Meeting minutes
<Lisa> i am here julie
<Lisa> i can chair
<julierawe> ah, OK
<julierawe> how do i remove myself as chair?
<julierawe> I am not sure if that worked, but hopefully zakim now knows Lisa is chairing this meeting
<Lisa> next item
I am so sorry - I just got called into a work call - will have to drop off! My apologies since I just volunteered to scribe!
<julierawe> Lisa is on the scheduling tab of this doc: https://
<Lisa> Current Drafts ready for review:
<Lisa> Animation and Movement Deadline for final review: April 16th
<Lisa> General issues for github (on core issues and supplements and assertions )COGA review of the WCAG 3 working draft Deadline for initial review: April 16th
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: We need people to sign up to review more sections. One person can review a section or people can sign up to review together.
Lisa: Is it clear what to review?
Abi: It's clear what is ready to review.
Lisa: We rescheduled Text and Wording so the pre-read will be sent on April 23 and the discussion will be on April 30. Is that reasonable?
Len: That sounds reasonable.
Lisa: I will send the general issues to the list so we can discuss this Thursday.
ACTION: item: Lisa to send general issues to the list so we can discuss this Thursday.
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: We need to align on a process for agreeing as a task force that issues are ready to be formally added to GitHub.
Lisa: Eric sent an example of how to reach quorum for the issues drafted for the Animation and Movement section.
Lisa: We discussed at a couple Thursday calls, and Eric has sent an updated version to the task force.
Lisa: Personally, I would send the text of each issue to the task force.
Lisa: Are we comfortable?
Julie: I thought the bullet list of github issues that Erik used, 5 specific to his section and 3 generic. I think if we send each as its own issue it would get overwhelming. I like the bulleted format. If we are deciding whether to send a single email with multiple issues or multiple issues, I think the single issue would be better.
thank you, Rachael!
Lisa: I like the way he included links in his bulleted list
Lisa: What I said was you could click on one link to open all the issues.
Rachael: Generally, we ask for feedback to be one topic per email.
Rachael: Too much in a single issue may be too hard to keep track of.
Lisa: This is about getting consensus. Each issue per provision.
Lisa: If there are two things per provision, they'll be in the same GitHub issue.
Lisa: But we're trying to be very granular with the GitHub issues.
Lisa: I am asking about COGA's consensus process.
<Rachael> +1
Lisa: Everyone will have had two chances to discuss the issues on a Thursday call, plus a chance to review over email.
Lisa: I don't think we need to do a CfC style.
Lisa: Do you think that's enough?
Rachael: I do.
<Lisa> Is disscuion on thursday (at least once) and an email to the list (at least once) enough for consences to submit an issue in the name of coga
<Lisa> +1
<LenB> +1
<julierawe> +1
<kirkwood> +1
Abi: I personally found the information Eric sent pretty comprehensive. It was enough information.
Lisa: People can always say "I need more time to review."
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: This proposal was inspired by Len and Eric's use with AI on the Thursday calls about reviewing WCAG 3.
Lisa: We have delayed and delayed the next version of Making Content Usable.
Lisa: People flagged things about the first version and they may feel that we have ignored their comments.
Lisa: I was wondering if maybe some people are interested in trying to get the next working draft out of Making Content Usable even if it doesn't have all of the design elements in place.
Lisa: Could we perfect a prompt that helps us convert the patterns into the new temeplate? That might speed things up immensely.
Lisa: Another thing we could do is focus more on the new organization of the patterns and maybe moving some things into appendices.
Lisa: We could make an interim version we can get it out quicker.
Lisa: So the two thoughts are to use AI to get the new version out or to do less on each pattern.
Lisa: Do people understand the suggestions?
julierawe: AI gives up a boost but still takes time on top of the AI.
<Lisa> Julie :it is still a lot of work
julierawe: If we want to get the next version of Making Content Usable back on the front burner, I can't do it. I can't do it at the same time as the holistic review of WCAG 3.
LenB: I would want us to come up with a roadmap and with the right people.
LenB: I would need to understand what our game plan is before we figure out the tooling and the people.
Lisa: If someone wants to do an experiment, trying to do a prompt to the new structure, then the amount of work could be very different.
Lisa: The first thing might be to do a feasibility assessment of new structures inside the pattern.
Lisa: Taking each pattern and rewriting each pattern, if AI can do it for us. That depends on how much work it would be with the right prompt.
Lisa: A prompt clarifies the instruction. You might do that 3 or 4 times.
Lisa: Can we get a good prompt?
Lisa: Maybe what we want to start doing is what are the questions we need to update our game plan?
Lisa: We've been working on our new game plan for two years without anything to show other than a very early stage prototype.
Lisa: We have a lot of work to do to get a first working draft.
LenB: I agree with what you said. There is the high-level prompting, like how we want the responses to be written, such as voice and tone.
LenB: We also have to train it with a way of thinking, to make sure that becomes a skill for this AI prompt.
LenB: We'd need to sit down and do a lot of quality training with the AI>
LenB: Then the prompts will have to be written for each section.
LenB: Each section will have to be managed.
LenB: All of that prompting, all of that training, will need to go somewhere.
LenB: There's prompt management and needing a system to make sure we all stay in sync. One person using one AI engine on one laptop.
LenB: Having it learn what was in previous versions as well as in the research modules is something we could train and use in the future in other projects.
LenB: We'll have to deal with the management of what it means to have something like that and of one person being a bottleneck (potentially).
LenB: We could take a few weeks to come up with that game plan, including what result we hope to get out of it.
Lisa: Someone could make the wrapper so the iteration of prompts go to the same AI.
Lisa: I think the repository in GitHub has Claude integrated?
LenB: Claude is integrated in GitHub, but it has been trained for workflow management.
LenB: For us to train it to come up with examples and user needs...
Lisa: I don't think that's what it's going to be like.
Lisa: On the pattern level, they take the existing pattern, fit it in the new structure and add new examples.
Lisa: It could be that Claude does the restructuring and we leave space for the new examples.
Lisa: We could have a different prompt that creates examples.
Lisa: We could just have a restructuring prompt.
LenB: That would be done outside of GitHub Claude.
LenB: Now we're getting into the tooling details.
LenB: I'd be willing to think on it.
LenB: I'd need to get a primer on where things are.
LenB: I've been in the weeds. I'd need a 20,000-foot-level view.
Lisa: Do we want to start thinking about this now?
Lisa: This would be investigating what is realistic rather than actually doing the work right now.
Lisa: The idea would be to get a sense of how long this would take if we use AI>
Lisa: And then we would start doing the work after the WCAG 3 review?
Lisa: The first step might be to decide if we want the same restructure of every section? Or do we want to go a different way?
Lisa: If anyone disagrees, I suggest we grapple with feasibility, maybe a couple of us have a call and explore the issues and discuss on a Monday call.
Lisa: I think we need to adjust our plan anyway because it's been taking so long.
Lisa: Question #1: Do we want to look at different options for version 2 of Making Content Usable while the WCAG 3 review is happening?
julierawe: Do Lisa and Len think they have time to do feasibility thinking about V2 at the same as reviewing WCAG 3? So many sections have not been claimed yet for the WCAG 3 revidew.
Lisa: It's a different kind of thinking. Thinking in the shower versus a deep review.
LenB: I think it's the right next task.
LenB: What is the timing?
LenB: I would want the next couple weeks to focus on Text and Wording and then I could start to think about feasibility.
<Lisa> ?
LenB: It's not like we need the feasibility plan tomorrow.
LenB: If we can develop it over time, I could do it. But not next week.
Lisa: I might put together a document with different proposals and pros and cons.
Lisa: I could start to develop that and then people could have a place to start saving their thoughts.
<Lisa> Question #1: Do we want to look at different options for version 2 of Making Content Usable while the WCAG 3 review is happening?
<LenB> +1
<Lisa> +1 but wcag 3 review is first priotiy
<julierawe> +1 but with limited time commitment from me while WCAG 3 review is happening
<Jan> +1, but with very limited time availability
kirkwood: What are we prioritizing?
<Abi> +1
Lisa: We're prioritizing WCAG 3 review on Thursday calls, but we'll use Monday calls to talk about V2 of Making Content Usable.
Lisa: I'm seeing a strong consensus of yes, but with very little time.
Lisa: OK, that's all we have time for.