Meeting minutes
Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements.
jasonjgw: Summarizes we're here to discuss CTAU
CTAUR progress ...
jasonjgw: CTAUR is a doc in our *AUR series
jasonjgw: CTAUR addresses collaborative aspects in synchronous and asynchronous tools
jasonjgw: Thanks Dave for his liaisoning help
jasonjgw: Notes RQTF addressed some COGA comments with edits of various kinds
jasonjgw: Notes WD recently updated
jasonjgw: Purpose today is to understand any further changes
jasonjgw: RQTF believes CTAUR is nearing completion, so now is a good time to catch anything left
jasonjgw: Today we want to focus on any remaining items
jasonjgw: Invites Dave to move us forward ...
DavidSwallow: Notes RQTF welcomed COGA comments
DavidSwallow: Notes also COGA appreciates the attention received
DavidSwallow: have attempted to organize issues around themes; some about scope; some about tracking
DavidSwallow: some re language and structure
DavidSwallow: Notes substantive edits to better address scope
janina: I think we added language to clarify Github and other environments - we call that asynchronous
… Revision control systems. They function similarly
… We have synchronous and asynchronous in the explanatory notes.
jasonjgw: We also clarified scope that we're discussing collab functionality as pertains to many kinds of content
jasonjgw: So the features related to collaboration are in scope; and content editing specifics are not
DavidSwallow: Perhaps best to have COGA review
lisa: Found intro para confused
<lisa> "many of the gaps in WCAG on improving accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities has been addressed in [coga-usable].
janina: If you would like to propose changes, you can add a pull request
… and we dropped some of the language based on the email this morning
… No put down was intended
… If a wording change helps, please suggest something
Lisa: I will try my best
janina: email is fine too.
… Editorial considerations - share those
Reviewing History
DavidSwallow: Several issues related to reviewing history were rejected; 50,
DavidSwallow: Also a needs and reqs pair ...
DavidSwallow: The user need and req seem a bit different to me
jenny: Notes many environments she works with history of what happened affects a lot of groups I work with
jenny: summary of what happened can be very important
jenny: person cfan get easily disoriented
janina: I think we tried to address this. I'm happy to suggest we can try to address it better.
… We called out that multiple groups have this need.
… We talk about needing to be able to focus, know specifically about one area.
… I think we tripped up regarding summaries.
… I think AI would be the most likely source.
… I think we say something like this is better but humans completing this would be helpful.
jasonjgw: Agrees edits to try and capture our sense of what ech can do, vs what we need humans to contribute
lisa: We're asking for consistent marking
lisa: adding a directory would be consistently named
lisa: consistent placement of where instructions are
lisa: We're not asking authors to provide, but a consistent place were they can
janina: To me, this sits between some environments do this, and some do not
… We added section 9 about preferring things that are standard, and not inventing new ways to do things.
… We did attempt to address this.
janina: Sec 9 did attempt to address, happy if we can further clarify
jasonjgw: Notes we're more than half way through the call ... Asks what's left of categories?
Other Items
DavidSwallow: Issue 59 asking for a Common Pitfalls section
DavidSwallow: COGA keen to see where these issues are actually in current draft
janina: We could go item by item.
… We discussed the piece about the reference to Making Content Usable.
… I am not sure we have specifics here
… Common pitfalls ... it is not just one type of environment or tool
… I'm not sure which pitfalls are generalizable.
… We did, where we thought we could expand it, expand over a number of recommendations.
jasonjgw: Notes this doc, like others in the AUR set, is quite confined
jasonjgw: We don't discuss in this doc topics covered in other W3C docs unless there's some nonobvious implication for the current doc
lisa: Common Pitfalls was our summary of problems COGA has experienced using github in W3C work
lisa: unfamiliar terms like fork, branch
lisa: Even others in W3C get confused
lisa: Other is the complex work process
lisa: Can make the process unusable for some COGA people (Executive function)
lisa: Believes we're really talking about live regions; don't expect people to learn a new markup lang for your environment
janina: That is section 9
janina: That is Sec 9
jasonjgw: Also edits where we note collab tools create barriers for others; i.e. multiple functions when collaborating
janina: And in the introduction, talking about how they are complex in their nature
… I can't think of another document from the W3C like 1.5
… Because you are looking for the benefit, while the tools need to support all kinds of situations
… That needs to be built into the tool
… The team needs to be aware of how to make everyone in the team functional
… Why else did you invite them to the team
… 1.5 is sort of a trial balloon in technical guidance
<lisa> +1 to jennie
jenny: notes cog load in Sec 9; does it specify that can be an absolute barrier
<lisa> needs to be in
jasonjgw: If not clear, we can clarify
jenny: helping people understand the difference for the general population vis a vis someone with a cognitive disability the enourmous impact it can have for some
<lisa> +1
jenny: could make the tool absolutely unusable
janina: That is a general WAI principle
… essential for some, useful for all - not the exact quote
lisa: Don't see all the items in oujr comment;
jasonjgw: There may or may not be established convfentions for devs to follow
jasonjgw: we're unclear how much more we can say; what can be added
lisa: if we can't say about what's not well defined, much else needs to be pulled from the doc
<lisa> thank you everyone!!!
DavidSwallow: Suggests a follow up section? There's still more to go through
I really appreciate the discussion.
Jenny, I want to appreciate your emphasis that some people will be completely disenfranchised whereas the general population is just inconvenienced. I will look through the doc for making that clearer
jasonjgw: Asks for people to volunteer on follow up
Thank you Janina, and apologies if I missed it! It was in one of the issue responses David had brought up, so just bringing it back to the group's awareness.
scott: Thanks everyone for their participation and time
<lisa> thanks again everyone