Meeting minutes
<Lisa> set scribe?
Lisa: This is the scribe list. Please sign up
Lisa: Once every 2 months should be good.
Abi: I don't have editing rights to add myself. Maybe others are in the same situation?
… It says Julie is the owner.
Lisa: the main meeting agenda scribe list
… Probably the directory, made by Rain?
Julie: Did this used to have a different name?
Lisa: yes, COGA Actions
… Len can edit
Abi: when I request access it goes to Rain.
Lisa: we can ask Rain to change ownership.
Abi: I also cannot edit other places.
Julie: I can add Abi as an editor.
Lisa: she also needs to be added to the subdirectory.
… in Google
… Rain set it up.
… This is rights over the whole directory.
Lisa: try editing, and anyone without rights, please reach out to Julie.
Lisa: this is something for the coordination call.
<julierawe> Abigail, what is your email? Can you add it here in IRC?
Charlie: I have edit rights.
<julierawe> Or put it in the Zoom chat?
* Reminder: the minutes are public, Julie
Lisa: let's go back to using the queue.
Julie: I am curious if Abigail is receiving the COGA emails?
Abi: yes.
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: We decided to move the actions into a spreadsheet.
… There are tabs along the bottom.
… The overview has the top 6 things.
… These are pulled out of the tabs, automatically.
… You cannot edit them on the overview tab.
… You have to edit them in their individual tab.
… Cognitive Accessibility guidelines Working draft 1...
… We will have to change the name.
Julie: On the 2nd tab there is more information.
… I think Rain is working on getting the coding in.
Lisa: please keep the information relatively clean. Remove old ones which are out of date.
… This enables items to display in the Overview tab.
Julie: I will check in with Rain on this.
Lisa: (reviewing the tab Making Content Usable V2)
Julie: there are several in progress.
… We will remove the overview row.
… Once we have consensus on the draft patterns Rain will put them into github with the new coding, is my understanding.
Lisa: we should check on this, because it will be a big task.
… We will focus on the issue papers first.
… Did Make the purpose of your page or view clear - did this go for consensus on the list?
Julie: I think so. I will check.
… It was September 16th email to the list.
Lisa: ok.
… That looks fine.
… The cfc said zero for not sure, but it did not say if you do not respond it is considered agreement.
… This means we don't have consensus.
… This should have gone through both on the call and on the list.
… Then there should be a summary email which said it went through.
… We can bundle this with the next call for consensus.
Julie: we discussed on the September 15th call.
… Then sent the email.
… We got 2 plus 1s.
Lisa: I was told it is essential to write that non-responses will be considered agreement, and then it is ok.
… But if you agreement on the call...
… I don't think anyone will mind.
… Normally we also record the page, what happened, and the consensus.
… But I think this is fine.
… We are editing the next one
… Can we have an overview of when you are expecting them?
Julie: We typically like editors to align on the draft patterns. But we have had some absences.
… I raised issues with the task force during those weeks.
… For the 2nd and 3rd patterns I want Lisa's eyes on them.
… Row 10: Gareth created draft illustrations.
… Row 11 as well
… We got internationalization feedback. Now want Lisa's before we send out for consensus.
… We may skip the pattern in row 12, and just send out 3 patterns from the same section.
Lisa: I agree. Does anyone disagree?
… Any questions for Julie?
Lisa: moving to the Research subgroup.
… We are trying to get the papers out
… Triggers - I think we are leaving this one.
… We can put it in for the 2nd working draft.
… People are trying to get them inline by the end of this week.
… We are running behind in terms of editing.
… We are having some difficulties with citations.
… We will go with the consensus we had on this.
… Julie will work on some of the issues identified.
Charli: For Online Safety
… Safety implications for online companion bots. This is breaking within the last few months.
… Do we need to add this, or is this done except for the writing?
Lisa: Interesting. Are you saying new research and incidents?
Charli: Yes.
… Companion bots have issues.
* Note: scribe did not record these here because these minutes are public.
Lisa: OK, that is 3 issues we need to discuss.
… Regarding possible research needed regarding companion bots
… Option 1: look into it, delay publications.
… option 2: put in an editor's note saying we know further research is necessary, including on companion bots.
… we would open an issue. Plus we have a note
… Option 3
<Gareth2> Option 2 or 3 don't mind
<Jan> In reference to what Charil shared, this article was posted on a W3C list: https://
<Eric_hind> Option 3
<Charli> Option 2 or 3
<Abi> Don't mind
<Jan> 2 or 3
Julie: If we put in an editor's note saying this is an early draft, and add that we plan to add a section on Companion Bots
… Would that sway anyone's vote?
… And, how soon might we come back to that?
… What is the timeline?
Lisa: this is the 1st working draft.
… Realistically 4-6 months.
… You need at least 3 months to get feedback, then post the feedback...probably about 6 months.
<Jan> I think the research might need to be more broad than just companion bots
Lisa: If we deal with it now, we would probably publish in 6 months, so about the same time.
Lisa: decision - we won't delay. We will put in an editor's note, and possibly an issue.
… any problems with that, please share.
… Style guide
… Says short words, and this is pretty tricky to do.
… Many of our sentences are still a bit too long and these are academic papers.
… Option 1: wait until we have done as much editing as we can for each one, discussed as a group, then gone through each change.
<julierawe> Lisa can you please show another tab or else stop sharing screen?
Lisa: Option 2: while loading into github I look for long sentences, and remove redundant words and those that are unnecessarily difficult
… Option 3: We don't work on it much more in terms of style guide, and we publish the first working draft with the editor's note we are still working on it
<Gareth2> 2 or 3
<Eric_hind> Option 3
<julierawe> option 3
Lisa: I have difficulty with #3 because it conflicts with our guidance
<Jan> 3
Julie: I think it does try to live up to our style guide. But for the other 2 - how far are they from our style guide?
<LenB> option 3 with the idea that as we work we commit to prevent long sentences
Julie: (displays the safety issue paper onscreen)
Eric: I think Len and I are uneasy changing a lot of sentence structure in case we change meaning, unintentionally.
… We can collectively work on this together after.
Len: Working forward in the future, we can keep this in mind.
… The long ones can be flagged for reviewing later.
… I agree with issues around publishing without following our own rules.
… Working to prevent them in the future would help.
Lisa: I think it would undermine what we are doing in Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG)
… Option 1: when I see it I bring it back to the group, edit some more.
… Option 2: I make edits as I go
<Gareth2> Option 2
Lisa: Option 3: we make a note
<julierawe> option 2 plus an editor's note
<Eric_hind> Option2 or 3 good with me
<Jan> 2 or 3
Lisa: I will do small changes, cautiously.
<Charli> Option 2 with caution, plus an editor's note.
Lisa: Option 2 carefully, aligning the editor's note as well, is what we will do.
Lisa: I am thinking that the editing is taking a long time.
… If we can finish what we have by the end of the week.
… We discuss on Thursday
… Then I put it into Github, which takes some time
… Then we can start sending it to the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG) and APA
… With TPAC people are busy
… If we want it published before the end of the year we need to start getting it into Github, get the comments from AG and APA
… Then make small changes
… If there are more changes to do, we can do it in 6 months
… Also, forgot - after it goes into Github, this group gets to review it.
… Are people comfortable with that timeline?
<Eric_hind> +1
<Gareth2> +1
<Jan> +1
Lisa: any objections?
Lisa: ok.
… (displays tab: Requests from other groups)
… This includes things like requests from other groups
… We can add a column for the group's name
… There is nothing in Internationalization
Jan: I need to get with Andy to fill this out, and we will do this on Wednesday
<Lisa> next item
Jan: for internationalization for the community group
… We have reviewed definitions of internationalization vs localizations
… We have a list of research someone shared regarding internationalization.
Lisa: Great.
… Let's discuss the "Buddies" to help people who are new
… This is for general questions.
… This can be for anyone who feels they need help to participate when they have questions.
… This can provide a specific person they can reach out to
… There is a tab for this in the document
Lisa: If you feel you can answer questions, and talk people through things, please put your name down as wanting to be a buddy
… If you want to have a buddy, add your name.
Charli: I don't have access to this document.
… Just got access now!
Abi: please add me to the list too
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: We made a document a while ago.
Lisa: We have done a lot of the things.
… But these are a work in progress.
… For example, the format of the documents.
… One of the things we decided to do: 1st call of the month, give the end of the call to find out what issues people are having.
… The other question: are people feeling we need a dedicated call on this topic.
… We will have members share without using the queue.
Lisa: access other than to the documents seem to be working ok.
… How about the calendar?
… Are there comments?
… Is anything confusing or difficult to access?
… We will have this conversation again next month.
Julie: I'm working on access issues for members.
Julie: research papers.
… Regarding acknowledgements - do we all need a section for this?
… which terms were researched is in one paper, but not the others.
Lisa: leave these there - there is a research plan, and we have an appendix there.
… This is important for our research that we record them.
… They won't be in the published paper, I will move it out and move it there.
… If we just looked up one of the terms, and didn't find anything, it can be limiting.
… Having a record of what search terms we use is important, but doesn't have to be in the final document.
… Don't delete it - this helps me move it over.
… The acknowledge statement is automated.
… We will point this out to the group when we come back to it.
… The editors will be listed, then significant contributors.
… Then there are people who were members of the task force at the time.
… That is everyone on the call.
… I think this gets pulled in automatically.
Len: Where does it pull from?
Lisa: we will have to ask everyone to ensure they are represented correctly
… Then there is some discretion
… Some less active members should still be listed in different ways.
… I think I told Becca to add some information into the paper as part of the research plan.
… I will take those out later.
… This will help us ensure we don't lose information.