<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

Introductions

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: rachael

Lisa: Thanks to Rachael

<johnkirkwood> +1 to Rachael ;)

action , https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Timelines_and_actions

Lisa: First update is that Making Content Usable is about to go out. We are finishing things off. There may be a few editorial changes as we close out the issues. If something is big, then we will let the list know. That will stop in the next few weeks as the parent groups Approve it.
... after CFC passes tomorrow, then we will send it to the APA and AG. If something substantive comes back, we will review that. Schedule is publishing in 2-3 weeks time unless something comes back.

Steve: We had a wiki page of things we had to go through.

Lisa: I think we went through it.

<stevelee_> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/List_for_final_edit#General_editorial

Steve: Shawn raised a question about casing. Not sure if we got to everything.

Roy: some issues in Glossary section.

Lisa: We are expecting more editorial changes but I don't think the casing of the heading comes back.
... Directly after this, we will have an editors call to wrap up these small issues.

David: APA had a presentation on polyfill. We recorded the presentation and everyone should take a look.

Lisa: Lets send it to the list.
... I have note to write to Janina for the recording.

David: The presentation itself is on the APA page but we don't have the recording link just yet.

Lisa: We are not finished with the whole process, but our role as a taskforce will hopefully be done by tomorrow.
... HUGE pat on the back to everyone who has participated. Its a mamoth work. It is quite groundbreaking. Well done everyone.

Rachael: Congratulations to all.

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

<Ffazio> Media Queries Presentation Info Link: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Media_features_use_cases_for_personalization

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

Lisa: Planning Actions. Jenny was going to work on an image subgroup. She is not available so we won't do that. Justine is also not on the call today but I will send her a reminder email that we want a united icon set.
... we have all the icons but we wanted a bit more polish so the icons all look like they are from the same set. Roy , you were going to add the links to the user stories and patterns in appendix A?

Roy: I have already done this.

Lisa: Next is general preparation. I'm afraid that is on you.

Roy: I will do that before publication.

Lisa: Rachael you are working on closing issues?

Rachael: Should be done by tomorrow evening.

Lisa: I am working on acknowledgements and will check the final check wiki page.
... the acknowledgements that I wanted to add. There are a couple of people who I thought had made a strong contribution but they are not current members. Listed name (see email). They all made notable contributions so I think they should be in the second list. Any concerns?

+1 to adding them to the contributions list.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<Ffazio> 0

<Rain> +1

<Allie> +1

Lisa: If anyone wants to put a +1. +1 to support, 0 is no strong opinion, -1 to object. Silence is support.
... lists names and contributions.
... Any questions before we take up the next item?
... To be clear, we have 2 lists. The first list is key contributors, participants active during publication. The second list is significant contributors and previous participants.

Kirkwood: Sounds good.

<johnkirkwood> +1

Lisa: The second thing is what the next priorities are. This is for the next 2 years. That seems like a good timeframe. We need to bear in mind that even though we have a number of people, we don't have everyone. We will need to go through the list. We can't close everything today.

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

Lisa: we have a few links. The first is a wiki page where we closed on our priorities 1.5 years ago. We made them for 3 years. We finished year 1 and much of year 2. Year 3 is updating research.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YH4YETBmAdhfL9p8FK5ATUiXDGibeJh66psQCSUAvLQ/edit#gid=0

Lisa: the conclusion was based on looking at the following spreaadhseet
... What we did before was put everything we wanted to do in a spreadsheet. Then labeled D1 or D2 and then sorted. Then everything else went in the wishlist. Over the past few weeks, we've been asking people if there are things we want to add to please add them so we can do this exercise again.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Mar/0044.html

Lisa: I also sent an email to the list entitled what's next. That is a way to make some kind of order. If we try to acheive everything, we won't acheive anything. We need to be ruthless. If its ok, we will start with the email and see if that makes sense and then we'll go look at the spreadsheet to see priorities. Then we will classify them and order them. We won't do all that today. Lets do 20 minutes.
... before we start, on the agenda we have images which we can't do today. We have dissemination but can defer that. I do want to invite new people to an orientation call. For Allie and Chris, please send me a hi email and whether you are interested in an orienation call. Then we can find a time. Is there anything else that urgently needs to be done?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Mar/0044.html

Lisa: otherwise we will spend the rest of the time on priorities. We do have an editors call following.
... we can start by reviewing major decisions and methodology. That might be reviewing methodology for research papers, proposals, scope. Look at recruiting priorities so if we take on a topic that doesn't have the right expertise, we need to find them.
... these are major priorities so they need to come back. Does that make sense. Is that ok?

<LisaSeemanKest> is that ok

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<cweidner> +1

1. Review our methodology for research

2 Update the research model and gap analysis

Rachael: Need help understanding.

Lisa: just looking at 1. This is the first thing we would need to do before we form a subgroup.
... so when a subgroup such as internationalization gets started, these need to be decided on and approved by the overall group.

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

krisannekinney: Is the methodology in IRC?

<Ffazio> The Media Queries presentation in APA along with Personalization TF is a great opportunity for collaboration with COGA

Lisa: There are different things. Current methodology used for research modules and issue papers. There is a decision policy that was recently updated. But the methodology we used for research is 4-5 years old. We need to at least remind ourselves.
... that is an overreaching thing to agree on. Then we could do a mixture of things. One is research modules to update the gap analysis. I think we can handle 2-4 topics at the same time and do 2-3 rounds. So if we have 8 topics we want to look at, we may end up doing 6. So we prioritize them and see how they are going before deciding to do 3 rounds.
... the second thing we need to do is work with other groups. This can eat up all our time. We may want to set priorities. APA, EO, Silver, and Internationalization all want to work with us which is fantastic but this could be all we do. We may want to pick 3 groups where we have a liason and we discuss once a month and 3 that we discuss every other month. If we have a joint paper with them they would be a higher priority.
... lastly there are other pieces that are important. Creating a web version of Content Usable. Some are EO type things. Making testable statements for each pattern in Content Usable. Another is making videos with EO. These are all fantastic things. I suspect we can manage 1 at a time.
... If we have 3 subgroups working on new issue papers, 3-4 people acting as liasons we can then work on the web version. Then when the web version is done, we can work on the next.

krisannekinney: I think EO is starting to look at future videos so please get in touch with me.

Lisa: Does that sound like a way forward?
... 3 research topics in subgroups, 2 high priority liaisons, 2 lower priority liaisons,and 1 other thing at a time.

David: I pasted in a link that would also be good.

Lisa: John Kirkwood, does this make sense?

kirkwood: Yes it does.

<Ffazio> My preference would be: 1. Mental Health Issue Paper 2. work with APA Personalization TF on Personalization

Lisa: First we get methodology worked out. Then we work several things at the same time. Then we work 3 research topics in subgroups at the same time. Then we do another 3. Then we have liaisons with other groups. Some high priority and some will get less time. Finally we will work the other bits and pieces and we will try to do 1 at a time.
... so we would get the web version up, then we do the testable version, etc.
... does that make sense?

kirkwood: That makes sense. What kind of scheduling?

lisa: I think research papers will take 3 monhts. Liaison ongoing. Each other topic.

<LisaSeemanKest> over view of fraimwork working forward :

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<Rain> +1

+1

<johnkirkwood> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<Albert> +1

<Allie> +1

<Ffazio> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: roy

scribe+

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YH4YETBmAdhfL9p8FK5ATUiXDGibeJh66psQCSUAvLQ/edit#gid=0

LisaSeemanKest: I will take an action to put things into category
... we start on prioritizing them

David: it would be easier if we agree on potential priorities and then for any potential barriers people pick you know the ones that have the most interest in taking on know

Lisa: I'll do is I'll send out three emails with a list of all these different things. And we'll do it over three weeks, and people can choose, you know, three or four things that they think are priority one.
... anyone want to explain any of these issues that they add these items that they added onto the site?
... i18n issues we should take into consideration, one is comes from Japan.
... some technical with space use

<Ffazio> I feel like this dovetails perfectly with personalization

Lisa: good idea
... We have already some on Arabic and hebrew but I think that's just a starting point.

David: I think this is an interesting one because you know the research paper will tell us what we need to do, and I feel like partnering with the personalization task Force will give us an idea of how we can implement it.
... this one might last a long time.

Lisa: another is cultural
... different cultural create different needs
... that would be another i18n aspect
... third one, probably should consider is not being a native English speaker has a lot in common.
... t's not necessarily by choice either.
... another thing is audience
... people often have a mandate to help migrants, understand content and integrate in

David: It's interesting you said that Makoto from our accessibility guidelines working group did a webinar with mechanics the plain language of it and how much easier it is to understand

Lisa: I think three priorities for research at a time is probably what we can cope with now, but very interesting topics.

Rachael: first thing we need to do is decide what we're doing, and then recruit.

Lisa: I think we need think about recruiting, we need for us decide who because it should take mental health right, we're going to need to recruit that mix that golden mix between academics, people who support people with mental health issues, and the People with mental health issue

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)

Succeeded: s/2 lower priority, /2 lower priority liaisons,/
Default Present: Albert, LisaSeemanKest, Ffazio, Rain, Rachael, stevelee_, johnkirkwood, Roy, krisannekinney
Present: Albert, LisaSeemanKest, Ffazio, Rain, Rachael, stevelee_, johnkirkwood, Roy, krisannekinney

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

Regrets: justine, jennie
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: roy
Inferring ScribeNick: Roy
Scribes: Rachael, roy
ScribeNicks: Rachael, Roy

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

Found Date: 11 Mar 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.)