coga call actions
<lisas_> actions: https://
Lisa: Let's review action items.
… EO, working on how people with disabilities use the web. Handling as a subgroup meeting.
Rain: For mobile TF, we sent working document and will have a conversation.
Lisa: EO wrote back in response to our feeedback.
Rain: Some feedback may not belong in Github. Should we have a meeting to discuss?
Lisa: Let's have a conversation with them.
Michael: We should interact in the most efficient way. Let's take to planning.
Jennie, image subgroup - We scheduled the meeting and will discuss with designer.
Julie: Haven't made a lot of progress. Looking for ways to have TF and community group submit info for clear language.
… Is it essential to support submitting screen scrabs vs. putting in text?
Rain: Would be good to offer screen grabs as an option since in some cases examples may not be evident via text alone.
<kirkwood> agree with screen grab but maybe we could describe as well
Rain: We want to make it as easy as possible. Let's not require screen grabs.
John K: In certain cases, screen grabs might be necessary due to complexity of descriptions.
Lisa: We made a form for mental health lit review and received mixed feedback. Consider Google doc for free-flowing thoughts or sending info via email.
<kirkwood> +1 to Lisa’s alternative as well
<Rain> +1 to alternative, enable people to provide the information the easiest way for them (form or Google doc, individual has the choice)
Julie: We should have more than 1 way for people to submit.
… Is community group using a separate but similar form? Any benefit to having two forms?
John R: I prefer web addresses.
<kirkwood> +1 to URL and screenshot
Jennie: We should consider people who have difficulty describing in words. In those cases, URL and screen shot might be the best option.
… We should support multiple communication styles.
Rain: Addressing Julie's question. Community group has a form that they are still working on.
… When complete, that form might serve our need.
… Form is still receiving feedback and will not be ready before March 3.
… Form is intended to collect good and bad examples of all experiences. Will not be specific to clear language.
… Rashmi mentioned that the form is geared toward collecting bad examples, so community group is looking at supporting both good and bad examples.
Rashmi: Screen grabs might be helpful for referring to later. We can provide text for images.
John K: I'm weary of publishing live/bad examples. Is that an issue for the W3C?
Lisa: Good point. Our screen shots shouldn't be made public.
<Jennie> +1 and that will support designers using those to help with designs
Rain: We've locked down spaces so only our TF has access.
Lisa: Rachael, can you update us on AG?
Rachael: We are primarily looking at WCAG 2.2 and visible controls. Third party use cases will be addressed.
… The following week, we'll focus on the charter and WCAG 3.0. COGA should prioritize attending on March 3.
work statement https://
docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 1m7-BSm9IFWN9tszIf24oVnFRpq-4n27CKCiXXxMqaYs/ edit#heading=h.mzlp67fqhcve
Lisa: We provisionally approved work statement and anticipate comments from group chairs.
… <Lisa screen shares> Looking at objective for subset of mental health conditions.
… There were concerns that it was too vague. People won't know who is included.
… We wrote a subset of mental health conditions that have clear research and can be integrated into Content Usable.
… We might be able to add more user needs, personas, or design guides.
… Any questions/concerns?
… Adding the word "intent" gives us leeway in terms of level of publishing.
… Adjusting "publish as a note" and removed "published as a W3C statement".
… We intend to advance to a W3C statement.
… Used "create and propose a working draft" rather than "publish a working draft".
… Makes it so we don't have to publish as an independent working draft.
Rachael: To put something in a charter, we need a draft.
… Timing works out very well.
Lisa: We haven't told parent working groups of our intention.
… If we get a draft in a year, that's when AG begins the rechartering process.
… We can also publish through APA. We can publish as part of APA, AG, or both.
Michael: I don't think rules prohibit publishing through both. If published through only one group, TF would not receive credit.
John K: Would we have to publish through both groups for COGA to receive credit? Seems fine if we are prepared for that.
Michael: That's an unofficial interpretation on my part.
Lisa: Its good to get feedback from chairs to ensure they are on-board with our plans.
<lisas_> are we happy with the reviced work statment
<Jennie> +1 and thank you to all that worked on it!
Lisa: Should we send to the list?
<Rachael> Send it to the list, this is the final version
<kirkwood> pls send to the list
Rachael: Its the final version from chair's view. We should run by groups.
Michael: A CfC is not required based on my interpretation.
docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 1JXa94s2lbzJ0v9FHasxxws3CsOcljHHBdlQ2VOxYqAQ/ edit#heading=h.ykqwx9vsxdya
Lisa: We aren't including coordinated work with other groups since that is based on their timelines.
… These are things COGA will work on by ourselves.
… Column 1 includes things for Content Usable. Column 2 is research aspects.
… Divided into rows for 6 months-1 year stages.
… Next year, we will finish mental health and images, as well as community feedback.
… Also include considerations for structural changes.
… We have a draft of the paper for research module.
… Did an initial literary review and it is now out-of-date.
… Issue papers include bots, wayfinding. Most is almost ready to publish.
… There are other issues we need to handle before publishing an update.
… We suggest limiting subgroups to 6 items.
… For Content Usable, we will edit, develop new patterns/personas, and address internationalization.
… We'd begin a lit review of research modules since we will have finished mental health.
… Then work on any missing content and releasing a working draft.
Lisa: Any questions?
Jennie: You did a great review. It is a lot of work that needs to be completed/tracked/managed/edited.
… only request is that when we move to different components, can we divide into sections that can be assigned to folks?
Lisa: We want information from issue papers to go into Content Usable.
Jennie: Reminds me of editing Content Usable. I didn't fully understand how much time it would take to do a full edit.
… When we get to those pieces, can we assign out smaller components of work?
… Any questions about what we'll be doing? Do we agree with the scope?
… The only way we can do this is to set a time limit and move on to next topic.
… Its a compromise between time on task and how long a task really needs to take.
… This is hard but doable. We'll move on to next stage even if previous step isn't fully complete.
<lisas_> +1: happy, 0 more time, -1 unhappy
Lisa: If you need more time, please put in 0.
John K: I'd like to see a summary in IRC of what we are voting on.
… I want to ensure we're able to manage the workload and follow through.
Lisa: Anyone else feel the same?
<Jennie> Agree with John K - maybe a little more detail will help me vote.
Lisa: Jennie and John K. have a point. We might need to work on this some more.
Jennie: Having measurable goals will be helpful. For example, a lit review of 5 papers.
John K: That works for me.