Meeting minutes
clear q
stucture
<Rain> Version of the document the community group was adding notes to: https://
<Rain> bad storm
<Rain> power just went out
i can hear u. can u hear me?
agender?
<Jennie> * I can scribe if I can stop at 10 before the hour
scribe+ jenny, lisa,
https://
Lisa: put your name down on weeks you are likely to be attending, and able to scribe
next item
Lisa: let's review what people may want to work on over the holidays and updates
… let's talk about the research
Rebecca: In mid-January having time on the agenda would be good to discuss final changes.
Lisa: Abbey was doing the lit review on ADHD.
Lisa: I started identifying papers.
… Put your name next to one you find interesting.
… I saw some that mentioned the topics people have selected.
… Correction - it wasn't Abbey, it was Rebecca
… Becca - you could put your name next to those. That's why I am volunteering you.
… The user group research sometimes had information on the same topics as you are doing for the issue paper.
Becca: that sounds great. Thank you for doing that.
Lisa: Abbey - can you add the papers that you are looking at into this database.
database at https://
Abbey: I will look at them. There may be a bit of a delay.
Lisa: OK. I did a search in Google Scholar.
… I put it into the research plan
Lisa: there is an appendix.
… We agreed on minimal outline of what needs to be done for a literary review.
… And we are saving the search terms as we use them.
… This information is included under Appendix 3. Search terms used
search terms go to https://
Lisa: please add any search terms you use.
… If anyone has questions during the holidays, I will be working.
Becca: I have my search strategy for the 2 papers I was using. It is on the bottom of my drafts. Should I add it here?
Lisa: Yes, it is helpful if it is added here.
… List which issue paper it is for.
… The citation is really important. Then we can make the format of the citation consistent later if helpufl.
… The key take aways is also important.
… This should include what we need to remember.
… Some people will have no time over the next 2 weeks due to holidays.
… But if you do, please mark your name in, and fill out whatever you can
database at https://
Lisa: That is an action item for all of us
… I can meet on Monday or Tuesday if someone needs a bit of help getting information into the spreadsheet.
… If the spreadsheet is daunting, you can do the review, put it in an email, send it to the list.
… Someone else can enter it into the spreadsheet.
… Mental health we will discuss as part of the agenda.
… Color items are on the agenda.
… Rashmi is nearly finished the item in table 1.
… She is also working on a paper related to triggers and the research we have.
… We need someone to take the lead on the social media algorthym issues.
Rain: We are working on the feedback from the Community group. We are doing the user testing in January and February of 2024.
Lisa: the session we had before is looking really good for the Structure and Content group!
… I should take an action to make sure we show it to Roy.
… Roy can say if it can be as a publication. The sooner we ask the better.
Rain: that makes sense.
… Images is on hold until we get the structure figured out.
Lisa: There is a working session on Thursday.
Rain: yes, for an hour and a half.
… sorry, Wednesday.
Lisa: and after that we are starting the holiday break.
Julie: regarding WCAG 3
<julierawe> https://
Julie: On January 16th there will be a discussion
… Do we have the right set of criteria to evaluate conformance models.
… There are 22 conformance models proposed - we are not evaluating them yet.
… We are looking at do we have the right criteria to evaluate them.
… 7 criteria (reads from the github issue)
… Question: is there anything missing? Anything that should be revised or removed.
… My proposal to the task force is to put a comment on this github thread
… We could add the equity one we have discussed - to support equity
… If there is anything else that is essential to include, I can send it to the group
… Then, we can have the group go and thumbs up the comment to show how important it is
Lisa: It is probably also important that we attend.
Julie: What is most important
… preferably well before January 16th, we have a comment about "this is what COGA thinks" then we get lots of thumbs up
… It is a show of support, and leads up to that January 16th discussion
… It is far better for us to get out in front of the conversation
… Then, as many COGA members as can, go in to github and thumbs up our comment
… I think we want equity to stay in the list.
… There is one about complexity that is a bit worrisome to me
… What if user testing is important for some aspects?
… If you can't quickly to an automated test, we want to make sure there is equity
Lisa: My take is that we should put in both of those comments
… 1 with the validity that we need equity separately.
… Because some people think it valid for it not to be equitable (in the past)
… Then either separately, or thumbs up your comment.
… I agree, the complexity is very worrying
… For things that don't belong in a checklist
Julie: Keep in mind: what are the big things for evaluating
… We could add a comment stating we would like to know more about complexity, so it doesn't favor only automated testing
… We want it to be different from previous versions of WCAG 2 because we do want complexity as an option sometimes
Lisa: Yes, let's put them in as separate comments.
… People can always comment on your comment, or just thumbs up it
… And please send to the list.
… Then people can take a moment to participate.
Julie: I will send that to the list, including instructions.
… If there is other information that others on the call feel we should comment on, then please let me know.
Lisa: Our next meeting is January 8th - is that too late?
Julie: we can talk about it on January 8th, and add a 3rd comment at that time. Yes, please put time on the agenda for it.
Lisa: I also think that members can also comment, without waiting for consensus. Is that correct?
Julie: I agree. And, it is great to have others reviewing.
… If someone has an idea, please add it to github, or email me.
Lisa: there can be an institutional type of exclusion, because some user testing is not reliable.
… We have to be careful about that
… Reliability and complexity.
… These need to be tested to make sure they don't exclude some user groups.
Julie: great. I will add those into the comments I add into github.
next item
Lisa: We have changes that the mental health group would like into the content.
… I think Eric has made a branch where he is putting in the corrections from an issue.
… Where do we want to put in the changes from the mental health group?
… Same branch? Will that get complex?
… Any github experts here?
… So, we don't know. We will need Eric here, so we know what he has done.
… Rashmi - do you have a preference?
Rashmi: this is new for me.
Lisa: We have the latest version of Making Content Usable in github.
… Different branches work on different sections.
… When multiple people are working, there can be conflicts.
… We may need to accept Eric's pieces, then start a new branch.
… I think the next thing to do is to speak to Eric.
… He is not on the call.
… I think we also want to check with Roy.
… I think the secret is regular "commits" but I will need to check with Eric and Roy.
… I will put this on the agenda for January 8th, but it may get pushed to the following meeting.
… Is that ok?
… I can also ask Roy tomorrow.
next item
David S: I will show you the document that COGA produced.
… Over the last year or more, COGA has reviewed the Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements
… We refer to this a CTAUR
… This is looked at by RTF - another task force
… I have been taking COGA's comments and suggestions and adding the to RTQF's github
… Then, I have been in liaison with them as they review.
… I have some feedback on what they have found so far.
… I am just the message here, relaying their comments
… I will take any feedback and comments back to them
gogle doc is at Where do we want to put in the changes from the mental health group new brach. New branch, regular comits
David S: Issue 59: introducing a new section called "Common Pitfalls"
… This is a proposal for an entirely new section
… This was rejected by RTQF because they felt it is too generic, and they feel it is already in CTAUR as part of a later version
… Janina took an action to find where they have already covered this content, then will close the comment.
sorry . google doc is at https://
Lisa: Can we have the link to where it was closed?
… the github issue?
Lisa: She is going to demonstrate that everything we wanted here is in here?
David S: Yes
Lisa: do you have a link to the latest version of CTAUR as well?
David S: Yes
<DavidSwallow> w3c/
Lisa: David, do you think it is in there?
David S: I am not sure. It is dotted about.
… I get what they are saying about it being general advice.
<DavidSwallow> https://
David S: Janina has summarized it in the github thread
… specific enhancements would be appreciated.
Lisa: We did, though
… We made the bullet points
… They have user needs and requirements.
… We have made it very specific, going through Content Usable, things that fail
… Use familiar terms, avoid making the user learn new terms
… Don't make the user learn new terms for editing
… These are specific examples
… These are not just generic comments.
… I don't think saying "have a clear interface" in the introduction is similar.
… What do other people think?
This document outlines various accessibility-related user needs, requirements and scenarios for web-based collaboration tools. These typically include one or more specific collaborative features such as real-time content editing by multiple authors, support for comments annotations, and revision control. The Cloud-based office application suites from Google and Microsoft are well-known examples of such collaboration tools. The accessibility user needs[CUT]
Lisa: Who thinks that Janina's point is correct - that it is already discussed and this is already addressed?
https://
Lisa: Who thinks it was not already addressed?
Lisa: I am not hearing any comments.
David S: There is a lot to process.
Julie: I am trying to understand. We raised concerns that we feel were not adequately covered. And Janina thinks they were adequately covered?
Lisa: this is in reference to a specific section.
… We suggested adding a section (Common pitfalls).
… It could be called something else.
… It is about what things are and how to use them.
… Then we have information about what this includes
… Example: not requiring multiple tabs and windows to complete a task.
… Other examples are around language specific to an interface that are not commonly used.
… And makes suggestions when new processes are required, how to handle this
… We have had examples in our work where after instructional sessions, a few weeks later, many in our group had difficulty participating in those processes
Julie: Thank you for the background, Lisa.
… As I look at the current draft, it has 20 things, and broken into different sections.
… I am not seeing how those common pitfalls map to the current draft.
… Could we ask for a "map" of where they feel they are already addressing these points because at this time it is not apparent to us.
… I find this a difficult document to look at
… What we have raised are the "big picture" things
*Note: can someone take over scribing now? I need to leave
Julie: Is Janina asking for new user needs and design patterns?
David S: I think that is what Janina took an action to do.
… So I think that is fine to ask for that.
lisa: we added the section becuse we didnt see where it fits.
david: no 58: use of the case of wisigig. we sugested explaining it. THey felt it was clear to the target adence.
<kirkwood> it’s a very old term
FYO coment was maid by Rain, because it is such an outdated term
<abbey> I just asked my dev husband if he knows it, and he has not idea what it means. He has been in the industry 5yrs
Rain: not widely used anymore
no longer commenly understood by designers unless you are old and used to use dos
John. agrees
Abby has no idea what it meens. old term
Lisa doesnt realy care
<kirkwood> WYSWYG is a meaningless term now
rain: i am very concern that the audence is only people who have been in the indistry a long time
<kirkwood> +1 to Rain
david: issue 57 and 56: clarify the scope and update the tech
they dont want to discus specific products. but they may include white bourd
lisa: clarfy will they calrify what is included. becuse we wernt sure what to include
<kirkwood> collaborative design tools?
what type of thing is included?
is slack inclded? that type thing?
<julierawe> I have to drop — have a good weekend, everybody!
John: eveything is a colabritive tool. how is this a defined.
lisa: genral comment on their document.
people did not know if gihub was included.
john colaberation functionalion and assisted support is realy importent with a helper
very much part of the combination needed. that might be why we care