Lisa: Now more available for orientation
<Rachael> ag-plan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
<Lisa> subgroups are:
<Lisa> Aid Navigation Guideline Subgroup (The site or app aids navigation) 5 Control Semantics Guideline Subgroup (Controls have correct semantic markup) 6 Harm from Motion Guideline Subgroup (On-screen motion does not cause harm) 4 Content Order Guideline Subgroup (Contents are programmatically and visually ordered) 6 Timing and interruptions Guideline Subgroup (The site or app minimizes the impact of timing and interruptions) 4 Conformance And Legislation S[CUT]
<Lisa> please write to rachael if you want to join
Per Rachael: If there is interested in the subgroups, please connect with her. This includes outside experts; not as invited experts but through community group.
Per Lisa: some additional links/info as related to the subgroups definition and scope would be appreciated (if there are any). Aid Navigation, content order and so on might seen to have some overlap
Rachael: The documentation from a few weeks ago, may make clear.
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> close item 3
<Rachael> Details on Subgroups: https://
Working draft for AG / WCAG 3 links provided for a refresh/review
<Lisa> pdates and actions https://
Mental Health: link available, May 10/June 10 on schedule. Rain will need the allocated time for demo, then end of June for redesign and discussion with Task Force.
Raine may have components earlier but not committed yet.
Julie: Not sure if ready to show everything by Monday. Can at least show progress by Monday and get feedback.
Note for all: Wiki pages can be edited when signed in (edit tab is available when signed in).
Jenny: Per her discussions with Shaun, they'd like to request to move April 24 update to a week later.
Confirmed that they will have update May 1 in an as-is state
Lisa: Images subgroup updates? Per Jenny, outline of work for sprint to be worked on to be done in the next week.
Kiki and Raine: Plans for pulling in feedback from community group? Per Kiki, examples have been gathered in a sheet (and can be shared if anonymized) and outputs from survey form (inside and outside of community group)
Kiki: About 9 examples so far, Google Form may draw in more examples.
Lisa: Screenshots not available; the visuals from screenshots may help solidify what users are meaning.
<Kiki> Here is the form the members of the community group agreed to send out: https://
Rain: Community group might not provide any information if screenshots are asked for. Sometimes the login component is too hard, screenshots too hard, etc. The current descriptions provided may be best effort.
Kiki: Even with step-by-step documentation of what to do and how to do it (join the community group), this can be a struggle for users (so they could add information like screenshots).
Lisa: Action item, come up with a way to parse comments and internally add screenshots that are at least mainsteam/easy to access.
Kiki: Can try to parse and add screenshots where possible.
Lisa: Feedback from community group (information gathering) is more or less done.. Kiki will be able to present current items by next meeting but contributions will continue to trickle in depending on what and how we might publicize it.
Jennie: re: concern about community to engage with COGA. Some use-cases on how those difficulties manifest (in contributing) would be helpful in making a business case to w3c on providing new/better alternatives.
Kiki: Is there a pipeline for solutions? Jennie: John and Jennie have a list of some supports needed to be able to complete the W3C access processes. They (W3C) wants to prototype some solutions.
John: Research done on other orgs and what supports and processes are out there in parallel circumstances.
Lisa: State of collaboration tool information gathering (from researching) Jenny: Can reboot this process with some review of previous emails/discussions.
Lisa: Open call for joining this discussion on collab tools
<Jan_> This is Jan - I am interested in collab tools
<kirkwood> JK- collaboration tools
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> close item 2
<Jennie> *Jan and kirkwood: got your names recorded. Thank you!
Per Lisa: Aaron's action item on issue papers that need updates. Per Aaron, more or less, they all do (need research updates) - gap analysis.
Aaron: This is from January action item on published research gap analysis; e.g. web of things, internet of thing, autism, etc. gap analysis. Overall, two main findings. 1. W3C papers are ambiguous on the model used (medical, social). 2. From papers from ACM Library, some reviews are finding minimal participant research (less citations), more anecdotes.
Aaron: Final point: review of URC protocol: used for remote controls. This protocol may not be relevant anymore for physical interfaces and needs clarification. Also, no mentions of QR codes which seems like it should be included.
Aaron would like feedback on this doc
Lisa: Document feedback processes might be a good topic for discussion with other W3C groups.
Lisa: Aaron to continue with research and propose sprint contents plus anyone wanting to volunteer.
Aaron: Worth getting consensus from similar W3C groups to have consistent review process; but also worth continuing on our research processes to avoid waiting for the larger collective agreement (APA, etc).
<Jennie> Apologies - have to drop
Aaron: Perhaps we should come up with a position paragraph/section around definitions, language, models used and so on?
<julierawe> Have to drop, thanks
<Jan_> I would like to be a part of the conversation
<Jan_> Katy, Kiki, John K., and Jan would all like to be a part of the meeting with Lisa and Aaron.
<Lisa> kiki jon and katy and kiki want to join the conversion with aaron and lisa
<Lisa> and jan