Meeting minutes
<Zakim> Lisa, you wanted to say hi to Abi
<Lisa> +1
Lisa: If people can pleas sign up to scribe, that is helpful.
Julie: Want to add an agenda item about the note taking tool we're suspendig.
<Lisa> next item
Julie: We are not using the AI note-taking tool because some organizations may not allow people to attend meetings that use AI note takers.
Julie: If you work for an organization like this, please let us know.
Jennie: What is the AG policy on this?
Julie: If it's being used as an accommodation, then it might be allowed, but if we have members that are not allowed to use them, then we would not use them.
Jennie: There has been some news around security issues related to 3rd-party apps with Zoom over the weekend.
<Lisa> wcag review. see https://
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: First agenda item: WCAG 3 review - next week, AG wants to publish the 1st working draft.
Julie: @Rachael, when will the new draft be available?
Rachael: We are not going to merge until we hear from some people, but it will be updated.
<julierawe> The working draft has three types of "requirements:" foundational requirements, supplemental requirements, and assertions.
Lisa: This document does not include the methods for how to test - this version just lists the wording for the foundational requirements. It includes high-level Guidelines and foundational requirements.
<Lisa> our comment are in https://
Lisa: the COGA high-level review of WCAG 3 working draft is where COGA is putting in their comments.
<Rachael> This is likely the best link to use. Please ignore the date at the top. https://
Lisa: We have a Google doc that uses tabs, it includes instructions for how to use the document. There are tabs in the document for feedback on WCAG 3 guidelines. They want us to flag guidelines that we think might not be ready to included in the first draft.
Lisa: If there's anything that is not a small, editorial mistake, please flag that for the group and provide your reason for why you think it should not be included in the first draft.
Lisa: I found it hard to differentiate what was and was not a show stopper, so if I think something needs to be reviewed by AG, then I put the word "Important" in front of my comment within the text itself, along with my initials so that people would know it was my comment.
Lisa: As I go through the document, I will copy over the Guidelines.
Lisa: @Rachael - what is our timeline?
Rachael: We are going to open a survey tomorrow, or a Github discussion. We will make updates and publish it as a CFC after next Tuesday's meeting, if possible.
Julie: Rachael, based on the timeline, how long will COGA have to review the draft?
Rachael: If you could get it done this week, that would be ideal so that we can address the suggestions next Tuesday.
Lisa: We are meant to be on holiday next week. We could have a meeting at this time to prep it.
Lisa: Who can review this, this week? Even if you can't review all of it - even reviewing one section would be helpful. Maybe we want to do this during a working meeting.
<Eric_hind> Eric: I can help
<Jennie_Delisi> If you give me a specific section, I can review (but need the number so I am clear) and the link
<Lisa> i can
<julierawe9> i can as well
<kirkwood> could participate in a working meeting
<julierawe9> Lisa can we use the 10am editor's meeting tomorrow?
Lisa: Let's set up a call tomorrow.
<kirkwood> yes
Lisa: Yes, we can use the 10am editor's meeting, or 9EST as well.
<kirkwood> yes
<Eric_hind> +1
Lisa: We will send an email and try to get it sorted out.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak to media.
<Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss asynch
Rachael: The one big section that will change is the multimedia section - we are consolidating a lot in there. It should be done by tomorrow's meeting, but don't review that section today.
Jennie: I can't join the call tomorrow, but if you give me the specific number and two links - place to review and place to put feedback, I can get it done by Wednesday afternoon.
<julierawe9> Jennie_Delisi which section[s] were you deeply involved in?
<kirkwood> could u cc me?
<Jennie_Delisi> julierawe9 - finding help
<Lisa> sure
Julie: I put a note in IRC, asking Jennie what sections she was a part of - sometimes it's helpful to have fresh eyes on sections that you're not familiar with. Lisa, can you please share the Google doc for COGA - please scroll down to "What we mean by high-level feedback?" Rachael, can you please walk us through what you mean by overlap and
accessibility.
Rachael: There are questions about overlapping with existing laws (like privacy that might overlap with accessibility), we're not going to touch other laws and not include guidance about things that are not about accessibility.
Rachael: When determining if something relates, we have to ask if failure to meet the requirement would have a disproportionate effect on people with disabilities.
Rachael: Glaring omissions are helping to flag things that are missing.
Julie: In terms of omissions - there's a section about timeouts, but one of them was not making sure that the user is aware of the timeout. If we don't catch everything, is it still possible after this working draft to add more requirements, combining them, removing them, etc.?
Rachael: Yes, you can continue to provide feedback after this working draft.
Julie: It really helps to have fresh eyes - what jumps out. We need to be ready to explain why we believe certain things need to be in the draft for people with cognitive disabilities.
<Lisa> link to where we are putting comments https://
Julie: The link shared today, does not have some of the changes to clear language, but there will be some additional changes that will be added.
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> 9 est working meeting (no meeting at 10)
Lisa: We will be meeting at 9:00 EST tomorrow - there will be a working meeting.
<Lisa> next item
<Jennie_Delisi> -1 to Monday
Lisa: We might need to hold a meeting next Monday to finish, but we were supposed to be on holiday.
Julie: Should we go through the comments and add some margin comments for Rachael to help them make sense of the comments?
Lisa: I would prefer that Rachael go through all the comments.
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: This one is about Internationalization - I brought this question to the WAI coordination call and there have been decisions at the WAI level in the past.
<julierawe9> Lisa Can you please CC me as well as Jan?
Lisa: I will put Shawn's feedback in an email about how to regard internationalization and our groups.
Lisa: Shawn's response was that we love it when there's added benefit and we will sometimes mention it, but we work on accessibility for people with disabilities, so we're not going to add content for the sole purpose of supporting people outside of that scope - for example, text-to-speech can help people when they're driving, but we are not adding
requirements that we support text-to-speech for the purpose of helping people who are driving.
Lisa: In terms of internationalization - if we are making guidelines about simple language and we say, use active voice or present tense and there's no active voice in some languages, we would need to add something like, "use the tense that is simplest to understand and then put an example that in English, this would be active voice, etc.
<Lisa> jan: it will be hard to find the line.
Lisa: When we have trouble finding the line, we need to try to discuss it and then we might have to kick it up to Shawn for her to help us make the decision.
<Lisa> jan:
<Lisa> Jan: the comunity group is stuglin with the way something is writen can meen something difrent in a diffrent language
<Lisa> but we need to keep the pourpose in the forfrount. But if our language is not clear we are making cognitve barriers
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> helping people engage with coga . See https://
Lisa: Our next topic is helping people engage with COGA. We don't have time to get into this in depth, but we have could look at some concerns regarding the Action Items document.
<Eric_hind> 0
Lisa: One suggestion was get rid of the instructions. Another was to not separate things by task. A third suggestion was that we start each week, going over action items. Lisa - we did this before and often, it would take up half the call. That is why we moved to only reviewing it once a month. Do people want to go back to once a week?
Jan: I think we have too much to cover to go over actions every week.
<Lisa> any onbjections to once a month
Lisa: I am hearing no objections to how often we review the actions.
Lisa: We will keep that as it is.
Lisa: Would we like to just have one big table and we could add the subgroup as a column instead of having multiple tables? Does anyone want to merge the tables?
<Jan> -1 to merging
<Lisa> anyone want the change?
Julie: What if we had a short table at the top that highlighted the key thing - the front burner things for each category - kind of a highlight
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: Can you add that idea to helping people engage because we're running out of time to discuss that idea in detail.
Eric: Are we at the point where it might make sense to transfer this to a sheet?
<julierawe9> Spreadsheets are challenging for some COGA members
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: Let's also add that idea to the tab for how to help people engage and then we can discuss it.
Lisa: Would you like Eric to mockup a spreadsheet solution?
<Jan> +1
<julierawe9> +1
<Becca_Monteleone> +1
<Gareth> +1