scribe+ abbey

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JKJ32DK_A82ahsQ_k0RVPc-ZYpX5uuKtuGOLdo2OqyY/edit#

Julie putting link for clear language working draft

8 week sprint plan section is the focus for screen share

Julie: every sub group required to write out 8 week plan, and we are in middle of our sprint.

We are nearing the completion of first half of sprint and want to talk about how we can focus our time for the second half

Julie: asking Jean for some guidance on if we should focus on quantitative or outcomes

Jean: want's the groups ideas as they are leading the way, taking high level work and making sure a whole that can be published for clear language
... knows was pushing for assertion for AG meeting last week, but now we are past that, agreement that guidelines written in certain way now can open it up and make sense as a whole

Julie: is the hope after the next 4 weeks we will have something to publish as a working draft?

Jean: that is the hope, but there is a lot with 2.2 and obstacles so there is not a lot of direction.
... the prior plan before 2.2 problems was to publish the working draft with placeholder with clear language and error notifications exploratory work
... it is not going to be example of way we work through spring and summer with exploratory work written for all 23 guidelines

Julie: I was going to propose we spend next 4 weeks building outcomes as that has breadth of all the details we want in those outcomes

<jeanne> +1

Julie: then we focus on building the depth of the outcomes with tests and methods, what do folks thingk?

John: I think it is good idea to create goals then work backwards from there

<kirkwood> +1

Jean: I like the idea and agree the breadth is focus and if we can do one in depth that would be awesome

Julie: should we vote or be that formal?

Jean: You don't need too

<jeanne> Meeting: Clear Language subgroup

Julie: any concerns drafting all outcomes for breadth?

E.A.: do we need some pointers to keep up within something that is realistic in the 4 weeks?

<kirkwood> scoping properly?

Julie: summarize how do we make sure we scope properly, maybe 4wks is ambitions
... maybe we timecap outcomes to 2 weeks and then build out common words section

E.A.: worried about the holidays and ability to help

Jean: don't count the holidays in the 4 week sprint plan, chance of being ready to publish at end of April is small
... focus on 4 meetings and how much we can get done in that time.

Julie: lets review meetings for next few meetings, Today April 5th, April 12th additional dates come from Lisa setting up 3 months
... April 20, May 11, June 8, June 22

John: Those dates from Lisa, are they COGA meetings we are taking over?

Julie: those are official COGA clear language subgroup meetings
... I can send an email and meeting invites to track clear language specific invites
... any more questions before we move away from 8 week plan?
... Assertions section it has jump link on top of doc

<jeanne> +1 on avoiding passives

Julie: our assertion about plain language has two usages of passive using plain language guidance

Assertion

Julie: should we push to use active?

<kirkwood> +1 for active

EA: agree

John: agree we should not be using passive, but should wait to word smith until we are ready to do so

Julie: we want to come back to wording of assertion
... bronze level we assert we have link to plain language guideline with link in documents and our editorial guidelines have link to plain language
... do we think that with the link and editorial guidelines is enough for bronze?

E.A.: we wen't for something that is doable and that is a good baseline

Julie: so is this realistic but not ambitious enough?

John: maybe multiple choices for bronze silver and gold and maybe some are weighted
... one idea would be weighted for bronze and silver then you could get gold, some type of logic tree to help people meet guidelines and indicate commitment

Julie: my understanding is to meet silver you have to also meet bronze, to meet gold you must meet bronze and silver

John: so a different example, or these bronze choices you can choose one weighted, or two non-weighted to meet bronze

Julie: what is the bare minimum we would accept as enough?
... do we think doing one of those options is enough, or editorial guidelines talks about meeting plain language, or do we need to do both?

John: maybe we need two of each in terms of minimum

Jan: are we getting into testing mindset that we are having a hard time breaking? Concerned about international language issues and how this may be implemented or should we keep it to bare minimum?

Julie: Jan good point we are leaving open which plain language guide and internationalization with exceptions
... we want to be flexible as clear language guidelines do vary from language to language, maybe there are other exceptions

Jan: I like John's idea of giving choice for flexibility, but can assertions have exceptions or is that something we can decide?
... if we have language that does not use plain language guidelines, should we have definitions to determine an equivalent approach, though that seems sticky

Julie: this may be helpful, assertion is going to overlap with many of the tests with common words, sentence structure, so this is not the only thing
... it is not clear to me how this assertion fits in, is it more a catch-all where a quantitative test cannot fit?
... Maybe "I assert that I am using xyz" if it does not fit into quantitative test
... it may be as we build out and we cannot build a quantitative test, we can make it an assertions

Jean: I think that is on track with what AGWG means as an assertion
... I think they need real examples and we can go ahead with it
... my concern is that we do not have an actual plan language review until gold level

Jan: way I am looking this assertion is that it is a scaffold, giving additional support so people can make progress

Julie: to Jean's comment, right now at bronze and silver it is just about providing information and not about putting that into practice
... do we still think it is realistic for what is in gold, or can we move it down some?

John: that instead of rearranging things, that we create as many as we can and then figure out where they should go

Julie: yes, comes back to what we consider the bare minimum and making information available versus more active

John: can we brainstorm ideas and then get into the bronze, silver, gold

Julie: Bronze links and editorial guidelines, silver assert its in training, gold assert x percent and spot checked

Jan: if it is minimal assertion and it does not have an actual check is that even an assertion?

Julie: maybe we remove levels and we say we need to do x number of these to meet

Jan: then silver and gold could mean they meet more, this many for bronze, this many for silver, this many for gold

E.A.: this may be good as we don't know what we are measuring against for bronze, silver, gold

Julie: I think it is up to us to say what is each of these levels

E.A. for quantitative it makes sense, but this is flexible as it is qualitative with assertions and as we go we can marry them up to the quantitative

Julie: changed editor to a person trained in plain language

E.A.: are there actual trainings for plain language?

Julie: that is why we have training instead of certification

E.A.: we have research on plain language and can link to those for english and can quote certain guidelines

Jean: that may be good to focus on English for these 8 weeks, this is the direction and where more work is needed
... I like the idea of having here is a list of everything and what we think it means, and however many they pick determines their level
... these are the things we did to assert we have done a plain language review and how we implemented it

Julie: leave it as a list for working draft as it is a working draft

Zoom chat has links to different countries plain language

<ShawnT> UK: https://www.plainenglish.co.uk/how-to-write-in-plain-english.html

<ShawnT> Ireland https://www.ops.gov.ie/app/uploads/2019/09/Plain-English-Style-Guide-for-the-Public-Service-2.pdf

<ShawnT> USA https://www.archives.gov/open/plain-writing/10-principles.html

Julie: editorial guidelines sentence to make it complete

<ShawnT> Canada.ca Content Style Guide - Canada.ca: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/government-communications/canada-content-style-guide.html

ShawnT is putting in links

ShawnT: question about AI and if it has been discussed as I am new and if it has been talked about and something we are thinking about?

Julie: that is a good question, should we include one to say "we assert we have used AI to spot check or check plain language"

E.A.: we would have to be careful as the AI has biases and differences in age and location to check the AI algorithm to check that text

Julie: how about "we assert that a human spot checks AI written language"

<kb> +1 agree that a person should spotcheck AI content

Jean: let's not worry about plugging the loopholes right now

Julie: any other thing we want to add to this list of options, or are we good to move it along?

Jan: can we use a person trained in plain language spot checks AI written content?

Julie: updated

<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to ask about AI

outcomes

Julie: Outcomes is where we came up with table with the 5 outcomes and how the 13 clear language patterns nest under
... next step to see if anyone wants to volunteer to pick and outcome and build out to include COGA patterns
... does anyone want to volunteer to rough out the outcomes and build them out with more details?
... there are more documents to pull resources from

Jan: struggling with what the ask is

Julie: take outcomes from the high level summary of what is in clear language guideline, then lower down in document, we will start to build out outcomes
... example take the one sentence for number one and build out more details for that sentence on how it will be done
... at top of document in placeholder section there is the smallest number of outcomes, lower in document we need to build these out, what should they look like?

Jean: has a document about that... then audio issues

<julierawe> Jean ---> we can't hear you

E.A.: do we have those examples? We have it, just possibly in several different documents

<jeanne> Writing Testable Outcomes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sugAtqie_x1XqHDZo1Im7ftDNllWeRV_ty4PULeoTV0/edit

Julie: what should this look like, as I have not seen an example
... as a next step I will huddle with Jean and send out what these outcomes will look like when more detailed
... I will send it out and see if it is clear enough for anyone to volunteer, if not we will do it synchronously

<ShawnT> Here is an example of acronyms https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/abbreviations.html

Link is W3C way

<jeanne> The Writing Testable Outcomes is a detailed document that predates writing in phases like Exploratory. So you don't need to get to the end result -- just the starting place.

Julie: for abbreviations and acronyms we can follow those

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/sbribe+ abbey//
Default Present: jeanne, julierawe, ShawnT, abbey, kirkwood, Jan, kb, JohnRochford
Present: jeanne, julierawe, ShawnT, abbey, kirkwood, Jan, kb, JohnRochford
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: abbey
Inferring Scribes: abbey

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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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.)