Meeting minutes
W3C's World Breakouts Day
There was confusion about times but it has been finalized - Wednesday, March 25th, 13 0 14:00 UCT (9 AM Boston).
Lisa has drafted a deck.
Lisa will be walking through the presentation 9AM ET tomorrow (March 17). We can walk through and decide if we like it and which slides will be presented by whom.
ACTION: item: Julie will add a calendar invite for COGA's breakout session
Julie will create a W3C Calendar invite after we triple check the time.
julierawe if you can't make tomorrow's Research call but want to participate in the March 25th day please reach out to Lisa.
Eric_hind who's the audience for this presentation
Lisa it's the W3C - and we'll have people from all over W3C not just people who are accessibility focused.
Jennie I have attended meetings hosted by groups that are accessibility adjacent but are focused on their primary topics.
julierawe there are 16 total sessions happening on March 25. Some will overlap. The schedule is being finalized. Link to be shared soon.
AI and accessibility - three APA discussion threads that COGA may want to add comments to
<julierawe> Exploring Generative AI: w3c/
Eric_hind the CSS group will be rewriting their consideratings for scrolling - largely due to our feedback.
… we can review these and add issues for any gaps we see.
… Eric will keep us in the loop for progress in APA on these topics.
<julierawe> Tracking and Exploring AI and Accessibility: w3c/
<julierawe> AI and accessibility: opportunities and risks (w3c\webai #14)
<julierawe> For the last link: w3c/
julierawe is there a deadline for these?
Eric_hind not at this time, since these are all exploratory.
julierawe maybe we should carve out some time to talk in depth about these in a future meeting.
Eric_hind it might be worthwhile to make a COGA issue and freethink in there?
Lisa did they know about our issue paper on Safety? Becuase that could be an easy first step.
… we were thinking about splitting the Safety paper into 2 parts so that one could focus on AI. WOld that still be useful? Or should we just collaborate with them.
ACTION: item: Eric_hind to send APA our issue paper on safety and wellbeing
julierawe based on the topics that Eric has shared it seems that APA is working on this very broadly. It seems like we should write something to outline our concerns to help them focus on.
Lisa I think we should talk with Janina, show them what we've done and that we're thinking about a paper on AI considerations. Maybe it's better to give our use cases to them. I think we should talk with them about how to proceed.
Lisa Is the proposal for the new group to be under APA as a task force?
Eric_hind I'll get more specifics about that.
kirkwood I was wondering that, as well. I was look around.
<julierawe> Exploring Generative AI: w3c/
<julierawe> Tracking and Exploring AI and Accessibility: w3c/
<julierawe> AI and accessibility: opportunities and risks: w3c/
julierawe We only have a few threads of conversations and don't have clarity on that, yet.
COGA's holistic review of WCAG 3 - update on Thursday meeting time
julierawe We ralized we had a complicated calendar invite system. We've consolidated the invites so that we can all join meetings when we can. The first invite has been ezpanded to a full three hours. You are enocuraged to join as much of that call you can.
… Hopefully Roy can remove the old invites from our calendars. We're trying to make this easier.
… the invite explains what is happening in each hour.
… we only recorded the deck presentation (that introduced WCAG 3.0 to COGA).
<Jennie> Is this the meeting which will be recorded?
Jennie I thought the process was that we would be recording these sessions.
julierawe We recorded that intro session. But, I'm hearing from Jennie that we might record the work presented before we all start working through the details.
<Jennie> Thanks!
julierawe we are still working out how to approach our work.
COGA review of WCAG 3's "Animation and Movement" section
julierawe we had volunteers to review specific sections. Eric selected Animation (a smaller section to help us get our bearings). He used AI to help identify things we maybe have thought of. Eric also started working on writing up some GitHub issues so that we could rview before they become real issues in GitHub.
<julierawe> Eric is on the "Animation and movement" tab
Eric_hind review COGA Internal issue #1 (in the link above).
… switched to this new document to talk about a process that incoporates ideas on the table Lisa had been using.
… provide users needs NOT met. Leave blank if they have been met. Then write an issue in the notes / discussion column to address the unmet needs.
… We can add comments or vote in the notes / discussion column.
… this table will be added to the original COGA Review document.
<julierawe> Eric is in the section of that tab that is titled "Proposed Issues for Github (Animation and Movement)"
<kirkwood> could share link in irc?
<Eric_hind> https://
julierawe every row in the table will be a unique provision. The primary difference between what we saw in Lisa's approach is that this has become a GitHub issue and is more polished.
Lisa we agree that the user needs from COGA MCU weren't great matches to Provisions. The division of content affects how we do user needs. We had thought of a matching related user needs - or rephrased user needs to better match the provision.
… the template we agreed on is different than what we're seeing here.
Eric_hind it's totally possible - I grabbed the one I thought we were using.
julierawe epressed concerns about if the new table is doing to much by oferring a place for comments which could grow and make a table diffcult to use.
<Jan> Len and I are doing something different - we are using a Google Sheet to cover similar information, but with the flexibility of using a sheet instead of table.
<julierawe> To clarify: I think we need a space in the table for actual discussion. And create a separate space lower down in the tab for draft github issues.
Lisa It is useful to have everything in one tab. I am not sure that if we think that this is a discussion and not a GitHub issue it could be more helpful for us to think through things.
… this is somehow right in between - which could help our conversations and be a starter on the issue when we decide it should be one.
… I thought we were also going to talk about how we're going to build in how people could review our work even if they can't make our Thursday calls. Things like 'what document tabs are ready for review, what is ready for comments, timing, etc.'
<Jennie> Lisa's suggestion for what is ready for review would be fantastic to support asynch review
<Jan> Here is what Len and I (mostly Len) have been doing: https://
julierawe We're still working on our process. In Eric's previous tab there were several GitHUb issues and it could be easier to tell the TF that the GitHub were ready, ask them how much time they'd need to review and then set times and coordinate work from there. I thought the GitHub issues were going to be there focal point instead of going to go
back into the user needs list.
<kirkwood> rather have on call too
julierawe how much time do people think they'd need to review GitHub issues.
Lisa I'd prefer doing it all on a call.
julierawe would one week review plus in-person discussion be enough?
Jan I think that depends on the section length. For animations a week might be OK.
julierawe I think that giving people detail about definitions, scope, etc will definitely take time on call.
Lisa some people will work better asynchronously while others won't. We'll need a call to help those who don't work well async. There are so many tabs and states of provisions (exploratory v development).
julierawe We can aim for discussing Animation section in one meeting. Maybe future sections take more than that. Our main goal is to do this work quickly and with quality.
Lisa what is up for review for Thursday?
<kirkwood> review for what purpose, though?
julierawe An email could be sent showing the 6 github issues to review. This could help people budget time and see exactly what needs to be ready for the next call.
… do we want this Thursday to digging into new sections and save refining Animations GitHub issues for next Monday?
Lisa I thought we were going over Jan's section on Thursday. SInce that was the schedule we had. For Eric and my work we're going to have to ask people to work asynchronously on the next tasks.
… we can go over Jan and Len's work on Thursday and then have async work after that. Otherwise we won't be able to do this in our 4 month deadline.
julierawe This Thursday we'll move on to the next section (jan and Len). After Jan and Len have drafted their GitHub issues we're share those with the TF for async review.
Lisa I said I'd prefer in-person calls but the schedule won't allow for it. I am not sure if we do another call after the first call. If we keep working the way we have been it could take 3 calls (weeks) for each provision. We need to change something.
julierawe I am wrestling with how we create space to work in a way to prep for Thursday.
Jan We had the same issue on the Global Inlcusion Group. We used a spreadsheet to collect comments in a spreadsheet where we could then create a dashboard to talk about in our meeting.
<kirkwood> worked well, I thought
<Lisa> +1 Jan
Eric_hind clarification - was the expectation that GitHub issues were to be created before our reviews?
julierawe NO. We want to talk about them and agree that they should become GitHub issues and then how they should be written before they do become issue. We're still working through the details of the process to get that alignment before it becomes an issue.
kirkwood The process Jan shared worked really well for async work.
julierawe We have a COGA doc with many tabs, but the Global Inclusion Group had a spreadsheet to work in.
Jan the spreadsheet allows us to combine responses into a dashboard to summarize feedback that we can't do in a google doc.
… what we did was each person had their own tabs. We'd tell them what needed reviews and give them time to review.
Lisa I like this idea. Jan can you share more details?
… this process sounds like the one we'll end up using.
AG survey on three updated WCAG provisions - survey is optional for COGA members and closes March 18th
<julierawe> https://
<julierawe> Closes March 18th
Jan I can share the docs we used for our process description that described our workflow.
<julierawe> The survey includes updates to the "No flashing" draft: https://
Lisa Jan, pease send an email about what will be reviewed this Thursday. Then run through the process you described. (to all of us) even if you don't do the homework before a meeting, please come anyway.
julierawejust sharing the survey closing this week so that we are aware of it.