Meeting minutes
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> 1. Date changedchange to late march (should we make it april)?
<Lisa> any objections?
Lisa: we need to make sure we have enough time for reviews. Is moving our timing out to late March going to work?
Rashmi: We've been working on these papers for so long, new research has come out. Should we include new research?
julierawe: Concerned that if we include it all, we may end blowing way past the new deadlines. We're already asking for feedback and new research in our drafts.
Lisa: clarified that we could be looking for new research during the feedback cycle and not slow down our release dates.
<julierawe> Lisa clarified that we will not try to add new research before publishing. We will use the review period to start looking for new research to include in the next version.
<Lisa> any objections?
Lisa: we should be calling these 'research modules'
Eric_hind: Are we asking people to add their own research or take it as is?
julierawe and Lisa clarified that in our review section / paper status section we ask for more research and tell people how to share it with us.
Lisa: Walked through issues that stop us from publishing our first draft.
… first item was about our bullet list describing our intended audience and then the following paragraph about it being a source for Making Content Usable. Janina asked if these were used primarily for W3C groups.
… shared a re-written version that shows W3C as primary and our previous bullets (which included researchers, policy makers, developers, etc) as secondary.
Rashmi: talking about the second bullet about policy makers, there are other catogories like security and safety?
… since they would be helpful for a variety of policy maker categories, should we list them?
Lisa: we'd like to keep it more broad here instead of matching the title and introduction with specific policy categories.
Clarified that we're updating this section and content to be generic enough we can use in all of our research modules.
<Lisa> any objections?
Lisa: in the use case sections add editors notes about next versions.
Rashmi: do we need to chance titles to 'user needs' instead of 'user cases'?
Lisa: that isn't needed
… Janina's technical approach to documentation called out a few more things about how we're saying things. Example, we say 'we intend to...' and Janina recommended we re-write to sya what we are doing.
Lisa walked through an update to the editors not in '2.1 older modules and issue papers'.
<Lisa> any objections?
Julie and Lisa talked about how confusing changing these name of these documentes from issues papers to research modules will be for some people. Restating the name change in the document could help people sync up to the change.
Lisa: is anyone seeing anything we should share back with the larger group before we start our CFC process?
LenB: I don't think these stop us from a CFC. Sharing updates with the group would be good for awareness.
Lisa: not 'our CFC' since we've done that. I'm asking about starting 'their CFC'.
Lisa: we can share it with the main group after we get our edits in the doc.
<Lisa> next item
julierawe and Lisa talked timing and next steps on these edits.
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: we might need to cancel the next few meetings since their times are set for Holidays. COGA has decided to take 2 weeks off, but as a subgroup we might have calls. Keep an eye out for invite udpates.
Lisa: introduced the concept of a CSS timeline. It doesn't look like accessibility was considered in the document. Janina also agrees and wants to see some updates to it.
… Janina would like us to add our own issues. Eric_hind will be adding issues to github.
Eric_hind: our biggest concerns were about definitions since this is a paper of subtopics related to other papers. It's not clear how things are being defined.
julierawe: Agreed that definitions are missing - even clearly defining what is an animation.
Eric_hind: if it s not clear to us it will not be clear to the general public.
Lisa: maybe we need to check with Janina on these questions and help us understand how these documents work before we add it to github.
Eric_hind: I'll check Matt's new process and make sure our comments go into the correct places.
Lisa: great - if Matt or Janina think it is an issue than great. If it's us not understanding then we'll learn how it works.
Lisa: I'd expect reference of accessibility considerations in an explainer or appendix that accompanies this doc.
… she shared some edits made since Monday to our feedback document
… Users needing more time and disorientation sections are new since Monday.
Eric_hind: I'll create separate issues in github. December 18th will be our lat chance to add comments on our end before I add them to queue.
Eric_hind: I'll create separate issues in github. December 18th will be our last chance to add comments on our end before I add them to queue.
julierawe: to be clear on process, Eric will run our feedback by Janina before we create isues in github?
Lisa: at least for the definition of animation. It could be they have an explainer.
presnet+
Rashmi and internationalization comments on "What to do" section of V2 of interactive-elements pattern
<julierawe> The group discussed the new internationalization comment about what order to show the examples.
<julierawe> julierawe: Can the desktop version show the "do" and "don't" example side by side? And stack them in mobile view? And the "warning" example comes last?
<julierawe> LenB: I think there is research indicating that people are most likely to remember the first example they see.
<julierawe> julierawe also tagged Rain in a margin comment asking if the order of the examples had come up during user research about the new template.
<julierawe> Rashmi asked in a margin comment about the illustration for the contact form and if it's too simple.
<julierawe> Rashmi added new illustrations at bottom of the tab. Julie will move them up, with the group's recommendations for captions, etc.
<Rashmi> accordion with chevron https://
<julierawe> The group discussed Rashmi's "good" example for an accordion, which uses chevron or caret that points down or up.
<julierawe> We discussed whether to create a "Don't" example using "+" and "-" because the minus can be hard for users with low vision to see and also because the "+" can be used in other contexts to mean "add."
<julierawe> The group discussed how some places such as in the UK use +/- frequently for accordion drawers, so we want to steer clear of saying they are bad unless we have strong research saying they are bad for cognitive accessibility.
<julierawe> The group aligned on a "Don't" example that has no symbols to indicate these are drawers that can be opened.
<julierawe> The group also discussed the roll-back item in "What to do." How can we clarify what is meant in this item so it doesn't seem like we are requiring developers to maintain old versions, especially if they involve security gaps that are being addressed in the new version.