Meeting minutes
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> done!
<Lisa> close item 1
<Lisa> next item
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Normally 2 weeks vacation - last 2 weeks of August but maybe we shift to last week of August and first week of September. Worth changing to that?
<Becca_Monteleone> +1
<Charli> +1
<julierawe> +1
<Jan> +1
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Poll about this change to last week of Aug and first week Sept
<Eric_hind> +1
<EA> +1 but awy 2nd week of Sept!
<Lisa> next item
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Older papers will have editors note about out-of-dateness
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Conversation Voice System is ready for next steps.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Other drafts, supported decision making and trigger warnings. We might or not get into first new draft. ETA 5 months
<Lisa> next item
<Eric_hind> Lisa: First working drafts for feedback - not perfect and not intended to be. There will be wide review after our draft.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Again, this is background research reviews
<Eric_hind> Lisa: First, Online safety and wellbeing algorithm and data - still working on new data.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Online safety, Editors note will be in place. Most changes are editorial so far. Need to work on the abstract for audience. Process may be a spin-out from this (process that promotes wellbeing of the users).
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Online safety, no questions. Becca, no additional updates to lisa summary.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Suggestion, a weeks review and then CFC review (another week)
<julierawe> For reviewers: Are you comfortable with publishing this first working draft to collect feedback from the public? Do you think there is anything that needs to be worked out that would delay publishing the paper?
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Looking for conformance to styles, editorial changes, comfort with publication, abstract, citations. Can we publish a first working draft?
<Lisa> other than editorial changes, updating the abstact (to be inline with other papers) citations and small editorial chages can we publish a 1st working draft to gather feedback
<Eric_hind> Charli: Where do we get the link for review? Lisa has pasted into the IRC.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Will also send to list.
<Lisa> people will have a week to review and if they have issues please tell us if should delay publication
<Eric_hind> Lisa: People will have a week to review. If there are issues, please tell us if it should delay publication?
<Eric_hind> julierawe: This vote will be review for a week, then vote by email if the paper is ready for publication and we can publish the draft.
<julierawe> +1
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Vote on this?
<Eric_hind> +1
<Charli> +1
<Lisa> +1
<Becca_Monteleone> +1
<Jan> +1
<Rachael> 0
<Charli> Change to 0
<EA> layover? O
<Eric_hind> Lisa: No objections, but some voters will need to have a first or refresh view.
<Lisa> next item
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Indoor wayfinding, just updated a bit with new research.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Can be a first working draft.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Can we repeat the process and review for a week, then vote.
<Eric_hind> Julierawe: Note that there's language updating required.
<EA> +1 to having a chance to re-read as this was the document where I saw the word 'layover'
<julierawe> Looks like this paper also needs an abstract
<Eric_hind> Lisa: If the changes are made (abstract) and language, then is this suitable for the same process as previous
<Eric_hind> Charli: Is there an expectation to multiple paper review in a week?
<Eric_hind> julierawe: There is not an expectation for fine grained review - we're looking for high level review for a first drat.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Agreed, want something for first draft.
<Lisa> next item
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Voice Systems and Conversational interfaces. Definitely need the abstract refreshed but need wording copied over. This one should be prioritized over the other two.
<julierawe> The introduction in the issue paper about voice systems and conversational interfaces has new description of cognitive accessibility as well as specific examples. It would be great for folks to review this section in particular: https://
<Eric_hind> julierawe: Please take a close look at languages related to comment on 'cognitive accessibility support include'
<julierawe> +1
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Vote on going to CFC with this paper?
<Jan> +1
<julierawe> +1
<Becca_Monteleone> +1
<Eric_hind> +1
<Charli> 0
<Lisa> can we go to cfc in email with a weeks review
<EA> +1
<Eric_hind> Lisa: No objections - note that we are looking for showstoppers.
<Lisa> take up item 8
<Eric_hind> julierawe: We want to have a discussion around AG tradeoffs for WCAG publishing.
<julierawe> For CFC for the issue papers, reminder that we are looking for COGA members to do a high-level review. We want to know about any show stoppers, not minor word-smithing.
<julierawe> Github discussion about WCAG 3 trade-offs: https://
<Eric_hind> Jan: Trying to talk about how we go from here with WCAG 3 - building out the content. 2 year charter period ends in December. What do we want to do with the charter period?
<Eric_hind> Eric_hind: Above is Rachael speaking.
<Eric_hind> Rachael: First, What outcomes should AG be aiming for when considering publishing new content? Goals could be speed to publication, changing regulation, etc.
<EA> sorry having to leave
<Eric_hind> Rachael: Discussions are... varied in topics.
<Eric_hind> julierawe: Concern around some comment where there's foundational changes to COGA content 'migrated' to WCAG 3.
<Eric_hind> Rachael: Ultimately this is a chair decision (charter write-up). Use comments and thumbs up or down to give chairs directions to these comments.
<julierawe> Link to Detlev's comment: https://
<julierawe> I put a thumbs-down for his comment
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Ask, what do we need to do for next steps?
<Eric_hind> Rachael: Put your thoughts into the (github) discussion or attend tomorrow's meeting. We are talking to regulators as well.
<Eric_hind> rachael: is getting into regulatory documents versus notes a priority?
<Lisa> my coment is at https://
<Eric_hind> Rachael: Getting high priority content out quickly is agreed - do we focus getting it out as a note or a rectrack publication? Trade off, publishing a note is quicker and less onerous - rectrack needs deeper review and notes have not been adopted in regulation
<Eric_hind> Rachael: Will regulators pick up notes is the debate right now
<Eric_hind> Rachael: 3. Should be do smaller publications, larger scoped release, which do we focus on.
<Eric_hind> julierawe: What will regulators focus on? Will they look at size of doc, content, etc, etc.
<Lisa> my coment is at https://
<Eric_hind> Rachael: Please review and add comments as soon as possible.
<Eric_hind> Lisa: Thumbs up and comments help add weight to any given content.
<Eric_hind> Jan: Note that if doing this via github, you may need to open threads as they get buried...
<Eric_hind> Rachael: One more note: If we look at AAA 2.2, A and AA do not include much cognitive criteria.
<julierawe> Julie will send an email with specifics about which comments we'd like COGA members to consider adding a thumbs-up (and in some cases adding a thumbs-down)