<Lisa> clear agenda

<Lisa> scribe+ len

<Lisa> agenda order 4, 2, 1, 3

<Lisa> scribe: len

<Lisa> next item

scribe+

<Lisa> next item

<Lisa> close item 4

<Lisa> next item

<Lisa> New guidelines. How to review https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/. presentaion at

<Lisa> 18:01 * Zakim ... https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sqf1HkFVjnJ-VuAIe02f95O8BSPe1cipbUUI9aMSAIw/edit?slide=id.g3c9ad043900_0_25#slide=id.g3c9ad043900_0_25 -- taken up

<Rachael> preesnt+

3.0 working drafts are published twice a year. COGA needs to do a review of the working draft to get our issues into the work flow.

Be aware that this has 12 sections with several sections with multiple provisions. It is a large document.

There are about 220 provisions in total.

Tests are available for provisions at the Development level - but they need to be matured. Subgroups are doing that work now.

One of the problems for us to review are provision's user needs. The example on slide 5 includes some bullets pointing out current scnearios not covered in the provision.

<julierawe> Lisa please see a separate section called "Retain information" that ensures users don't lose the data they entered

<Lisa> https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/#abstract

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sqf1HkFVjnJ-VuAIe02f95O8BSPe1cipbUUI9aMSAIw/edit?slide=id.g3942bae89cf_0_17#slide=id.g3942bae89cf_0_17

<kirkwood> it should maybe noted that cognitive is largely accepted as the largest disability population category

It is important for us to do our review in a timely manner since we need to raise issues in time for consideration in the next draft.

<Lisa> +1 to john

<Jan> Are there sections of the draft that COGA should prioritize?

Rachael development level means that we think the top-level direction is generally right but many details need to be worked.

<julierawe> https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/#retain-information

julierawe Slide 5 doesn't reference the Retain Information section. It's important to review related provisions to see the bigger picture.

kirkwood Cognitive disability is recognized as the largest disability demographic in the NY area. It would be good to do more to promote COGA in these conversations.

Lisa slide 8, walks through types of work we'd postpone.

Lisa postponing could be as long as 4 - 6 months. We're a small, dedicated group.

<Eric_hind> +1

+1

<Jennifer> +1

<julierawe> +1

<Lisa> do you like this proposal

<Lisa> Making content useable V2 - postpone

<Lisa> Research publications

<Lisa> Monthly actions review - postpone

<Lisa> Other work and issues - depends

<Jan> 0 - I am concerned about the timeline. If they publish every 6 months, we could be in the same boat of putting off COGA works for each publications from AG

<kirkwood> similar concern

<Lisa> we should pospone often

Lisa this is a good time to look to see if our user needs are missing. We need the full group to review (to get the right representation).

Jennie is there a way we could get a prioritized list of provisions to help us schedule reviews? are there ways we can maximize our impact - are there places where we can be more effective than others?

Lisa I think we have a slide to answer Jennie's question coming up.

julierawe what we think is missing? what needs to be addressed? This would be the only time (I hope) we will need to have this large effort of review.

julierawe This is the time to make sure your community group is presented.

Rachael there are ways to prioritize this. The key will be to work in sections of WCAG to get the full picture of that section.

Lisa slide 9 - outlines the purpose, proposed process, and schedule for 2 types of reviews

Lisa a key will be having people working asynchonously so that we can optimize our meeting times.

scribe: slide 10, proposed process 1 weekly meetings
... slide 11, proposed process 2 weekly meetings
... both proposals represent working on Thursdays but our big question is h wmuch of Monday is going to be used for 3.0 review.

Jennie just trying to balance out competing tasks. Sounds like the conformance group is going to go beyond the planned time period. Do we know how long it will extend? That'll help me think about thi.

Rachael it won't extend that long since it needs to stay in our current plan timeline. I'll get back to you after I learn more about their plan.

<Lisa> 1: focus on thursday.

<Lisa> 2: use m=thursday and monday

<Lisa> 0 - something else

Jan I think I'm agreeing on Thursday call

julierawe it would be great if people had advanced noticed for the Thursday work.

Lisa I agree. Myabe we keep that to 5 minutes of Monday's call.

Jennie is there a possility of atending the first Thursday call and then doing async work instead of attending both Thursday calls?

Lisa both proposals shouls upport async work

what non-review topics do you think we'd cover on Monday that would a full hour?

<Lisa> 1: focus on thursday. 2: use m=thursday and monday > 0 - something else

Lisa we'd need to look at our schedule but it'd give us a chance to keep things moving for other groups.

<Lisa> 1: focus on thursday. 2: use m=thursday and monday > 0 - something else

Lisa timeboxing non-review topics to just 15 minutes might stall out our work

Jan maybe we spend an hour on Thursday initially to develop a running schedule and then use Monday call to set people up for the work on Thursday. And part of Thursdsay could be used to identify what we'd need for a Monday call (plan for full review or update or decision making).

Lisa +1 to Jan.

<Lisa> 1: focus on thursday. 2: use thursday and monday. 0 - something else

<Jan> Option 1

<Lisa> 1

<Eric_hind> Option 1

1

<Jennifer> 1

<kirkwood> 1

<Jennie> If I can miss some Mondays until it makes up the time for the orientation Thursday call(s) then I can work asynch a bit. Then it doesn't matter the day

Lisa slide 14, COGA priorities - suggestion is to wait on 2.1 but then work throught the rest in sequential order

<kirkwood> +1 to coga label. and recommend hving a link to label for all coga meetings.

Lisa slide 12, tools to help us communicate - github labels to help us communicte with AG and a template that helps us stay consistent as we write issues to help AG subgroups understand what we're asking for

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sqf1HkFVjnJ-VuAIe02f95O8BSPe1cipbUUI9aMSAIw/edit?slide=id.g3c9ad043900_0_37#slide=id.g3c9ad043900_0_37

kirkwood a COGA tracking label would be helpful and including it in our meetings to keep it top of mind for us to be checking regularly.

<Rachael> +1 to joint meetings. That is part of the process from the subgroup side

Lisa we should also consider asking for joint meetings with other subgroups to make sure they understand what we;re asking for.

scribe: slide 13, possible timeline - this slide doesn't show all of the festivals and holidays, tho
... slide 14, I'm not sure how to prioritize the sections since all of them have COGA user needs.

<kirkwood> I waould also keep it as regular agenda item of coga meetings, meaining” “COGA tracking label check-in”

Rachael we can take a pass a think about if other groups need our input for their work earlier than later.

<Jennie> Would really appreciate heads up on work or meetings a few weeks ahead of time.

Lisa we can do a bit of 'what's ready' as a way of thinking through our priorities.

scribe: encourage any one to start reading what they can now, but we will be creating a review template to help people with their work. If you want to get some initial thoughts, please do.

julierawe if you jump midway into the document there might be some effort going into our comments that might not be needed.

<Jennie> I can't attend this Thursday - sorry

<Jennie> I'm ok to following up by reviewing notes

<julierawe> To clarify, having an overview of how the sections fit together will likely cut down on concerns about one section missing things that are addressed in another section.

<Jennie> +1000!!!!

Lisa we could start with the overview this Thursday, the template, how to do research, and scheduling. Maybe even create a google doc for 3.0 review to contain all of this information.

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: julierawe, Jennifer, kirkwood, LenB, Jan, Eric_hind, Rachael, Jennie
Present: julierawe, Jennifer, kirkwood, LenB, Jan, Eric_hind, Rachael, Jennie
Regrets: Abigail Ofer
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: LenB
Found Scribe: len

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)