<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: jennie

Lisa: Jennie you are off the issues, correct?

Jennie: yes

Lisa: In regards to the image sub group, we will not be done by next week
... We will work on it some more for the next version
... Does that sound good?
... The impression I got from the list is that we need more iterations.

<LisaSeemanKest> pospone images examples?

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: I think we are talking about the web version, which is shortly after the text version.
... Timeline wise next Wednesday is the next text and content

<Rachael> Jennie: I think out of respect for the designer, where she was trying to cram things in with a lot of feedback postponing would make sense. I think it would help to have a more complete set of requirements. If someone can tell me the timeline for hte web version and then we can work on it.

Lisa: Can we put this off until next week? That can be the intent.

<Rachael> ...maybe a meeting to identify requirements.

Rain: I know we are proposing that we put this off, but I am happy to help Jennie put together that complete set of requirements.

Kris Anne: What is the purpose of this image? To show someone what a good design would be? And why?

<kirkwood> I would be happy to meet around this as well

Lisa: please + 1 or ask for more discussion for postponing until next week

<kirkwood> Please email me to be involved as well.

<krisannekinney> +1

<Rain> +1

<Fazio> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

+1

<JustineP> +1

<JohnRochford> +1

<Rachael> +1 to postponing conversation and images to web version

<kirkwood> +1

Lisa: I see Justine has been working on the issues. What is the status of the icons?

Justine: I will put in a rush request to get the icons produced. They should be able to turn those around in 24 hours.

Lisa: Can you send the icon set to the list when you get them. The clean list?
... And small changes we can put in after CFC
... To get to the CFC next week we need the overall image. Is that ok?

Justine: Yes. Would it be fine to produce a Google doc and share a link?

Lisa: yes.
... I think Abi did her change.
... I'm not sure.
... David had the task of sending a link to the list of his poll.

David F: Yes, I can do that

Lisa: We have been working with E.A. and have got some gender and cultural diversity.
... Roy is on holiday, and I have been editing and processing the issues.
... Steve and I did pattern review.
... Rachael do you want to go to your items or shall we close them?

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

Rachael: the first one is in process, 2nd one is in process, the 3rd one...
... is done

<Rachael> objective number to the sections in 5.5

Rachael: that can be closed

<Rachael> 4th: Change the TOC headings in User stories and patterns

Rachael: I really need people to respond to the email I sent so we can close that out

<Rachael> Explanatory paragraph about language

Rachael: thank you for the responses and we should leave that
... The image and icon creators - Jennie and Justine and anyone working with people - please send names

<JustineP> Will do.

Rachael: and ensure they are ok with their names being included

Lisa: The third one is closed, almost closed - waiting for feedback - is that right?

Rachael: yes

Lisa: Rain did her comments on the website

Images

Lisa: we have covered this
... I wrote to the list 2 general comments. I think feedback would be fantastic.
... We are trying at high speed to finish up the issues
... We are not getting great responses on the list
... 2 things the editors are doing

<LisaSeemanKest> In general: if something is covered elsewhere we are saying it is covered and we need to balance this request with requests to limit the size of the document.

Lisa: This will take 2 editors to be confident that this is being covered elsewhere, and we need to balance the request to limit the size of the document
... Some people want all the patterns and examples in a user need
... The user needs are more complex
... They don't always go into all the details in the user needs
... Are we ok with that?

<LisaSeemanKest> are we ok with that

<LisaSeemanKest> =1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: saying that it is covered elsewhere and we are trying to keep the document short

<Rachael> +1

<JustineP> +1

<Rain> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

Lisa: Any objections?

<LisaSeemanKest> In general: If both editors dislike the suggestion or feel a lot more reserch is needed ww are just writing a response. If more research may be needed we refer it to next version

Lisa: Then we ask for more research and can put it in the next version. It would be up to them to try to find research, and we can try to find some
... That would be a standard response

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: Are we ok with that?

+1

Rain: I'm curious if we have a place where we indicate the types of places where we are doing more research
... This would help when others have the same thoughts

Lisa: At the moment, we are adding a tag to it in github
... I think it is just a defer tag
... Then once this week is over, we can look at whatever we defer

Rachael: We are trying to get everything done by Monday, then it roles into github
... Last of editorial reviews will be end of day on Wednesday
... And then Thursday we can start having these other conversations
... What does the website look like, interfacing with other groups...Can you bring that back next Thursday?

Lisa: I just typed it into my to-do list
... But it is good if Rain brings it up again as well

<Rain> +1

<Rachael> Thank you!

Lisa: Any objections?
... We sent this to the list, and we got just under the ok for it
... We are using all different kinds of things to mean easy language
... There are 5 different ways to write it
... Some are going to ISO
... Some is being standardized in Spain
... There is a book being written on these terms
... We are thinking about using easy to understand language
... This got a +1 from EA and Rain
... We are not touching the plain language definition being entered into some legislation
... Is everyone ok with this or do we need further discussion?
... We defined easy reading in the glossary, so we will need to harmonize this?

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: I really think we need to pick something that other organizations are not using

<kirkwood> +1

Rachael: We need to add it to the glossary, then have a conversation with the other groups

<kirkwood> Agree with Rachael

+1 to this action, add to glossary, further conversation

<krisannekinney> +1

Lisa: Does anyone want more time to discuss this?

<JustineP> +1

Issue 163 Use term "easy to understand language" to 3.7.5 and others (in place of plain language)

<Rachael> +1 to this action, add to glossary, further conversation

<LisaSeemanKest> Avoid synonyms and abbreviations

Issue 163 Avoid synonyms and abbreviations added plain language (233)

Lisa: I sent this to the list twice, and did not get any responses
... We have a pattern - use clear terms
... We didn't add in to avoid synonyms and abbreviations

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0083.html

Lisa: This proposal is to add to using clear terms

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: are we ok with this?

<kirkwood> often/may

<JustineP> Agree with John K.

<Rachael> Jennie: The term "often" is of concern.

Lisa: I will remove the "often" from the introduction
... 163.1
... 163.6 is what we are reviewing

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: Do we have a +1 to add this into using clear words?

<Rain> +1

<JustineP> +1

<Rachael> +1 to adding acronyms and abbreviations to clear words pattern

Lisa: Any concerns about that?

<Fazio> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<kirkwood> +1

+1 to adding acronyms and abbreviations to clear words pattern

Issue 163 Use term "easy to understand language" to 3.7.5 and others (in place of plain language)

<LisaSeemanKest> close item 5

Issue 233 – Need agreement from the group to add a statement that uncommon acronyms/abbreviations/jargon should be avoided (4.4.1).

Lisa: the solutions are the same for these so I think we are good with that one
... Issue 237

Issue 237 add to personalization to allow browser preferences for fonts and presentation

Lisa: We have been side stepping the issue of fonts
... We don't want to require a font someone has made
... What we are proposing is to add this to personalization
... font and line spacing supported
... and the default should be a sans serif
... I think this was sent to the list
... Is this a good way to handle this?

<Rachael> +1 to adding to personalization and marking for new issue paper

<kirkwood> +1

+1 to adding to personalization and marking for new issue paper

<Rain> +1 and I really like avoiding recommending a specific font

<JustineP> +1

<kirkwood> Agree with Rain.

<krisannekinney> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0069.html

+ a million to rain

Issue 174 – Requested feedback on the list for consensus to add “attention” to the wayfinding list in 4.8.6.

Justine: I think we just need consensus from this group to add to the bulleted list

Lisa: The question is: someone asked us to add attention
... I think they were trying to be complete

<kirkwood> +1 to adding attention

+1 to adding attention

<Rain> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Fazio> Attention is a major component of cognition

<JustineP> +1 to adding attention

<krisannekinney> +1 to adding attention

Lisa: OK that is passed
... Steve has made some changes to the templates

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

* we had not done that for the others. Rachael - can you confirm if we need a resolution for each one?

Lisa: Is everyone comfortable changing description to "what to do"

<LisaSeemanKest> 0

Steve: I thought we had already agreed it, otherwise I would not have changed it

Rachael: I will check the minutes

Lisa: I remember when we changed the template, but I couldn't find it anywhere
... I'm going to assume we did discuss it

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

Is this what you do when creating, not when testing to verify you did it, correct?

Lisa: yes

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: We will also write this to the list
... Any objections?

<stevelee> +1

+1

<Rain> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<JustineP> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> this is to make the heading "What to Do "

<LisaSeemanKest> in place of discription

Lisa: There is one other change - more details
... The template has it

<LisaSeemanKest> Exceptions and technical details

Lisa: Any problems changing "More details" to "Exceptions and Technical Details"

Steve: it was if there was something extra
... that cluttered up the main what to do section

<Rachael> +1 to changing "More details" to "Exceptions and Technical Details"

+1 to changing from annoying details (smile!)

+1 to changing "More details" to "Exceptions and Technical Details"

<stevelee> 0+

Rain: I feel a little concerned about the use technical
... Is technical limiting?
... Some people might think I am not an engineer so I don't need to pay attention to this section
... I'm curious if it needs - is details non description. Maybe "exceptions and additional information

<kirkwood> Helpful information and Exceptions ?

Lisa: I'm tempted to say more details

Rachael: What had driven this was that more details was ambiguous
... It felt very broad
... I like John K's suggestion around something like Helpful information and Exceptions

<Rain> I like John's suggestion as well

John K: I agree with everything being said

<Rachael> Maybe "Additional Information" ?

scribe: maybe we want to be careful about exceptions

Lisa: What would you like it to say?

<Rachael> good point about the weighting of the word "exceptions"

John K: I would put "More information" or "Helpful information"

Lisa: I'm tempted to say we keep it as "More details" since I am not hearing consensus

<kirkwood> More information

<LisaSeemanKest> more details or more information

<LisaSeemanKest> more details

*can you remind me of the purpose of the section?

<kirkwood> either

<JustineP> 0 - either one is fine with me

<Fazio> 0

<krisannekinney> 0

<Rain> 0

Lisa: This section is an extension of the description, what to do
... But sometimes things are quite specific and we will lose people

<Rachael> either

Lisa: This would prevent it from being really long
... I will keep it as "more details" - any objections?
... Do we need a formal thing for use and avoid?

Rachael: I don't think so
... I'm not sure we can change it

Lisa: Anything else people want to discuss?

Rachael: We are aiming to have this ready to go to the groups next week. Can you hold some time on Wednesday or Thursday to review and help the editors?

Lisa: I'm not sure we will have it by Thursday

Rachael: How about Friday through Wednesday?

*dates please?

<Rachael> Feb 25 through March 2

* thank you

*Rachael - please send instructions for how you would like feedback when sending the link

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0082.html

Lisa: They want us to request language tags - I agree with that

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0081.html

Lisa: they wanted us to use a tense and voice that is easy to understand (for English)
... they want us to use local plain language guidance
... We have added a sentence for that

<Fazio> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: I'm going to bundle them together

<JustineP> strong +1

<Rain> also strong +1

Lisa: any objections?
... I'm not seeing any objections

<krisannekinney> +1

Lisa: Any further discussion?

<kirkwood> _1

<kirkwood> +1

Lisa: I'm hoping we will get to CFC on the list
... next week - Thursdayish
... Please try to respond to a few of the emails on the list this week

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: Fazio, Rain, Jennie, JohnRochford, stevelee, krisannekinney, JustineP, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest, Rachael
Present: Fazio, Rain, Jennie, JohnRochford, stevelee, krisannekinney, JustineP, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest, Rachael
Found Scribe: jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie

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

Found Date: 18 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.)