Meeting minutes
<rashmi> content usable V2 edits https://
<lisa> https://
<lisa> citations https://
<lisa> https://
<lisa> https://
next item
Survey to sign up for the new groups will be open until October 16th
https://
This survey is also where you input your availability for different meeting times.
Four new subgroups: Views subgroup, voice control, text contrast, and text to speech.
Minutes from the AG meeting this past Tuesday: https://
Requirements review
https://
Pull request will be open a couple weeks
Julie will check with Lisa on when COGA can discuss as a group what might be prerequities, what might be baseline and what mighted be enhanced
Julie will flag AG chairs about broken links in pull request and make sure we are looking at the right document
kirkwood It would be good for COGA to help identify what are full-on blockers for people with cognitive and learning disabilities.
kirkwood We should be able to surface them.
kirkwood We should make clear that getting access to information is an accessibility issue.
kirkwood This idea of nice-to-have is not accurate. It's a true blocker if someone can't get to, say, their banking information.
tiffanyburtin What if we use language like "showstopper" to indicate severe blocker for people with certain kinds of disabilities.
tiffanyburtin A showstopper breaks everything. A stopper breaks for some people.
tiffanyburtin A showstopper is a severe blocker for many disabilities. A site is not usable by a broad audience.
tiffanyburtin Example from TPAC was the form becoming disabled after a timer ran out.
tiffanyburtin That would be a showstopper.
tiffanyburtin A severe blocker would be specific to a specific audience, like users of screen readers.
tiffanyburtin They're all severe, so there is a "sea of red." But perhaps the category could help break into chunks within the "sea of red."
tiffanyburtin Example of keyboard only. That impacts keyboard only and screen readers.
LenB Interesting idea to flip the user personas and use them in this way.
LenB Maybe the ones that have the deepest number of impacted users become prioritized?
tiffanyburtin It's like ranked voting.
tiffanyburtin Could include a health and safety requirement so that something like flashing would be priority even though only affects small number of types of disabilities.
LenB Tiffany, do you want to spike on that tomorrow? Would help to have something to look at
User centered outcomes
https://
Oops, wrong link
Here is correct link: https://
AG is rewording the outcomes so that users are at the center.
I think this will also move in the right direction in terms of wanting more plain language.
Example of previous wording: Error notifications are provided when an error occurs.
Same example, but reworded so user is at the center of the outcome: Users are aware of an error when it occurs and what they should do about it.
Keep in mind that these one-sentence descriptions are placeholders that will get refined over time when new subgroups start to work on them.
ACTION: items: (1) Julie will check with AG chairs to make sure we are viewing the correct draft for the pull request. (2) Julie will find out when Lisa has scheduled time during a COGA meeting to discuss the notion of harm and what should count as prerequesite/baseline/enhanced. (3) Tiffany and Len will huddle about how to prioritize harm/safety
and suggest ideas for COGA to consider.