Meeting minutes
Julie, you are so facile with Zakim. How DO you do it?
<julierawe> Ha, hi, John--you always make me smile!
I'm glad to have that effect on at least one person!
Katy and Lisa, you may want to present+.
Lisa is in the house!
Julie: Reviewing agenda items.
Kirkwood is in the house!
<lisa_> next item
<julierawe> https://
Julie: This deck is teeing up the challenge.
John loves all those options. Clever.
John Foliot is the original author of the options.
<julierawe> Correction: John Foliot is not the author of the options. He provided a link to the most-spoken languages in the world.
Lisa: Languages that are structurally different may be good.
Lisa: I presented to Internationalization group at TPAC.
<kirkwood> FYI: an example of US City https://
Lisa: Richard said we should be sure we have representation.
<julierawe> What is Richard's last name?
Lisa: Arabic, Chinese, English are good ones.
Lisa: Perhaps Russian and French would be good.
Kirkwood: Urdu was required by NYC Department of Education plus 8 other languages.
Julie: The smallest possible set of languages is what we should aim for.
Julie: That many conditional tests are a lot.
<kirkwood> fully agree.
<kirkwood> lost irc earlier could put slide deck link in again, sorry.
Julie: 4 of Option 4 are included in Option D.
Julie: Sean Thompson says French is required in Canada.
Lisa: We should say 5 if that is what the group decides is our capacity.
Lisa: I don't think we should be limited to only these sets of options.
Lisa: Richard says we should do structurally different languages.
Lisa: I don't agree with any of the sets of options.
Arabic, English, Mandarin, Russian + 1 other should be the set we use.
<katy> I think Arabic, Mandarin, English, Spanish, Russian
+1 to Katy
<katy> Yes, agree to wiki
Lisa: We should Wiki.
Lisa: With info on other languages.
Julie: Fine by me to pursue Richard's suggestion.
<kirkwood> just as FYI NYC “Covered Languages” are “Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, English French, Haitian Creole, Korean, Russian, Spanish and Urdu”
Julie: We need an incredible, authorative source for a fifth language.
<julierawe> Scribing for John: John R: how about asking the Internationalization group to recruit the people we need for this?
<julierawe> John R: They have the contacts to do this, don't they?
John R: How about asking the Internationalization Group to bring us the help we need to languages?
Lisa: We tried that 2 years ago.
<kirkwood> +1 to Lisa, my feeling too
<lisa_> http://
<julierawe> John R: This is going to take years. I am pessimistic
John: I think this will take us years, and I am pessimistic we will be successful.
<lisa_> http://
<julierawe> https://
Lisa: Is reiterating what she said previously.
Lisa: Priority 1 would be most spoken.
John R: Lisa, why most spoken and not most online?
<katy> I think saying most online would help more people sooner, but it would perpetuate digital barriers perhaps?
Lisa: We could have what's most online.
Lisa: We need languages from different families.
Katy: We could express succinctly.
Kirkwood: Are we thinking about non ASCII characters?
Kirkwood: There are a lot of languages, such as Urdu, that don't have ASCII characters.
Lisa: When we get to the Wiki, we will have to address symbolic languages, non ASCII.
Julie: I find compelling the resource (link) Lisa shared.
That link was Katy's. Thanks, Katy!
Lisa: The languages we choose could accentuate the digital divide.
<katy> Yes +1 to Lisa's comment about the the digital divide.
+1 to Lisa's comment and the similar one Katy made earlier.
Lisa: We need a proposal to how we get to a set of languages we can stand behind.
<lisa_> jump over similar languas that already included. the 6 official United Nations languages then most spoken
Lisa: I think the languages should be Arabic, Mandarin, English, Russian, and Hindi.
<katy> +1 to Lisa. Similar to the idea of most spoken languages that are not in the same family, plus Russian as widely used online
Lisa: We should verify they are all structurally different / from different families.
<katy> +1 to Lisa's suggestion
+1 to Lisa's suggestion, what the hell.
<julierawe> +1
<kirkwood> +1
Julie: Will set up meeting with Internationalization Group.
<julierawe> next item
Lisa: WCAG 2 is moving ahead at a nice speed.
Correction: WCAG 3.
<julierawe> Lisa wants 2 COGA members to look at each set of outcomes
<julierawe> Lisa: Check outcomes is the most important thing
<julierawe> Lisa: Ideally review prior to the meeting day
<julierawe> Lisa: Prioritize the most important bits
<julierawe> Lisa: We don't have time to get the full taskforce thinking on this before the Oct 3 meeting
<julierawe> Lisa: I will ask Rachael when we need to get the feedback in for the Oct 3 meeting
<julierawe> Lisa: Clear purpose, color contrast and error notification are the most important
<julierawe> Lisa: Can the people on this call each pick two?
<kirkwood> link to the doc you are on right now
<lisa_> https://
<lisa_> clear purose https://
<julierawe> John K will review clear purpose and error notification
<julierawe> Julie will review clear purpose and color and contrast
<lisa_> outcomes for clear porpese : https://
<julierawe> Katy will review color and contrast and error notificatin
<julierawe> The meetings are on Tuesday, Oct 3. Lisa will find out when they need comments from us.