<Jennie> Here are some other scribing commands: https://
Thank you Jennie
Lisa: First item : Content Usable is going to survey in AG - will then go to CFC in AG and APA
Lisa: some suggestions for change, not huge. hopefully over the next week we can review changes, hopeful for next week CFC.
how we are working with silver
Lisa: we talked with Jan on working with Silver and she is acting like a liaison. Every quarter they will try to put in one new COGA "thing", unsure what it will be at this time.
Lisa: we want to choose one thing for Silver to pick up and make a small subgroup to work with Jan to get it through the silver process. Jan will join the call next week to describe the process.
Lisa: each time we submit one people can volunteer to be part of the group to get it in the Silver format. And the group will report back to us.
Rachael: we piloted it with the first working draft and it was successful.
Lisa: our group going to have to prioritize
Lisa: Sent requirements for XR and RTC for the group to look at.
Lisa: APA made a list of requirements and we should look at them from the COGA perspective.
Lisa: want to know what other people think and have a look at requirements.
Rain: what's the best way to review this and give feedback? Time limits felt like it wasn't the right way to describe it.
<Fazio_> I give a coga weekly report in APA
Lisa: I think we should create a google doc to give feedback. OR we can all open issues ourselves as we find them in the APA Github repository.
David: when its ready to present to APA, I can give that feedback during the APA meeting.
Lisa: Do we want individual issues or present group feedback that David can present as a report?
<Jennie> +1 to John K's point about AR being a potential helper for those with cognitive disabilities.
John: Such a big bucket to do virtual reality AND augmented reality. A lot of things about augmented reality that could be helpful in the future. Virtual reality could be triggering for someone with cognitive issues.
<Rain> +1 to John K's comment, as well
John: would ike to see how augmented reality could help people with cognitive disabilites
<JustineP> +1 to Rachael's point
Rachael: anyone can comment on these specs. can cause a lot of problems if you get a lot of comments from groups that aren't a cohesive set of agreed upon responses.
+1 to Rachael's point.
<johnkirkwood> +1 to Rachael
Jennie: there are other groups within the COGA umbrella that could have issues with augmented reality. it may be helpful to give user stories to point back to, so we can create scenarios where it could be helpful, but also difficult.
<Fazio_> psychosis for instance
Lisa: I'll send them a note saying we'll review it and make a google doc that we can all comment on.
<Fazio_> google doc
<Rain> Google doc
<JustineP> Google doc
Lisa: any objections to a google doc?
Lisa: google doc it is.
<Rachael> To be fair to them, they requested we engage earlier and we were swamped with content usable.
Lisa: real time communication - wasn't sure what the scope was? Should we ask them to come to a meeting to discuss the scope?
<Rachael> s/To be fair to them, they requested we engage earlier and we were swamped with content usable. /Now that cotent usable is done, we are able to engage earlier with groups.
Jennie: I put a public comment on the FCC site about RTC. I think it does have application for people with cognitive and learning disabilities, but I don't think they are considered in the specs. Having someone come and talk about it could be helpful.
Lisa: Does it include bots?
Jennie: discussion about interacting with 911 with text message. i don't recall conversations about bots.
Lisa: it says to make sure there's support, but we need to make the support usable.
Lisa: Should we open another google doc to comment on user needs?
Lisa: They need research on this and how it affects users with cognitive disabilities
Rachael: if we're engaging with APA now we should see them earlier. Who else do we need to engage with?
David: they brought up us participating with APA in their rechartering. So i am more active with them. So it will be better from here on out.
<Rachael> +1 to a process. :)
Justine: I work with Jason White and would speak with him about having a closer relationship with the group.
priorities - working with groups
Justine: I have updated icons. Some have improved, not sure about all though.
Justine: will set up a call with John to look at the icons.
<Jennie> Justine - can you copy E.A. and myself on the invite in case we can attend?
Lisa: looking at the spreadsheet for first priorities.
<Fazio_> they're very receptive to us though
Lisa: work with Silver, APA, working with other groups should take up to 1/2 to 1/3 of our time.
<JustineP> +1 good idea to be proactive with other groups
Lisa: here are the groups I could think of : Silver, EO (video work), APA (review specs), personalization, research question task force, internationalization (personas or project work), AG (WCAG), ACT (will help getting our things into Silver)
Lisa: WAI web site, W3C Tools and processes. Helps us get involved with other groups.
Lisa: Silver, APA and AG is all ongoing work. Other groups is co-project work.
Lisa: I think we'll need to prioritize them on what needs to come first. and a good process for working together.
John: I feel comfortable keeping my relationship with Silver and AG. I would be interested in seeing how we can publicize the work we are doing.
Lisa: have we forgotten groups?
John: Was there a VR group?
David: I think it was a task force.
Lisa: Level 1. Top priorities. Level 2. Important but maybe not the top Level 3. we want to do but based on time.
Lisa: do we send it to the list or give it an attempt now?
<johnkirkwood> try it now
<JustineP> +1 to APA
Lisa: Priority 1 - Silver and AG. should we add APA review specifications?
+1 to APA
<Rain> +1 to APA
<LisaSeemanKest> p1: silver, ag, and apa specification
<Rachael> +1 APA
John: work with EO may be important to publicize what we're doing and get it out to the audience so we can get that information out.
<stevelee> +1 to EO joining a meeting
<Jennie> Looking forward to that!
Lisa: have EO come to the meeting in 2 weeks to talk about what we do and how EO can help COGA.
Lisa: Make the Priorities tentative until we're sure what everyone does.
Lisa: maybe we want RQTF to come talk about Research Questions.
KA: Invite Jason White to a meeting in the future and invite internationalization to a future meeting too.
<LisaSeemanKest> Silver on the right track / working with silver 1
<LisaSeemanKest> work more with EO 2
<LisaSeemanKest> work more with APA / review specifications 1
<LisaSeemanKest> internationlization 3
<LisaSeemanKest> personlization (APA) 2
<LisaSeemanKest> AG (WCAG) 1
<LisaSeemanKest> ACT 3
<LisaSeemanKest> working with the WAI web site (EO) 3
<LisaSeemanKest> rqtf (APA) 2
<LisaSeemanKest> w3c tool and process 3
David: are these just priorities of interfacing with other groups and we can still prioritize documents we want to work on?
Lisa: we want to prioritize what groups we work on for that 1/2 or 1/3 of our time.
Lisa: are we ok with the prioritzation
Steve: VR group - APA has been working on a working draft, Josh O'Connor has been working on it.
Steve: its an ongoing activity
Lisa: bits tab - some projects are quite big. Some are necessary for Content Usable v2. We have a lot of research to do before the next version.
Lisa: finishing issues and comment processing has to be priority 1.
Lisa: online version of the design guide that Steve has been working on - priority 1.
<LisaSeemanKest> online version of Design Guide p1 - active
<Rachael> +1 to the online guide. It was part of closing issues
Lisa: not hearing any objections
<Rachael> maybe the videos
Lisa: maybe tracing the research?
<Jennie> +1 this would help for Silver possibly too - having testable pieces.
<Rain> +1, and I'd love to be involved
Rachael: videos may segway well with what EO is doing. Testable statements - if we did some testable statements with ACT, it would be helpful to ahve a COGA centered testable statement. Could be helpful for Silver.
<Jennie> I would also like to be involved in that
Lisa: next would be videos and a "test" testable statement.
<johnkirkwood> Testable statement would be very helpful
Lisa: priority 3 - getting the research in order - think that would be helpful for Silver.
<Jennie> Apologies - have to drop
<LisaSeemanKest> does this sound ok?
See spreadsheet for priorities.
<LisaSeemanKest> 2 wikipages, and housekeeping
<LisaSeemanKest> single example - p2 making testable sub statements for the design patterns
<LisaSeemanKest> active -p1 online version of Design Guide
<LisaSeemanKest> p3 getting Research as online resources
<LisaSeemanKest> next year Glossary V2 - terms from gapanalis and research
<LisaSeemanKest> next year support docs for WCAG 2.2
<LisaSeemanKest> next year mapping design patterns and different web functions and real world use
<LisaSeemanKest> 2 videos of user needs / stories
<LisaSeemanKest> next year resource pages for technologies
<LisaSeemanKest> next year restucture objectives, / patterns for a version 2 of content useable
<LisaSeemanKest> next year More persona
<LisaSeemanKest> active - p1 finishe issues and comments processing
<LisaSeemanKest> pending (can not do it yet) add new user needs patterns etc into content useable
<LisaSeemanKest> next year issues marked as "next version"
<LisaSeemanKest> 2 singles testable statment as trial
<LisaSeemanKest> p3 trace to each pattern to reserch
Lisa: any objections?
<LisaSeemanKest> any obections
<johnkirkwood> agree with priorites, maybe to increase priority of testable
<Rachael> I woul dlike to see the whole list of priorities to approve
<Rachael> but for this piece +1
<Albert> I would like to have more time to think about it.
<johnkirkwood> agree would like to see that single page as well
<Albert> Yes, that would be really helpful
Lisa: will put in a single page of priorities
Lisa: sounds liek we're close but they aren't written in stone.