Meeting minutes
order is 5, 1,2,3,4
main meeting
next item
<Eric_hind> Julie, I don't see anyone in the zoom? Can you paste the right link?
wronge link
https://
https://
<julierawe> present?
<julierawe> Lisa is going over the "review process" tab of the document
<julierawe> Lisa We'll update the review process as we figure out what works best.
<julierawe> Eric_hind asked if the working draft will change in the next 6 months
<julierawe> julierawe noted that the working draft will be stable.
<julierawe> julierawe noted that the working draft leaves out the exploratory provisions, some of which address COGA user needs.
<julierawe> Lisa Let's talk more about whether to review the working draft or the editors draft or both.
<julierawe> Lisa is going over the "Schedule, actions, and minutes" tab
<julierawe> Lisa is noting that the first section is huge: Images and Media.
<julierawe> Lisa: We were thinking we would start with "Animation and movement," which is small and only has one guideline, but it affects COGA.
<julierawe> Lisa: Does anyone have time to try to review "Animation and movement" over the next week?
<Jan> Can you please explain what "review" means?
<Jan> How do we document our concerns during a review?
<julierawe> julierawe Are you suggesting that one individual review a section? I thought we were doing a group review.
<julierawe> Lisa Maybe a small team wants to work together.
<julierawe> Lisa Some sections are so big, we're not going to manage all of us doing all of them all the time.
<julierawe> Lisa: We could have 3 or 4 teams doing parts of Text and Wording.
<julierawe> Lisa: Or maybe I'll take Error Handling. I might have 5 weeks to get it done.
<julierawe> Lisa: But if I'm joined by Eric and Jan, and we take 5 weeks, our deadline is impossible.
<julierawe> Lisa: We were thinking whoever does the first review, we'll be testing whether the review process works.
<julierawe> Lisa: Each section will be reviewed by a small group or an individual.
<julierawe> Lisa: Do the initial review, which includes looking at the editor draft, and then identifying which user needs are not covered.
<Jan> I think we need to do preliminary identification of the user needs and put all of this into a spreadsheet so that people are being consistent in how they are identifying missing user needs. Not everyone will identify user need effectively if they are not in a list they can scan.
<julierawe> Lisa: We'll use the main meeting (first hour) for certain task and the working meeting (next two hours) to flush things out.
<julierawe> Lisa is going over the "Template" tab.
<julierawe> Lisa The reason I don't have all of us working on each one is because I don't think it's doable.
<julierawe> Lisa I expect after we do the first one, we'll improve the review process and then it will be a bit easier.
<julierawe> Jan I know from working with the internationalization community group that it would help to have a user needs list first.
<julierawe> Lisa: We have a list in Making Content Usable.
<julierawe> Jan: But you have user needs in a different place. We need to capture in one place so we make the review process easier to complete.
<julierawe> Jan: I'm happy to set up spreadsheet reviews.
<julierawe> Lisa: To put all of our user needs in a google sheet?
<julierawe> Jan: So the sheet is where we capture our thoughts.
<julierawe> Jan: I'm just thinking about how it's worked for the internationalization community group.
<julierawe> Lisa: So the sheet is all the user needs?
<kirkwood> +1 to putting it into a sheet
<julierawe> Jan: And people could select which one it missing.
<julierawe> Jan: You have all the user needs in a list
<julierawe> Jan: You can select them in a multi-select dropdown.
<julierawe> Lisa is showing the "Full user needs" tab, which does not include user needs from the research modules.
<julierawe> Lisa: We don't have a fixed process. Maybe Jan wants to do the first one to get an idea of what's involved and what might be feasible?
<julierawe> julierawe: Maybe we put together a list of user needs that is specific for each section before we review that section?
<julierawe> Lisa: Could we ask people as part of the initial review process to build a table?
<julierawe> Lisa is suggesting inserting a table into a google doc.
<julierawe> Lisa: If all they do is build this table, then that guides a discussion.
<julierawe> Jan I think I need to go through this and think about it. We can try this approach. I just know it was a lot of work on the front end to set up a review process that laid out links in the spreadsheet and set up the spreadsheet in ways that help us calculate.
<julierawe> Lisa: Jan, do you want to try to do the first one?
<julierawe> kirkwood: I've done something similar to this around cognitive user needs.
<kirkwood> 1. Executive Function
<kirkwood> This group focuses on the "CEO of the brain"—the processes that allow us to plan, focus, and multitask.
<kirkwood> Prioritization: Difficulty distinguishing between primary content and secondary "noise."
<kirkwood> Time Management: Challenges with timed tasks or understanding how long a process will take.
<kirkwood> Working Memory: Difficulty holding multiple pieces of information at once (e.g., copying a code from one screen to another).
<kirkwood> Impulse Control: Challenges with distracting animations or "dark patterns" that trigger unintended actions.
<kirkwood> 2. Attention and Focus
<kirkwood> This category covers the ability to stay on task without being derailed by the environment or the interface.
<kirkwood> Distraction: Sensitivity to moving parts, pop-ups, or auto-playing media.
<kirkwood> Information Overload: Being overwhelmed by too much text or too many choices at once.
<kirkwood> 3. Language and Communication
<kirkwood> This involves how users decode text, symbols, and speech.
<kirkwood> Literal Interpretation: Difficulty understanding sarcasm, idioms, or metaphors.
<kirkwood> Reading and Dyslexia: Challenges with dense blocks of text, specific fonts, or low contrast.
<kirkwood> Non-Verbal Cues: Difficulty interpreting meaning from icons alone without text labels.
<kirkwood> 4. Memory
<kirkwood> Memory needs aren't just about long-term recall; they involve how we navigate a site over time.
<kirkwood> Short-term Memory: Forgetting the purpose of a task if it has too many steps.
<kirkwood> Recognition vs. Recall: Preferring to choose from a list rather than having to remember a specific command or username.
<kirkwood> 5. Knowledge and Learning
<kirkwood> This relates to how users acquire new skills and navigate unfamiliar patterns.
<kirkwood> Consistency: Relying on predictable layouts (e.g., the "Home" button is always in the same place).
<kirkwood> Mental Models: Needing the digital interface to mirror real-world logic.
<kirkwood> 6. Perception and Processing
<kirkwood> How the brain interprets sensory input.
<kirkwood> Visual Processing: Challenges with how spatial information is laid out.
<kirkwood> Processing Speed: Needing more time to absorb information before moving to the next step.
<julierawe> Lisa suggested people use the FAST list as a different way of identifying which user needs are not being met,
<julierawe> julierawe pointed out the WCAG 3 provisions have already been tagged but those tags aren't showing up yet in the working draft or editor's draft. The tags are in google docs. Will get added soon to the formal draft, probably in the next six months.
<julierawe> Lisa: The review process should include marking the relevant user needs in the template.
<julierawe> julierawe Are you suggesting we do a broader review? Instead of identifying which user needs are missing, you want to identify which provisions meet which user needs? That is a bigger ask.
<julierawe> Lisa It's more work but it's more thorough.
<julierawe> Lisa: Jan will see if this is possible or impossible.
<julierawe> Lisa: We're going to see with a bit of experience which review process works.
<julierawe> Lisa: People can pick a section, put their name down by that section, and say if they need a week or two weeks or a month, and start doing it. And then when we have our next WCAG 3 review meeting, people can share their experience so far.
<julierawe> Lisa: That's my sales pitch for people picking different sections.
<julierawe> julierawe When does the group review happen?
<julierawe> Lisa: Once I do my individual review, then I bring it to the working meeting and everyone gets to comment.
<julierawe> Lisa: If Jan does her review by March 5, she talks through it, people make broad comments, and then as part of one long discussion, we'll draft GitHub issues.
<julierawe> Lisa: And then we'll have a chance to review the GitHub issues as a group, but I don't know when.
<julierawe> Jan: I can't join any meetings next week.
<julierawe> Jan: I can look at something to see how the process might work, but I can't do the first one.
<julierawe> Lisa is Eric available to review first one?
<julierawe> Eric_hind I can try. Yes.
<julierawe> Lisa: Jan, can you do Text and Wording on the 12th of March?
<julierawe> Lisa put herself down to review Error handling by 19th of March
<Becca_Monteleone> With my current schedule and additional admin responsibilities I am not sure I can take any of the initial review roles right now
<julierawe> julierawe and kirkwood volunteerd to do interactive components for 26th of March
<julierawe> Lisa: We'll use this time to improve our review process.
<julierawe> Lisa: I'll update the schedule.
https://
<julierawe> julierawe Since we cannot record the meeting today, I suggest we do the overview on Monday.
<julierawe> julierawe We can record on Monday, I can send the deck as a pre-read, and hopefully more people will attend Monday's call than are here right now.
<julierawe> Lisa: I am sharing the scheduling survey. We want people to fill it out to fgure out when to meet on Thursdays.
<julierawe> Jan: How long is this going to go on?
<julierawe> Jan: Is this going to go on for four months?
<julierawe> Lisa: That's what we have to figure out.
ACTION: item: Ask all COGA members to fill out this scheduling survey: https://
<julierawe> Lisa: I don't think many of us will be able to do a 3-hour block every week.
<julierawe> Lisa We're really thinking the commitment is the first hour.
<julierawe> Lisa: Even if you just come for the first hour, we'll get your expertise on the user needs.
we will do the full deck on monday
<julierawe> Link to WCAG 3 overview deck for COGA: https://
julierawe: Full review on Monday - Important WCAG 3 links on Working Draft and Editors draft. Working draft only shows developing provisions - the editors contains that plus exploratory... for that reason, we may want to always check the editors draft so COGA related work may already be in flight
julierawe: For example, for animation, visual stimulation is exploratory so the working draft would not show it. This emphasizes that the editors draft potentially has COGA related content.
Lisa: We can give inputs and steer conversations related to COGA topics if we look at both working and editors version.
julierawe: The editors versions does include process notes about keeping, dropping, changing parts.
<julierawe> Eric_hind is there the potential for things to completely change, get dropped, get added?
julierawe: We don't yet have a process on the visibility of changes. There could be some dynamic updates as we review the editors.
julierawe: Another example, note that a requirement must be testable - we might need to change a requirement to an assertion
Lisa: On a balance of getting involved early and avoiding spending cycles needlessly, this is the right ime to dive in.
julierawe: Slide 10 -how the WCAG 3 sections fit together leads to other slides like slide 17 which indicates the WCAG 3 docs Related provisions that gives context for COGA concerns. Check this deck for these related provisions.
Jennifer: Why aren't there already cross-references? Julierawe has requested these kinds of updates (like 2.2.3 pointer to Structure as closely related)
julierawe: The cross referencing can become confusing given the flux - likely a preference to do this in the end per Lisa
julierawe: Slide 24 notes the provisions per section. Helping to scope the required efforts.
lisa: Is it too early to look at Policy and protection? julierawe notes that there are two subsections for Risk and Algorithms which doesn't quite match the section title.
julierawe: Slide 30 shows that each provision link to related to github issues - clicking on that will show related issues. This might be something to check before submitting new issues so we know if we are duplicating or overlapping an existing concern.
thank you julie, that was very helpful
Lisa: Investing time early for any assignee is recommended.
Lisa: Just add your name to the Schedule, Actions and Minutes to take one of the guidlines.
kirkwood: recommend Functional Needs Category from a grouping perspective for our structure
kirkwood: This kind of potential tagging is in the Other Points tab of the review document. Julierawe may forward as a potential tagging system to chairs