<Lisa> scribe: jenny
<Lisa> scribe: jennie
<Lisa> zakim next item
Lisa: Did anyone have updates from CSUN?
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlxR5QyxiKwXKFAuMgNeT3Vs8bpKtFX2QW7qBOXRSng/edit#slide=id.p1
Rachael: I thought the face to
face was useful. John and Jennie were on the call.
... We went through different conformance models that were
proposed.
... We are working on getting a draft out in the next few
weeks.
... Then we will work on getting guidelines ready.
... I think we will rework the document to focus on
ideas.
... This slide deck has the different ideas we talked about in
slide form
... You can skip the background, and start on slide 16
... The ideas I will try to draft are:
... Functional needs (disability categories, and needs) - I
will skip these
... The structure for WCAG 3 is pretty much the same as the
draft COGA is reviewing
... Assertions is the big change
... Scopes have not changed for a while (slide 22)
... Slide 23: the list of guidelines the working group
approved
... These are placeholder level, grouped by expertise needed
....Goal: have the conversation to go through the
research and writing process
... Each will have a subgroup for 8 weeks trying to get better
outcomes
... If you have interest in a particular area, consider
joining
Lisa: Placeholder - at what point should we make sure we have the guidelines in there we think we will need?
Rachael: I think the right thing
to do is look at the list
... Ask yourself which of these guidelines needs COGA
expertise
... We took everyone from WCAG 2, and as much as we could from
Content Usable, put them in a list, and regrouped them
... (This is in another doc)
John K: I think all of them
Rachael: There will be 8
subgroups working together at a time
... This doesn't mean that is the only input time, just the
first input time
... There are some that are COGA-centered
...Example: provides help
... site does not cause harm (meant to include things like
mental health triggers)
... They all have touches on COGA, but there are some you will
want to ensure someone from the taskforce is included
Lisa: Do you have a timeline for
expecting a reasonably stable editors draft to be
created?
... We should be sure to have input in before then?
... Is now the right time?
... Or is it still experimental?
Rachael: Different pieces are at
different points
... The pieces I asked you to review are further along than
this is
... Stable is different in how we are doing this.
... COGA has interacted with groups that don't come to us until
the end.
... This is not the same.
... This is iterative.
... You can engage as much as you want, and this is not the
last chance
... But, your input is valuable.
... And I try to make sure that when something is getting
closer to maturity
... The guidelines are placeholder - absolutely going to
change, but we are trying to move it to exploratory
... It is a good time for COGA to jump in
Jan: In regards to the 8 week
subgroups
... I am assuming this is being organized through AGWG
... And we would need to be a part of those AGWG meetings?
Rachael: We have been
experimenting with subgroups
... They are independent, but come and report to the main group
at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and at the end
... It is working really well
... The hope for this set is 3 sprints
... Publish a document which I will send to you as it gets
written
... Sometime in the next 6 weeks
... And we are kicking off the subgroups
... Each meets independent of the AGWG meeting
... We are trying to bring in expertise we don't have in the
AGWG group
... We will use the invited expert structure so we have a
broader expertise set
... You can engage in subgroups of interest only for the 8
weeks and not have to engage with the AG as a whole
Lisa: Do you have a schedule of which groups are happening when?
Rachael: I think we will try to
take expertise into account
... 1st ones: site aids navigation, prevent users from making
mistakes, controls have correct markup
... Content is visually ordered
... Site minimizes interruptions
... If you can tell me COGA's priorities, I can try to get some
of these moved around
Lisa: Can you give the link to this?
Rachael: I will create a cleaner document, and share it with everyone
Julie: Rachael - this guideline
(placeholder) list
... The clear language here is from the 8 week sprint where
Jeanne has been joining us?
Rachael: yes, so we have you listed as the lead
Julie: Ok, great
Rachael: The tests - the names
have changed, the concepts have not
... Proposals in draft deal with levels and percentages
... Some are required, some are optional
...Bronze: just made up of required items
...Silver: bronze + some ...Gold:
bronze plus a larger percentage
<scribe> ...New: prerequisites/preconditions
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: These are things
you can to in procurement, or quick assessments
... Or people preparing for testing ...Example:
can the video player display captions
... If this isn't there, no need to test captions yet
...Concept: a preset number of tests people can
run to see if accessibility is even possible
... And Gregg came up with a way to build in technology
advances
... As something becomes more testable and achievable it moves
up from gold to bronze ...Example: sign language
is an organizational practice, pretty cost prohibitive for all
videos
... But as automated sign language improves, we may make an
assertion around automated sign language
... Then if it becomes high quality, it would move to
bronze
... As things become more definitive they can change levels
Julie: Prerequisites sounds like it below bronze?
Rachael: no. It is not meant to
be a level
... We do not want a level lower than WCAG 2's approximate
level
... We don't want people to declare that level as "done"
... It is like a checklist
... Let's say you are procuring 5 things
... Instead of doing a full WCAG assessment, you do a check
against the preconditions
... If 3/5 fail, you don't want to bother doing a full
assessment
John K: shouldn't it be preassessment?
Rachael: Yes, the name is something still being considered
<kirkwood> pre-assessment -suggestion
Julie: It seems a bit like it needs reframing
Rachael: and, it may be a bad
idea. It is not even at placeholder
... It is something that might be worth thinking about
... We don't want it framed as an automated test level
... It should be based on what kind of test it is.
... Thinking about the most basic level that some things depend
on
... Please send me an email if you have other thoughts on
this
Rain: I don't think it is a bad
idea. I think it is great.
... It saves a lot of time and energy.
... To give a more tactile example - if someone can't walk at
the moment, you don't evaluate the person's joints
... So you don't do the evaluation, and mark as
unevaluated
... Then other measures can be taken before doing a proper
evaluation
... This determines: is this at a place yet where it can be
evaluated, or does it still have a ways to go before doing an
assessment
Rachael: that is a great way to
frame it
... We will try to write this up in a better way
... 3 other options
... 1. Stackable outcomes
... instead of breaking things out into success criteria broken
into different levels
... We would have outcomes put together and some type of
level
... You can see things together in a single location
... 2. Adjectival Ratings: we are still talking about
this
... 3. Issue Severity: this is not dropped, but we don't have
great solutions for it
Lisa: Thank you
... I think there are 2 things we need to do as a group
... 1. Identify which are the ones we think are the most
important - COGA gives strong input
... 2. A check on which ones we think are missing
... What is the best way to go about doing that?
... Does someone want to take it as an action item and lead it
next week?
... Is anyone volunteering?
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsNS1z_WBt3Ey30m-At8V87jYeM65KoWSR7L3SRR3T4/edit
Lisa: We may want to make a
spreadsheet or document and people can vote on it
... We can vote through the document
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to explain document
Rachael: This document has the
guideline name (ties to the other document)
... It has the success criteria from WCAG 2.2
... Sometimes it will also say things that are in
addition
... Like came from Content Usable
... This is a result of the work taking each guideline and
breaking it into all the parts tied into it
... I would recommend copying this document over
Lisa: Rachael - the 1st one was
really important, lots from Content Usable
... Navigation, being easy to use
... But the table were the WCAG ones, not the COGA ones
... You would not get the kind of hierarchy discussions we put
into Content Usable as an outcome
... That kind of is a 3rd thing - are the outcomes including
the COGA perspective
... Sometimes a specific success criteria excludes some user
needs
<kirkwood> Good point, Lisa
Lisa: Is not the right time to ensure Content Usable patterns are included here
Rachael: That is what the
subgroups are doing
... They are taking concepts, that are based in the success
criteria
... The group of 3 or 4 (subgroup) will do a deep dive
... They will look at information from mobile, Content Usable,
research
... And suggest what the outcomes should be
... Adding them here (in Proposal #2 for Organizing Guidelines
by Use) can work
<Github> https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues/2: References to Research item 41 is misformatted
Rachael: But reviewingin
September would be helpful
... we are about to send an email to ask who would like to work
on different topics
... Then if you only have a few people but know others are
needed
... We can work with you to recruit someone to work on these in
addition to those we already have
Rain: Is it possible to work asynchronously?
Rachael: every subgroup will be
light, and small.
... And that is a good question - I will add the question to
the survey
... Thank you for the idea
Lisa: I will put it in a document
tomorrow, and send it out
... You can add comments for things you think are missing
... I think the errors one is also important
Jan: I think I am having trouble
following
... The last document you showed with the guidelines,
tables
... I think because that initial group is going to be doing a
deep dive
... I think it would be helpful if COGA can stay on top of the
schedule, and add this as an agenda in our meeting
<Lisa> +1 to jan
Jan: To include what the
subgroups should be reviewing
... Are you expecting each subgroup to have a volunteer?
... Or that only a few would be reviewed at a time?
Rachael: We have 24 subgroups -
we will do 3 sprints of 8
... Once I see the listing of which ones you prioritize, we can
spread them out over the sprints
... And, once those come back, there will be more opportunities
to add in
Jan: When the deep dive is done,
it would be ideal if we had some comments in there before this
is done
... I think the earlier we can get the COGA concepts in, the
better
... I know there are competing interests, but I want to be sure
we think through how best to staff
<kirkwood> feel It would be good for us to have a subgroup landing/tracking page for COGA [google doc]. Overview and input places, schedule. (to properly work asynchronously) ?
Jan: and support asynchronous involvement
Rachael: You can certainly make
the suggestion
... We have a limited number of moderators
... If you can tell me which ones are critical we can take that
into account
Jan: OK
Rain: Going back to the
preassessment conversation
... Determination of assessment readiness
...Results: ready or not ready
<Rachael> +1 assessment readiness.
Lisa: plus 1
<kirkwood> +1
<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to Rain's wording
Rachael: I will write it up that
way, and we can take a look at it
... I will try to be sure you have a copy of the survey
Lisa: Thank you Rachael.
... Tomorrow I will make a google doc to help us identify which
ones are the most important
... And it can work as our management tool
... We can add suggestions as we go to it.
... Hopefully we will have that for you next week.
Rachael: That sounds great
Lisa: I really like how the
subgroups are being managed
... We have KPIs meant to end at the end of March
... Most subgroups are a bit behind
... I am wondering - should we adopt the same kind of
thing?
... If we are on track for some, those are fine
<Rachael> Our subgroup documentation is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/12O-1BKwlx4iR43GvFzmScejq2xU9V-rehrlxN42st5M/edit
Lisa: But for others, having
things that are closing after 4 or 8 weeks
... How do we feel about transitioning to that structure
Rain: I like the idea a lot
... We would also be breaking the projects into smaller
chunks
... We basically have massive projects
... If we isolate the chunks into smaller pieces, we can have
more time bound sprints
... Different groups of people can come together based on who
is available
... It better accommodates the ups and downs of lives and work
schedules
... Then helps people not feel overwhelmed
Lisa: The proposal to transition
towards the AGWG style sprints
... Other subgroup leaders - we would have to transition from
the current model to this
... How do you think?
John K: It makes sense to me.
scribe: I like the idea of at
least surfacing it a little more so we can see what each one is
doing
... Maybe some people can jump in just for a few minutes in an
asynchronous way
Rachael: A coupld of notes
... I linked earlier to our handbook which goes through the
detail
... One lesson learned: 1st week the subgroup agrees on the
goal being targeted
... We discourage people from hopping in once started
... We are trying to get a shared understanding
... We have found that when people jump in the middle it
disrupts work
<kirkwood> sounds good to me
Rachael: Having the feedback from the main group at different points, but then the subgroup goes back has been good
Lisa: if no objections
... Asking each subgroup to write a small document, even an
email
... Which has in it, over the next week, what is done
... Referring back to the KIP
... KPI
... What is intending to be done over the next 4 weeks
... Then, a list of what is not done
... This might be the next couple of sprints
... Based on this, we can start making the schedule for the
next set of sprints
... How does that sound?
Julie: I think that sounds like a
good idea, Lisa
... I think having an 8 week timeline is helpful - it forces us
to do a lot
... This can mean more meetings within the 8 weeks
... 8 weeks does feel very ambitious
... It is a lot of work to try to do this in 8 weeks
Lisa: Let's divide things into
realistic chunks.
... Julie - can you get this together in the next week?
Julie: I need to take a
look.
... I can put together an email with my best guess
<Rain> +1 I will do this list for the structure subgroup
Jennie: for the testing subgroup
it will be difficult to get it accomplished
... For the images subgroup it is easier
Lisa: OK, some can complete this week, some others next week
Jan: I think it will help.
... Not everything will get done in 8 weeks, but we can
prioritize the top things
Lisa: absolutely. We won't be
doing a 6 month subgroup in 8 weeks
... It might be better to have 3 smaller subgroups with the
same leaders if they want to
Rain: The value isn't to speed up
the work
... I don't think we have the resources to create more
subgroups running at the same time
... It is to say: here are the smaller chunks within it
... It is to have the groups working on the smaller chunks to
help with progress
Lisa: It will help with the
testing subgroup
... Some had interest in some of it, and not necessarily in the
whole KPI
... It would solve some of the problems as we come across
them
... I will send out an email asking people to fill it out
<kirkwood> 1
Lisa: Would people prefer one google doc for all subgroups? Or do it individually?
Jan: I think 1 is best
Lisa: Hopefully I will send it out tomorrow
Julie: So we just keep using the
existing subgroup page where we add updates
... Then just put the new kind of updates?
... Or is there a strong desire to create a new document?
Lisa: The actions page
... We could put it here if we want
Julie: yes, that is the one I was thinking baout
<kirkwood> link?
Julie: This is the one I have been trying to update
Lisa: I will try.
<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#
Lisa: Any other urgent pieces?
Julie: all are welcome to attend Thursday's meeting
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) Default Present: Jennie, Becca_Monteleone, Rain, Jan, julierawe, kirkwood Present: Jennie, Becca_Monteleone, Rain, Jan, julierawe, kirkwood Regrets: Kimberly, Aaron Found Scribe: jenny Found Scribe: jennie Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie Scribes: jenny, jennie WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]