Meeting minutes
<lisa> next item
reminder to everyone to sign up to scribe. There are new weeks added to the scribe page
<lisa> next item
<lisa> next item
<lisa> close item 1
<lisa> next item
Lisa asks people to bear with her on typing and typos due to injury
Lisa is sharing old timeline, we will look at new timeline in a few.Rain sent regrets but looked at it and added her items for the timeline
<julierawe> Just realized I put my comment on the wrong timeline today — I need to look at the new timeline
New timeline should have a simple to follow format. link in IRC agenda item
It is a draft, if we do not like it we can update it
Only first phase has detail, by end of that phase we will need to reevaluate
Useful terms: KPIs are Key Performance Indicators and measurable goals
AG, Silver and APA work is not included. This is for COGA independently
W3C note is included in this document
Overall Aim has the two main items. Update Making content usable and update key research papers
Plan summary has current achievements and a schedule moving forward
Phase 1 is January to April 2024 and includes a 1st editors draft
Placeholders need to be added, Julie and John let us know if this is feasible for internationalization
Place holders for testing based on subgroup work and images for objectives
Next stage May to August will be inputting literary review and making a working draft
Fill in the information we have in phase 2 with some testing if we want to do some
Phase 3 August to December 2024 would be a wide review working draft
This should have most of the information inputted with only minimal changes needed from there
2025 feedback will be collected and 3months later would published based on the feedback, unless it slips due to many changes needed
2026 publish user research update
The main thing to focus on now is phase 1 - to make editors draft of Making Content Usable with new structure and changes for mental health
How do people feel about this?
Julie questions - see note about putting in placeholders if that is going to be inputted. We know that is going to be the trickiest part, we are starting to work with internationalization task force team
Do we think it would be sufficient in editors draft to put "we are working with internationalization team" so that we do not get negative feedback
Lisa - editors draft is something we do not have to show anyone
Lisa: put in little notes in editors draft because we are not yet worried about specific examples, and get feedback on those
This is where we would say we will put information in 5 languages, but we only have 2 languages yet in the editors draft.
Julie: haven't seen structure yet and wondering how similar, different it is from WCAG 3 structure. Is concerned about having 2 versions of clear language
Lisa: clear language is the one that is most similar, but I don't think it is well integrated in terms of titles
This might be a really good conversation to have as a separate agenda item
Lisa is looking at agendas to talk about the similarities between content usable 2 and wcag 3 and it looks to be for January 22nd with MLK on January 15th
Julie: we may need to look at differences, such as minor word changes. Or is it larger and we will run into versioning issues.
Lisa: we should make sure interested parties are aware of this conversation happening January 29th 2024
Lisa: looking at phase 1 2024 table
The idea is to get it to a stage with an editors draft with main goal and KPIs in column 2
column 3 is current sprints with things that need to be assigned
We need to look at structure agreement from main group and community with current sprint items from actions
Images is waiting and should be done, so current sprint is on hold
Test strategy is on hold with not current sprint items, only goal as there is a discussion to be had
Research is next the main goal is to get in changes from mental health literary review
Current sprint items are continued work on literary reviews, identifying papers, start user research and agree on structure
Internationalization kind of discussed with draft solutions to share with COGA and Internationalization to get round of feedback
Note from Julie to ask for volunteers for this
Mental Health group current phase is to confirm and check drafts and issue papers and decide if we need to new issues papers and personas
Community for phase 1 is KPIs that need to be updated with Raine and Kiki
Github issues with Eric needs to be discussed
Sorting how to make changes in branches need to be discussed as well and should be in agenda for later
Any questions?
Jennie thinks it looks good
John thinks it looks good
Lisa asks Julie as a group head to please put in dates on when expecting things to happen
Any objections?
<lisa> +1
<Jan_> +1
<JennieDelisi> +1
<julierawe> +1
<tburtin> +1
+1 for document looking good for timeline
<kirkwood> +1
+1
Lisa: COGA Making Content Usable v2 - Structure Proposal document is available to review to see how it is different/similar to AG
Lisa: Research plan is approved and is looking at research actions, need feedback from Becca
It is down for mid January
Abbey is doing ADHD Tiffany is database
Lisa: Something to mention, we have in research plan papers that look incredibly relevant
If you get stuck on this spreadsheet please call out for help so information can be added for documents
If all else fails try to get in citation and key take aways
This lets us know what needs a full review still, and lets individuals select papers
We are having a working meeting on it January 15th for MLK day, doing a literary review together
Jan is working on items
Rashmi is working on items
Rain and John are recruiting artists for images,but on hold until structure group is done
david is not on call, so not talking about his items right now
Julie has next item on agenda: WCAG3 items
<lisa> next item
<lisa> close item 3
<lisa> next item
Julie: I did update sections of document for WCAG3 with WCAG3 as proxy for clear language
Next weeks AG meeting is not on the document
<julierawe> https://
Next Tuesday January 16th the AG meeting is discussing coming up with a set of criteria to evaluate different conformance models for WCAG 3
link is shared by julierawe
Next Tuesday need to look at criteria
Julie added a comment in support of equity that it is essential it is included as a criteria
This will help ensure it includes cognitive disabilities within equity
<lisa> link is at https://
Please log into github and click smiley face on julie's comment and click the thumbs up
This gives it more weight to discuss
The other comment on complexity, which is a tester time and resources to test the model, expresses concern with it using WCAG 2 v 3 guidelines and not including all users needs
Julie asks people to please thumbs up and she will send an email with instructions on how to do so
This needs to be done by next Monday, next tuesday will be too late
<lisa> link is at https://
Lisa: put link to click on and thumbs up
Lisa: anyone who is struggling to set up github account can stay on call afterwards to share screen and set up
Lisa: these AG conversations are crucial and once criteria is decided on, it is set
<niamh_> can you share the link again?
<julierawe> https://
<julierawe> I can stay a few minutes after this meeting if anyone is having trouble logging into GitHub and/or adding their own comment or adding thumbs-up to my and Lisa's comments
<julierawe> Link that goes directly to my equity comment: https://
<julierawe> Link that goes directly to my complexity comment: https://
<julierawe> Link to Lisa's comment: https://
Lisa: We want to make sure the coga user needs are considered with this new AG as these conversations occur
<julierawe> If you click on those three links, you can thumbs-up those individual comments without having to scroll through the whole page
<JennieDelisi> +1 to Julie's comment
Discussion leading to testing needing to rely not just on automated testing, and that user testing is also considered. Not necessarily going against repeatability and comprehension, but with good models on how to test those and explain the outcomes
<kirkwood> +1 to Julie
Lisa is concerned as repeatability was used to exclude user testing in WCAG 2
<JennieDelisi> *Apologies - have to drop. My question was if the people joining github need to get their account recognized by APA or AG. May help amplify the thumbs up
Julie says you do not have to verify github with APA or AG, no additional step is needed
Does anyone want to stay on line to set up github account?
Julie is adding a comment on repeatability and will add that github link
<julierawe> Draft comment: Re repeatability: We need to evaluate models using criteria that does not exclude user testing. User testing must be allowed and encouraged in WCAG3.
Jan: Adding a user testing comment to github as well, the idea of having the exact feedback from users is not realistic but repeatable patterns
<lisa> https://
<kirkwood> +1