Jennie: Discuss logistics
Lisa: How are icons going?
Justine: Last week very busy. I hope to have the changes in place by next week's meeting.
Lisa: You may notice on the list
that we made a mockup. Please everyone look at the email I sent
to the list and comment.
... idea was a brain with a sticky note.
<kirkwood> yes, ping me can talk over weekend too.
Lisa: Justine, we are moving forward on issues. If you can send me times you can meet on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday I wil set up a time.
Justine: I do have issues that are ready to close out on github.
Lisa: Please send proposals to
the list. Thank you
... I think Abi's action is done but we'll wait till she's
here.
... David, you had an action to write a summary of teh person
first language to list.
David: I will do that today
Lisa: Then we can close it.
... Persona diversity?
Rachael: EA has made progress. I Will try to wrap it up before next week's meeting
Lisa: Roy is on holiday but we've
scheduled two days.
... I am finishing up the final review with Rachael and
Steve
... A few notes for Rachael?
Rachael: I think they are done but need to close out.
Lisa: Rain Michaels is here from Google. Welcome. We'd like to do 30 second introductions.
All: Give brief introductions
<LisaSeemanKest> thank rachael
Lisa: zakim, take up item 3
<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y4k8AnYZDZe2JMV--WCoX34XvEUmBl1spGJSGSfHAQo/edit#gid=0)
<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0002.html
<LisaSeemanKest> email on the topic
Lisa: I wrote the group earlier.
We are the taskforce of two working groups. AG and APA. AG
handles WCAG. APA handles the specs for other areas. They are a
bit more research oriented such as their work on media. Our
work on issue papers fits their work better.
... Our next work is on mental health research which may fit
better under APA. We also spun off Personalization. There has
been a suggestion from APA that we just be under AG at this
point.
<LisaSeemanKest> summary is at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0002.html
Janina: Thank you for that
introduction and for noting personalization. That work spun out
of this group and it is in process for becoming a W3C
recommendation.
... that means it will be something that can be done in HTML
that will be understood by browsers. It is a hard coded
solution to COGA issues. Not all but a
... When we set up COGA we weren't sure exactly where it would
end up. Two sponsoring groups is unusual but we weren't sure
where the balance of work would be. We thought there woudl be
some impact on markup.
... that proved true and became the personalization work. Every
3 years a group has to recharter. Without a charter, we can't
do anything. We can't produce standards.
<janina> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/charter-2021/charter.html
Janina: APA has been working on
our next charter and we are looking at what we think we are
going to do from August 2021 to August 2024. We have a draft
charter (link above).
... If you are in COGA with an APA membership, you will see a
CFC for approval of that draft charter next week.
... COGA is not in that charter but that doesn't mean we don't
want to continue to work with COGA.
<LisaSeemanKest> ag-charter
<LisaSeemanKest> <https://www.w3.org/2019/12/ag-charter>
Janina: I expect most people will
vote to move the charter forward. After that it moves through
the W3 process for granting a charter. Goes to lead of WAI
initiatives, Judy Brewer. Goes through management and then goes
to the AC (Advisory Council). With sufficient positive votes it
becomes a charter. We are doing this early so our current
charter doesn't runout.
... its not a done deal until its fully approved by Judy,
management, and the AC. There is at least 5-6 months of
work.
... The difference leaving COGA out of the APA charter would
make. Right now every publication that goes out from COGA has
to be run through AG and APA. APA tends to ignore COGA assuming
AG is engaging. AG may be doing the same. We very much want
COGA reviews of our specs. APA reviews Every specification W3
produces.
... this lets us advise. We have various expertise doing so but
not from COGA. I would like to find a way to fix that.
... I am looking at the formal liason process. We would like a
very active COGA liason at APA to better represent the
issues.
David: I have been an APA member for a couple years and may be able to be a liasion.
<LisaSeemanKest> ag-charter
<LisaSeemanKest> <https://www.w3.org/2019/12/ag-charter>
Lisa: We appreciate the enthusiasm to get the liason processes going but we are in the middle of hte spec release which wraps up in the next 2 weeks. I'd like to focus on the must discuss today topic which is whether we should no longer be a subgroup of APA.
<LisaSeemanKest> APA /charter.html
<LisaSeemanKest> <https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/charter-2021/charter.html>
Lisa: I've added the AG charter
which focuses on WCAG which is some of what we do but not all
of what we do.
... I've also added the APA charter.
... one of my concerns is that we are out of scope if we leave
APA. Someone could say, thanks for your contribution of our
charter.
<Fazio> +1
David: I agree with you. I think
when we were trying to get content usable passed, we ran into a
lot of issues with AG that it didn't fit into the guidelines.
We had more support in APA. AG came around. I am concerned that
we lose that support if we leave but I am also concerned that
much of what we do is out of scope of AG.
... I understand that most taskforces are not in most groups
but I understand from Janina that it can't be just that it
isn't done much. Hate to stop something that is working.
Jennie: I am looking at the charter and point 1 says:
<Jennie> Support W3C Working Groups and external organizations collaborating on web technologies to create technical specifications that provide features needed for accessibility to people with disabilities via review of documents as part of the horizontal review process, participation in architecture decisions, and by direct interaction with Working Groups as needed.
<stevelee> technologies like XR need COga input
Jennie: The reason that stops me is that as I think about what is happening between personalization and Silver work being done, there is a Lot of work being done around cognitive and accessibility for tools . Is the relationship in APA important to that new work.
Janina: In 15 seconds, to
summarize WCAG says what to do to be accessible. Content
authors should ensure that XYZ happens.
... If there is a technology that makes that magic happen, then
content authors should make sure content supports that
tool.
... So once personalization is done, WCAG 3.0 should point to
personalization and say do this.
Lisa: To add context, COGA goal
is to look at future needs and tools. We have gotten dug into
Content Usable but we want to get back to looking ahead. If
we've left by then, it is all through liason. If we are part of
it, it may be stronger.
... Issue papers analyze the space between the existing
technology adn people and then ask what can be done in the
future.
John: I think it would be a
mistake. There is a bit of square peg in round hole. It can't
just fit into a standards structure.
... I've been finding that there is a lot of focus in the
cognitive area and people are chomping at the bit for what we
are doing. There is more potential for getting more people in
if we are in both groups. We need to be improving technology
protocols in the future. I Am wary of closing things down a
bit. That there will be less access for people who want to be
involved.
me/ I think Janina, LIsa, Michael, and I should meet to finalize the conversation.
stevelee: There was a reason when we formed that we thought both working groups are valid. Those reasons are still valid. Some of content usable is editorial. I'm not sure it fits well in WCAG. It may not fit well in APA either. But it gives us a framework to fit it into standards.
Janina: That is why we want someone active in APA active review.
<Fazio> I'll start attending again
<Jennie> Rachael: I am struggling to understand the benefit from your perspective of us not being in APA.
Rachael: What is the benefit of us not being in APA?
Janina: Mainly less to review and
look at. Its just a matter of trying to streamline APA
activities.
... In APA there was a lot of surprise that this is a hot
topic.
<Jennie> +1 more input needs to come from COGA
Janina: noone has heard from COGA recently.
Lisa: Agreed.
Rachael: Agreed.
<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to steve
stevelee: Yes, it is a bit of an
oversight. We've been so focused we got away from that. If we
can somehow fit into your existing review process, then could
we make it so that it wouldn't be more work.
... there are other ways to acheive the same thing. The
mechanics is potentially different. the impact is that we have
COGA support in the horizontal review.
Lisa: If there are any other points, please add yourself to queue now.
<stevelee> +1
Lisa: I think a liason isn't just what you need. I think what we should be doing is reviewing the specifications. The liaison can identify what are relevant and then we do a review. What I don't understand is how a review should be done in taskforce time if we are solely an AG taskforce.
<Jennie> Also, is there a regular schedule a representative from APA can come to a COGA meeting to provide an update?
The liason would likely take that role
Janina: I'm glad you are ending
with this point because it came up in the APA list. You raise a
very good point. Why shouldn't low vision have this kind of
relationship.
... one of the outcomes was that was a good point that we agree
with.
... that is a WAI coordination question. We are going to talk
about that.
... we have turned to other groups, we do build formal liason
relationships. Example, we have a relationship with CSS. Maybe
we need to rethink this in WAI.
... that is on the table.
<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aRoYev1aAIHhIq37Itt96ueBwLh5zXMUeJBYxL0MCkQ/edit#
<LisaSeemanKest> right direction
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
<Jennie> -1 only because I don't think when small many people will understand what the sticky notes are
Lisa: If you don't like the direction for processes that rely on memory.
0 is eh, -1 is don't like it, +1 is like it
<Fazio> -1
<JustineP> -1 for the same reason as Jennie
<krisannekinney> -1 for the same reason as Jennie
<Rain> -1 finger represents a very specific modality
Lisa: We have had a number of
ideas. We have had issues with this and all previous
versions.
... we need one.
<Jennie> Brain, thinking bubble, with an x over it?
Lisa: any quick ideas?
David: What about the thinking emoji? Face on chin.
Lisa: It can cover everything we do. Its not necessarily memory. But we can do it.
JustineP: I suggest we think about a brain with a circle around it and a slash through it.
krisannekinney: I've been thinking about that as well.
<Rain> +1 to the thinking bubble idea
Jennie: I like that idea but maybe an icon with a thinking bubble. So it doesn't look like its no brain
Lisa: I just don't get how its specifically memory.
Jennie: Is there some way to indicate yesterday in the thought bubble? Then its like yesterday didn't happen.
Lisa: Yesterday icon is a calendar with an arrow on it.
kirkwood: I was thinking conceptually. The thinking bubble and an icon that shows a long, neat stack of paper with one coming out. Maybe a filing cabinet in the head.
<Jennie> Love John's idea!
<Rain> I love that because it focuses on the positive
Lisa: Can someone take an action item to send a few suggestions. Can we vote on the mockups via email?
<Rain> Lisa, I can work on this concept
Lisa: Fantastic! Welcome Rain. We
are so glad to have you.
... we will put you down for that action.
Lisa; We are going to slow. We need to wrap up content usable. Editorial items. If we had 3 editors, we could close it. There was some things that were not quite editorial. There are also things we kind of know what the answer is. This is a really nice idea but we need to do a year of research so we may mention it in a few places but then we will research it for the next version.
Does anyone object if there is 2 editors on a call, that we address those by writing these to the list and if we get 3 +1s then we can close them?
<LisaSeemanKest> +1
Rachael: Getting the responses on the email list is so important for the next two weeks.
<Jennie> +1. Also assuming that this gets added to the decision process document?
Lisa: We will put in very clear
subject lines. We won't do this with anything that needs
significant discussion.
... yes we will add it to the decision process.
+!
+1
<krisannekinney> +1
Lisa: John, how do you feel about
this?
... I'm trying to expand what an editors call can close. For
instance, if we have something that we think everyone will
agree to that would be good for version 2, can we write the
response to the list with a clear subject line and if we get 3
responses, then we can close it.
<Jennie> Proposal for content of email: subject line needs review in x number of days. Content of email: old language, new language. Info on who already approved.
kirkwood: That makes sense to me.
<JustineP> +1 Question: If no responses received, add to a meeting agenda as next step?
<kirkwood> +1
Lisa: I would feel more comfortable with more +1s
<Rain> +1
Jennie: I put in some information that woudl make it easier for me to review.
Lisa: Wrapping up the call.
... thank you all for joining.
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 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: stevelee, Jennie, JustineP, Fazio, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest, janina, Rachael, krisannekinney, Rain, ! Present: stevelee, Jennie, JustineP, Fazio, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest, janina, Rachael, krisannekinney, Rain, ! Regrets: Abi, EA, John Rochford Found Scribe: Rachael Found Scribe: Rachael Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 04 Feb 2021 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]