Meeting minutes
<julierawe> agernda?
present_
Reminder to sign up to scribe, thank you!
<julierawe> Link to our scribe list: https://
Reminder about this week's subgroup calls
Julierawe: research subgroup meeting tomorrow at usual time. Usual thursday COGA review of WCAG 3 call
Lisa: Research subgroup has now been moved to Tuesdays at 9 ET (used to be Thursday). Reminder to attend new time
<julierawe> W3C calendar link for tomorrow's research call at 9am Boston time: https://
Julierawe: Thursday call also started at 9 ET
Update on COGA review of WCAG 3
julierawe: COGA working on process for how to review WCAG 3. Streamlining voting process to vote directly into Google doc.
julierawe: will send out github issues to get asynchronous feedback, but will meet as Thursday group to make sure wording is agreed upon before doing that.
julierawe: wording will be finalized before voting
Lisa: the main purpose of initial send out will be to gather initial feedback and then Thursday group will reach consensus on wording and then will circulate for final approval
julierawe: example with general issues that Thursday group aligned on this week
ACTION: item: COGA task force to vote on the general issues that the Thursday group aligned on last week: https://
<julierawe> Please submit your vote for each general issue by adding +1, -1, 0 in the google doc
Lisa: unless there are serious objections, consensus on these issues close today
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: plan to submit issues to AG tomorrow morning so vote on Google doc by end of day Monday April 20
<julierawe> Updated action item: Vote by the end of today (April 20)
<Lisa> Issue G1: Please adjust 3.1.1 - the definitions of core and
<Lisa> supplemental, so WCAG is more equitable.
<Lisa> -
<Lisa> Issue G2: Assertions should be core or supplemental.
<Lisa> -
<Lisa> Issue G3: Assertions are too long and hard to follow. Please replace
<Lisa> the text of how to write an assertion, with a link.
<julierawe> To vote, go to this tab in the google doc and enter your vote for the three issues: https://
julierawe: John and julie have done initial review of interactive components section. Draft issues sent out on Friday for first 4 subsections, will send update with a few more issues today
julierawe: to be discussed on Thursday
<julierawe> This Thursday we will have initial discussion of the "Interactive Components" section: https://
Should COGA update its user needs and functional needs? If so, how and where?
julierawe: Len created a comprehensive list of COGA user needs in COGA publications
<julierawe> Len used AI to compile a list of COGA user needs: https://
Lisa: we get user needs from different places - research modules, feedback from community groups, other research, open issues in Github and comments list
Lisa: sometimes AG identifies user need that we haven't identified
Lisa: we need to collect and consolidate them so that we have a more comprehensive list for the next version of Making Content Usable
Lisa: questions - where do we store them? is it grounded in the research? how do we assess if the user need is legitimate?
Lisa: need to document where these user needs come from and what they are based on (research, consensus, anecdote, etc.)
Len: in review of WCAG 3, noted that there had been a lot of good identification of user needs among the group without supporting research
Len: e.g., in review of text section of WCAG 3, we noticed that there was guidance around readable font - there seemed to be a gap in our identification of user needs, even though could point to some of the research that supports this
Len: some of the gaps may require an issue paper and others may not, but needs to be decided upon as a group
julierawe: identifying two issues - we don't have a long list of user needs around text appearance AND we don't have the research module for this
julierawe: what's a process that can help us capture what we need around user needs?
julierawe: how can we think about what else might be missing? Someone suggested, for example, time blindness as a functional need
Lisa: could start with a google doc or spreadsheet. Start with Len and Jan's suggestions and then start a running list
Lisa: could start with Len's google doc and start different tabs for different sources: https://
Lisa: be careful about noting where each user need is coming from so that we can refer back
LenBN: some of the gaps may require an issue paper and others may not, but needs to be decided upon as a group
Lisa: New tabs on doc to refer to location of each user need being identified. Draft table included.
julierawe: need to check that these user needs are actually excluded from COGA docs and not just worded differently or located elsewhere
<Lisa> https://
COGA issues on github and comments list are places where people may suggest new user needs
Comments list: https://
Lisa: COGA community group has a google doc with an entire section on user needs as well
julierawe: need for separate tables for sources?
Lisa: may be easier to identify where it's from if tables are separate
<julierawe> present?
Lisa: suggest a separate tab for WCAG 3 review since we will need to break it up by section
LenB: having WCAG review separate may allow us to a) show AG our work and b) prioritize where we go
Julierawe: reminder to people who cannot attend WCAG 3 review meetings on Thursdays to please submit asynchronous feedback
julierawe: in need of more people to volunteer to review sections of WCAG 3
julierawe: please let julie know if there are barriers to participate
Lisa: suggesting that if reviewing alone feels daunting, working in pairs is possible
Lisa: sections vary in length, so shorter reviews are possible
Johnkirkwood: reviewing user need themes - one of the major themes that seems like it should appear here is Memory
User Need Themes: https://
julierawe: interesting that AI tool did not flag Memory - view this AI summary as a work in progress
LenB: raises questions about how we should structure. Map on to WCAG 3? Take a different structure?
LenB: there are only 2 provisions in WCAG 3 that refer to memory