Meeting minutes
Publication and revision of CAPTCHA Note.
<JPaton> John_Paton present+
JW: We are planning to publish with those adjustments in the FPWD - CFC finished on 6th of Dec
There has been some fine tuning of the announcements, thanks Josh and Janina
JW: I like the latest edits
JW: All lining up well - so are there any other matters that need to be resolved
JS: If we are happy with the messaging - then we have all in place.
We are publishing on the 16th
If we are in agreement on messaging - would the rest want to hear a read thru - we can do that.
JS: We should also ask for feedback on the Turing tokens etc
Privacy pass is implimented by Cloudflare.
JW: I did suggest that if there are other proposals of note - we want to know about those.
JW: Has anyone any issue with the slight expansion of our usual things?
JS: We are exposing things already that we want to change - I'm not comfortable with the standalone section.
JW: I've thoughts on the organisation.
JW: I can take an action to start opening issues on the tracker
JS: Go for it.
<gives overview of the things we want feedback on>
<jasonjgw> Janina: notes we agreed to add section 3.4 to the matters on hich review is sought.
JOC: I've updated the announcement for Shawn
JS: Anything else?
JS: If Shawn ok's it, it will go live 16th of Dec - we have time
Synchronization Accessibility User Requirements.
JW: Notes Steve has been working on open issues
Lets discuss
SN: All the issues that were brought up, look like they are old and may need to be closed.
<SteveNoble> https://
This is about ASR accuracy
JOC: If we are happy to close this, then I can do that.
SN: The changes we made take care of the point
We made edits AI => Machine Learning, as well as other caveats
We've covered these issues that Nigel raised
JW: Any disagreements?
<jasonjgw> Josh will close any issues after the meeting on which decisions were taken
<SteveNoble> https://
SN: Josh added this section to the editors note
JW: Fully integrated
SN: We can close
JOC: I'll take care of that.
<SteveNoble> https://
SN: Jason was to create a biblo.js file - or I can do it with some info.
JW: I can do it.
JS: We do want to do it.
<Discussion on biblio.js>
JOC: Takes an action to create a biblio.js for SAUR.
Needed by 16th Dec
<SteveNoble> https://
SN: This was an early issue raised before the draft was completed
This was all done - to be closed
<SteveNoble> https://
SN: This is the addtion of a summary and recommendation section
JW: There was another related question
Should we mark the earlier one as a duplicate.
This is related to issue 248
<SteveNoble> https://
SN: The other substantive comments were from James Sandford - suggesting a rewrite of a study that he did
Suggestion discussion around the translation of latency and caption.
<SteveNoble> https://
<SteveNoble> https://
SN: I'm setting aside some time to read that study and figure out what to say in the draft
SN: These last three require some work 248, 247, 237 - the rest can be closed
JOC: I'll take care of that
jasonjgw: Seems that we have covered SAUR issues.
Accessibility of remote Meetings.
scott_h: A number of open issues on remote meetings
scott_h: Issue #261 - automated captions
scott_h: Commenter mentioned issues with caption accuracy
scott_h: Suggesting that we mention ASR is better than one at all, but understanding that human captions are better
scott_h: correction "...better than none at all"
scott_h: Issue #260 screen sharing
scott_h: Discussion around how API impacts screen sharing
scott_h: A lot depends upon the content actually being shared
scott_h: Some 3rd party plugins may help
jasonjgw: Most times this is just shared as a video screen; the general recommendation has been to share files separately
jasonjgw: Not sure if there is an interest in tool developers to solve any of these issues in the underlying technologies
scott_h: Since these 3rd party tools are not well developed, we may just want to close this issue
scott_h: We mention making resources available to all participants in an accessible version before a meeting as the goal
janina: Point that having to depend upon a screen reader output during a meeting is a hindrance to participation
janina: COGA is reviewing lots of documents
janina: They are currently using Google docs to capture their comments (not GitHub)
janina: Will pass on links to these docs when they are available to us
janina: Will look at a future meeting date for a joint call
jasonjgw: We will need to time to digest their comments; so probably will have to wait to January for a joint call
jasonjgw: Our next call is Dec 15; last for the year