<scribe> scribe: Chuck
Rachael: WCAG2ICT
<Rachael> chuck: Not really started yet. Sensitivities around the work. We have an exploratory group looking into standing it up.
<Rachael> ...hope to kick it off soon. Filling in key details. Need facilitators, team contact, etc. At least one more exploratory call. Please make sure everyone knows this is happening.
<Rachael> ...next call will happen after team contact is identified.
Rachael: think about if Coga wants representation in WCAG2ICT
... LVTF, we are revitalizing that.
... We've asked Chris Loiselle and Jon Avila if they are interested in facilitating this group. Hopefully will hear back in a couple of weeks.
Jeanne: Those individuals are great selections, great leadership.
... Only seeing staff and chairs, don't see any group leaders.
<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-V6svcPVxBve3_5lBeDvks7xOMJCFSNcuSUpnmBTzws/
Jeanne: I've got a presentation that I do for each group, I've set up a meeting with Mobile, and go through a training session on what is needed to know to start writing guidelines.
... I can go through it now and get feedback and positive critique.
... <Does an overview>
... <goes through the processes and flows>
... I need to do a detail example of alt text.
Michael: Are we receiving any feedback from public comments... is the structure stable enough, or might it get changed due to public comments?
... I know we want to get going on content.
Jeanne: Conformance will change quite a bit. But I don't see structure changing.
... I haven't seen anything that substantial in the comments.
Rachael: All the options on the table just shift scoring, but don't seem to alter the structure.
... I don't think we are throwing out the outcomes and methods concept. Only question is "how we take the info and use them"
Michael: Scoring is at the test level and rating is at the outcome level. You think we'll keep both of those comments?
Rachael: I don't see how that would change.
... We may have massive changes, just not sure... It's a fair question.
Jeanne: We can't afford to wait much longer to get groups working on comments.
Michael: Yes, true. How much do we want to train in one approach when the model could change... having more content will help us exercise it more.
Rachael: Maybe get each group to at least do one.
Michael: "As you work through this, take notes on challenges during the process". We could compile those.
Lisa: Introduces self.
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-V6svcPVxBve3_5lBeDvks7xOMJCFSNcuSUpnmBTzws/
Rachael: Talking through an agenda item of "Silver"
Jeanne: A preso I'm preposing to do for each TF that want to write content for Silver. Overview of the silver structure and details of the writing process.
... Starts from user needs.
Lisa: Super!
Rachael: And question raised about how this might change over time. Any feedback on this?
Lisa: Wondering... is there a download?
Jeanne: It's a google slide.
Lisa: Bookmarking
Rachael: I'll go through agenda briefly.
... Did a doodle poll about chat, seems like 11 eastern is the preferred time. I'll send an invite out for that. It's hour following Coga.
... Shouldn't conflict.
... Concern that if we don't get participation in this meeting that same will happen in other meeting.
... Any concerns, questions, thoughts?
Jeanne: Talking with Kim P, she was enthusiastic about continuing chats.
Lisa: Last Thu of this month I can't make it.
Rachael: Should we not do it last Thu? Should we do middle of month?
Lisa: Seems sensible.
Rachael: I'll send invite for 2nd or 3rd Thu, we'll see how it goes.
... Will try 17th of this month.
... Anything else on this topic?
Lisa: There's daylight savings changes coming up.
... After this week.
<Rachael> Chuck: Have been announcing that at all calls.
Chuck: I've been announcing in all my tf and group calls.
Rachael: Good for us to do that in tomorrow's call.
Lisa: I'll send agenda for tomorrow's call.
Shadi: Introduces self.
Rachael: We are on AG status update.
... A couple of different things going on. Trying to wrap up 2.2 for next round of comments. We are starting conversations about TF, LVTF, how they integrate.
... We would want to bring that back into this call next month when we have more thoughts.
... We already talked about WCAG2ICT.
... I think that's everything.
... Any questions for us?
Lisa: I'm working on editing of content usable. Put together bibliography.
... Come from many W3C specs and files.
... My question is, should we make it... putting together resources... if anyone else needs bibliographies, they could just copy it and not re-invent it.
Rachael: Are you making resource pages, or going in content usable?
Lisa: At bottom of specs it has this "how you reference things".
... Trying to do that.
Rachael: Do we have any reference on bibliographies?
Michael: I don't know if... are you talking about turning content usable into a reference?
Lisa: I have this reference at the end. I took how we'd reference something from that. I used another one to get the reference for Aria, another for WCAG, I put them together.
Michael: Anything published to TR, you can get a reference.
... When you go to TR URI, take the part that doesn't have a date.
<jeanne> Creating a bibliography entry for W3C Recommendation https://www.w3.org/2013/02/stdref#appendix-biblio2 - might be outdated
Michael: Take the short name, put in square brackets, respec will do that.
Lisa: We don't have to do it ourselves?
<jeanne> http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr-biblio-ui
Michael: Respec will do it for you.
Roy: You could list all of the TR document you want to reference.
Lisa: I just done it manually.
... Thanks
Michael: The topic of glossary has come up, and being able to use some of the terms from content usable in other docs. I'm going to work on how that's done.
Jeanne: Awesome, need for Silver!
Michael: Respec does a spec, and in another spec you say you want to use that term. I haven't worked with it, but that's the basic idea.
... Do we want a harmonized WAI glossary?
... May be useful to put together a shared glossary.
... My action.
... It's in my todo list. Just not sure where.
Steve: That link is not working.
<hard to hear Steve>
Steve: That link to automation is not working.
Jeanne: Just pulled it from a bookmark I had.
... probably out-dated.
Michael: Might be. I do have that as a to do, will tackle next week.
Rachael: We've moved on to updates, let's continue with that. Lisa?
Lisa: Final list of editorial changes, draft responses for open issues. All these kind of things. We are going through the document from an editorial view.
... We were closing issues. We have to do consistency checks.
... I don't know we need more CFC's. Approved new icons. It's editorial.
... Hopefully will wrap up over next week.
... Then just process, announcements. Which means hopefully next week or two we will be able to, it's on agenda for tomorrow, to gather ideas on what our next focus will be on.
... We work better if we work one thing. We have to revisit our priorities.
... There is, one of the topics that keeps coming up is to focus more on mental health. We are going to have to go to beginning of that one.
... And we'll need to do some recruiting. We haven't voted on it, but I think mental health will be incorporated soon. If anyone knows people who have a strong background, would be appreciated.
... Recruiting will be an important piece.
Shadi: ACT - Mary Jo stepped down as co-facilitator.
... She will continue to participate in Silver.
... That changed dynamics. We've discussed possibility of merging community group and TF. We are looking at how Silver does things.
... Reducing overhead, one group develops, one group reviews, and there's a back and forth. This separation may not make sense now.
... The downside is that both sides are concerned about getting additional tasks and scope creep. We want to organize... we are exploring to make better use of resources.
... We have 2-3 rules that made it through process and are ready to submit to AG. Several more that are close.
... We don't have exact timeline. I don't think we'll make it in March, but hopefully before summer.
Rachael: Timing is good.
Shadi: Hopefully between major work of 2.2 and before announcements.
Rachael: Any plans for another co-facilitator.
Shadi: Depends on how we structure it. Wilco and Carlos were in community group, we are having discussions on how to map out. We'll come to AG chairs with a proposal.
... That would be a 3rd person, we are looking at how to break things down.
Rachael: Jeanne mentioned that she's reaching out to someone for testing Silver.
Shadi: Great!
Jeanne: More on the metrics than on detailed auditing. It's a higher level. We'll see how things develope.
Shadi: There is increasing interest in Europe, there's a Danish org that created a scoring method. It's interesting, instead of gaining points you work to zero, being no barriers found.
... Lot's of interesting research.
... We have a project called WAI co-op, we could organize a symposium. Just do an updated one, "what's the latest after these years".
... I know detlev and others have experience. Maybe that could inform Silver.
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/about/projects/wai-coop/
Jeanne: One of the challenges we've had is engaging the interest of people who have a real interest. To look at how we are trying to test Silver itself.
... The people who are working on it now aren't subject matter experts.
Shadi: It's a tough nut to crack.
... I put in a link. If you look under the "Advancement...", there might be other topics AG would need.
... One other hot question in EU is how far is natural language processing really, captions, etc. That could impact some of the requirements.
... Auto-captioning is where it's starting.
... Generally for AG, if there are topics, we'll work with research TF.
... We are experimenting with discussions feature of github.
<shadi> https://github.com/WAI-CooP/Topics/discussions
Shadi: We will be seeding with initial topics.
... Ideas will remain there for anybody interested.
... AG chairs may want to review and participate.
Jeanne: You prefer I go through chairs to request a topic for scoring systems? How would you like us to procede?
Shadi: It's all in motion. Let me know any thoughts you have, the topic of scoring, sampling we pages, other topics are on our radar.
... I'll send a note to this group, and I'll extent to Lisa and anybody else, it's not exclusive.
Lisa: I've a bit of concern, if this is going to be overwhelming for Coga participants. It's very githubby.
<jeanne> +1 Lisa
Lisa: I'm concerned that it will be limited to people who are familiar with github, and will knock out some folk.
Shadi: We want to do a separate interface that focuses on the discussion.
... Good points lisa, not just for coga, but for non-techies as well.
... It's hot off the press.
Lisa: When you think your ready, send it to the group, and we'll see how well it works.
Rachael: Exciting. Jeanne can you speak to Silver?
Jeanne: We just had our comments on FWPD closed on Friday, we have close to 200 comments, we are currently working on processing the comments. Just trying to classify at this point.
... Working on next working draft. Hopefully we'll have a high level approach for silver and gold. Not committed to yet, and there are a lot of comments that need to be integrated.
Rachael: Anybody else?
Lisa: I recommend that the issue... we went through several iterations, we found the spreadsheet Rachael made, that's what we used.
Rachael: Spreadsheet helped.
Jeanne: Very interested in approach.
Lisa: We had a hybrid.
... We didn't find a great way, we logged the issues into the spreadsheet.
Rachael: I don't think we generated any action items. Any new topics?