Meeting minutes
.
.
take up item 1
next item
close item 1
next item
Lisa: People can sign up to scribe on the list, then it doesn't need to be an agenda item
take up item 4
Lisa: question 1 - do we want to meet today?
take up item 2
Lisa: that is in reference to the CTAUR
… after this call
… or is there a better time. We need to tell them when we will get back to them.
John K: I can meet
David: I can meet for a half an hour
Lisa: let's meet for a half hour, get next steps
… Can Jennie review asynchronously?
Jennie: not until Friday
Lisa: OK, that's helpful information.
… What about next Monday after the call to wrap things up?
… then we could have a meeting for anyone who can meet for a half hour
… And I can give a half hour during the call
David: works for me
Lisa: any objections?
next item
Lisa: I think we can wrap up feedback by end of next week
David: I think that will work.
… mid to end of next week
next item
Julie: a couple of highlights
… #1 - Monday looked back at the past 6 months of decisions
… some discussion about the way accessibility guidelines working group is putting summaries into Github threads
… I shared it can be daunting to participate in the meetings, even with these summaries.
… It was a thoughtful discussion
… #2 - Monday afternoon and most of Tuesday - conformance
… We went through a "broken" website
… We thought about - if there is a webpage with a video with no captions
… This helped us discuss conformance levels.
… We discussed: should we separate a conformance model
… #3 I went to the joint meeting with accessibility guidelines working group and internationalization
… topic focused on when do they want to get involved in drafts
… Answer: early, but not too early
… for WCAG 3 they want it after exploratory
… Moving into the 3rd phase
… We also introduced attendees to the new subgroups, and the community group, and encouraged people to join
John K: I joined that as well
… I commend Julie on how we can connect with them, and the timelines
… We should work with them more
Rain: the summaries were good.
… Re internationalization: there was emphasis from them that they want everything in Github
… Well supported by Chuck as the accessibility guidelines working group chair
… we explained that Github is not accessible for our group.
… We got to agreement (as well as with ARIA) - maybe we could have more of a structure for inviting them to meetings strategically
<julierawe> ?+
Rain: then they can take the task of getting items added into Github. No formal agreement, but discussion
… A good desire by all groups to work together.
… The other take-away I had is the challenge of conformance
… How does the COGA task force define harm?
… During the exercise Julie mentioned - the group I was in was heavy on those very impacted by barriers
… Our scores indicated the severity of the failures the most compared to other groups, possibly because of the focus on harm.
… Currently: everything is marked "the worst" which means that nothing becomes highlighted as "the worst."
… Then, no progress can be made.
… I think the COGA task force understands harm differently than other groups.
… Maybe we should try to define harm to help conformance discussions move forward.
Lisa: Julie - do you think there is a time limit for this?
… Would October 14th work?
<kirkwood> +1 to Rain
Julie: The conformance conversation is part of the accessibility guidelines call tomorrow.
… I agree with Rain - this is in early conversations. There are conversations around safety, like flashing.
… There was 1 conversation about usability vs accessibility
… But I think that somehow expressing confusing navigation for the most important piece of information on a page.
… I think Gregg was supporting the idea that having information that is easy to understand and find being essential.
Lisa: as a date, provisionally, to have that discussion on the agenda.
Julie: re internationalization - Rain had mentioned the desire to do everything through Github.
… The internationalization group would like us to use a "short checklist" - which is not short, but links to other checklists.
… They want us to go through this before we submit anything, which feels like a lot
… They see this as a solution, I see it as a lot of work.
John K: I second what Julie is saying
Lisa: Julie - can you put links for the schedules
… for internationalization
… and the checklist
… I will put it on the things to go onto future agendas
Julie: I can.
<kirkwood> we should really look at those
Lisa: I would like Jan to be on the call at the same time.
… If anything else people want to discuss we can put on a future agenda.
Rashmi: I attended for a short period
<julierawe> Internationalization has requested we do a self-review before submitting any drafts to them: https://
Rashmi: There was a conversation about diagnoses
… There are some parallel functional needs
… We should take care of that in our group, I think
Lisa: Yes.
<julierawe> Internationalization also shared its "short checklist" that includes links to longer checklists: https://
Lisa: Do you feel we should discuss it more?
Rashmi: I think it is important. You put useful points
Lisa: We should on the pending agendas functional needs vs diagnosis
… and maybe memorialize it in our language section.
Rashmi: yes.
Lisa: I will also follow up what is happening with the functional needs task force
<Zakim> lisa, you wanted to ask for link to summaries /scedule and time table it
(tiffiany)
Tiffany: in the future when these types of exercises happen, there needs to be short, simple, clear expectations for the test we will do
… My group: it seemed like we didn't have consensus on what we should be doing
… We defaulted to WCAG 2.2 style, then applied it to how hard it would be
… Some of us scored it harder than others
<kirkwood> +1
Tiffany: I think we need to get across how difficult navigating the web is when you have lived experience
<lisa> +1
John K: I find it difficult to navigate around the rooms - it would good to have COGA people around in all the different rooms
… Finding Zoom links was often difficult in the ecosystem
… In the past we have had a side chat for COGA people to help find Zoom links
… It would be helpful for the future
Lisa: I will copy that to my to-do list
Rain: To add to what John shared
Rain: it might be good for future TPACs to have the COGA task force look at or participate in the layout of the scheduling
… to try to make it more navigable
<kirkwood> +1
Jennie: I added difficulties I had with the calendar time zones into my feedback in the surveys. I encourage members to share as appropriate in those as well.
Lisa: Sounds like the conformance and harm conversation is the highest priority
… Might be worth making a proposal.
next item
Rain: We have significantly more qualitative information that came out of the studies than we anticipated.
… We need to adjust our timing to understand it all.
… I will share high level findings - from skimming through everything
… Thank you to those who jumped in
… Eric has been very helpful getting the group going
… Alastair jumped in as well
… A lot of the data will help more than just COGA
… It could benefit all W3C publications.
… I also had excellent conversations with Kevin White and Tamsin
… to talk about the goals of the study.
… Tamsin will work with Shawn to figure out what to do
… After the discussion with Kevin - there are complexities with making changes to the design style
… This week: I will explore some design iterations that address the high level feedback
… Then I will meet with Kevin and Tamsin to understand what the complexities are within the W3C design system
… To help understand potential blocks.
… Then we can bring it back to this task force for analysis
<Zakim> lisa, you wanted to ask if th enalisis of all the papers? and to still requesting access
Lisa: do you still need people to do the analysis for the user feedback?
Rain: yes. We have a lot.
Lisa: I still don't have access
… I have sent another request.
Rain: I will make sure you have access right now.
https://
Rain: Eric did a nice write up in a table form of the steps
<Rain> Triage spreadsheet: https://
Lisa: I should have time next week if anyone wants a working meeting where we work at the same time.
… Sometimes helpful
John K: I would find it helpful.
Rain: the spreadsheet shows who is taking on each section to triage.
… Please add your name next to any you are working on.
… This is up to date in real time.
… There is a section in the meeting minutes which starts with "The Ask:"
… This describes the steps to triaging
https://
Rain: any other questions?
Rain: again, only high level overview
… Themes I was able to see quickly from reviewing data
… Participants: 18 which is a lot for hour long sessions
… Self proclaimed role: personal interest = 15
… (Rain continued reviewing the list)
… Only 1 identified as care provider, however, I think that will go up because of information shared during the sessions.
… This may impact other numbers as well
John K: was the terminology of "care provider" the issue?
Rain: that was the short name - it was whatever we put in the survey
… 11 said 4 plus years in familiarity with cognitive accessibility as a concept
… Some people dropped out which may have impacted our ability to get newer people
… Familiarity with Making Content Usable: 7 very, 5some, new 6
… 9 text to speech users
… 8 each for visual reading aids or high contrast mode
… There are question marks next to diagnoses disclosed during the interviews
… good spread of these given this type of work.
… All familiar with W3C materials shared that the improvements they were noticing would be helpful for all of the TR formatting, not just the COGA ones
… High level themes:
… 1: Need both TOC and the "small buckets"
… that can be brought forward by the individual and put away at will
… Also need the "small buckets" model - more multi-page
… 1 version of the small buckets: big buttons at the bottom
… Having it above the fold for the majority of users would be helpful
… We also had an introduction model.
… This was followed by a list that was clickable.
… This was helpful for people.
*@Lisa - ready to take over scribing?
thanks jennie
finding: people loved the roles
but... they didnt like the terms on the roles becuse people cant find themselves
so changed to stages in process, but that was worse
need to work on names of the roles, less jargon
people liked the chucking buckets
but scafolding as a term failed as only education know what we ment
navigation was also confucing rather then table of content
icons good, but need work
clarity between section helped.
colaping sections were good so lomg and contol f works
we can impove linked to sections
more in the doc
and then need to find out what is realistic
also think of what is missing in the conent