Meeting minutes
Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements.
jason: David Swallow updating issues on GitHub
janina: walkthrough now?
jasON; good to work out which ones take time, which ones quick
david: COTGA now waiting for our feedback
some need clarification
david: COGA's issues with GitHub:
complexity, jargon, too many notifcaiotns, subject lines not being clear
janina: helpful to separate git form github to understand issues
jason: some ready to make decisons?
daivd: issue 59
new user need and requirement, placement unusual
user need: interface needs to be clear and easy to understand
inteface needs tob e familiar
requriement: help users understand what things are and use things similar to common design pattersn
jason: not specific to issues in the doucment,
not clear in context of document could we frame a requriements to follow conventions, or are range of applicaiotns oto diverse?
janina: concepts are in the doucment, just not specific design pattern terminolgoy
jason: and if places to flesh out, could be done
raja: seems a bit general, how is it applied generally throughout the documents?
janina: issue is that all softwre, whether web based on app, needs a new interface and this is problematic
so common patters are a benefit
point is made hat different types of apps have different interfaces
jason: in collaborative, some features concistent but interfaces may ned to be different
ACTION: - janina to flesh out, jason to support
david: lisa requested separate seciton
janina: further explanaiton good, not needing separate section
content usable - what and hwere woudl be useful
jason: commen may also be pointng to older draft
issue 58: clarify WYSIWYG
david: text references WYSIWYG, suggest graphica text interface
janina: sugget reject, WSIWYG common term
scott: the acronymn is defined
raja: does current generation understand?
jason: mark as no change
janina: using old term better than creaitng new one
ACTION: - janina to comment and cloe, no change
issue 57:
and 56
issue 56: update specificaiton with new technologies
quesiotn is do we need ot specifically naem all the colaborative tools in Microsoft, google etc
janina; hesitant to name specific products
raja: can we proivde best of both words - miro and google meet. miro is interactive whiteboad
miro dos't have captions, google met does
and can let peple know you can combine different tools
jason: RTC is not in the scope of htis document as alrady in the RAUR
may not meniton that specifically though
janina: whiteboard may need to be included though
should get a meniton and exmaple
scott: references to microsoft and google tools is already there which is good but covered enough,
but agree whiteboard good t cover
janina: yes add more on whiteboarding
janina: separately, need ot have a seciton to make sure everyone is included when decisions are bien gmade, eveyrone included
comments on sociology - not just a tehcnical porblem
jason: exmaple when too many notificaiotns are ocming in
help documentaiton and support
raja: when people work together, breakouts, challenge as a Deaf person with delays need to be addressed, but how to comibne tools together ot make the experience accessible is impotant
issue 45 asked to clarify on what is an isn't out of scope, but no more detail
action - issue 56, add whiteboard info as collaboration aspect
ACTION: - issue 57, focused on desig patterns aand accessibility e..g word processor, do not need to reference list of products - tools of all types can take what they need form the docuent, brief exmaples already included. Review to be done to check this is explained adequately
Media Accessibility User Requirements.
janina: limited time to progress
Accessibility of CAPTCHA.
jason: with APA, talking to security community in W3C
bring back in two weeks