See also: IRC log
<lisa> agenda: this
<lisa> scribe: kirkwood
<lisa> i will ping u
<Pietro> I'm connected only by IRC because I'm travelling by train
first action item what success criteria dealing with
<lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html
not hearing echo
LS: interupitons and successful
authenitification
... talkeabout undo and support personalization
<JohnRochford> correction: accessible authentication
LS: the one for next week
thinking of putting for confirm important information
... its something feel we can get through
<AWK> That one is https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/33
LS: the other is error
prevention
... Andrew said would help put together time to help work
onit
... anything else needed to go forward?
... next item
... put link to attachment here in irc
<lisa> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2017Jul/0023.html
<lisa> application/octet-stream attachment: Support_Personalization_proposal.docx
<lisa> Personalization Metadata (AAA)For pages that contain user interface components, personalization metadata is used to provide contextual information for content, except where the technologies being used do not support personalization metadata.
Andrew: we have found having
conversation on working group calls is difficult. We suggested
and Lisa agreed that a few should get together on what issues
are and what to accomplish in order to move forward. Ultimately
think the vision is in line with what the COGA group wants. As
Lisas says not whole lot of disagreement there
... currently you can used some semantics to get some amount of
personlization. aira landmark elements, specialized tools can
provide a wide vairiety of transformation
... if you have paragraphed content tools should be able to
replace complex words or make sentence structure simpler
... there are things possible today but maybe poor
toooling
... todo more there are addtional challenges revolve around
additional semantics in dradft documsnt tha tmy be farmiliar
with if involved with ARIA group
... showing reduction of list of items. we don’t have
standardized ways of acccomplishing that
... testability concern
... there is no way you could fail if author needs to
demonstrate pass or fail, some concerns about that
... best approach in end four things one look closely at
existing crtieria
... wor creating new techniques were existing criteria
... clarification document for current SCs
LS: not taling about changing the wording on the document
Andrew: understanding documents
are for people implementing WCAG
... in praticular relations and vaule can do more to dclarify
to benefit user with cognintive diwsabioites
LS: information and
relationships
... coud you extend it sto say the help page?
... 1.3.1 if you have a link to help text for example
... if available in text need extra support here, but
completely conforms 1.3.1.
Andrew: in that specifi exmaple
having object type or link type meta data availble would be of
benefit. right now you could have tool that would make a good
guess by loooking at text. loike in one of your example sitempa
could be site nvigation and tooolls could make guesses by
programtic association and add a icon for sitempa, home, or
suppport, thatw where havein metat adat standardized it would
be valuable
... probale a s use case that wouldnt get support
... suggesting AA criteria for three
Andrew suggesting AAA criteria for 3
Andrews: help prepar developers to have SC move up to AAA
Andreew: four thing supplementary doecument
LS: thanks all for helping us try
to work this out. i think in line with 3everything we are
trying to do. cn see if put in understanding document and
everything elso in a supplement
... orignially wanted to be put indraft as roles and taken out
and want to ptu it back in
... it got voted out on condition we’d get it back in
... as can see in gap analysis you cn see proposed techniques.
and putting it as a preferrred technique woudl help
... don’t think there is any contradiction in saying what we
can do in supporting techniques
... we wanted to say contextual information is available and
then we sxoped it out to reduce author burden
... we added first bullet point to address Mikes issue we ant
relay too much on COGA
... use supporting met adat when availble that cogt thrown
out
adat/data
cogt/got
LS: I do mind that its a
AAA
... I think we all agree this is a complex issue. if its down
grading to a AA lets get rid of it
... I’d be happy to cut that out if gets it down to AA
... rather its in rather than not in
John: in terms of getting it in not in cards?
LS: roles has been defined as
functionlity
... in aria
... I am throwing it back to you
... do you not see it a problem when first proposed lots of
kickback
... what has to have contextual information. seems we are
ignoring all of Alastair’s feedback
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to say that the group never said first let's solve the problems of the blind
Andrew: seems broader
Andrfew: working group doesn’t solve issues of blind
LS: ARiA group did at the time
Andrew: proposed woridning for meta data AAA
<AWK> Personalization Metadata (AAA): For pages that contain user interface components, personalization metadata is used to provide contextual information for content, except where the technologies being used do not support personalization metadata.
Andrew: I want to get peoples feedback
<AWK> Contextual information definition: Information which provides additional meaning for an object, such as the object’s purpose, level of importance for page comprehension and use, position in a process, relationship to other objects and processes, etc.
Andrew: its quite broad. it would
mean applies to all content on the web conforming with
AAA
... I think it is in line with what the tadk force has
duggested
... main diffenendce is based on feedback, we’re thinking we
can get it through at AAA not AA
LS: is ther any addtional information such as relative importance that we can do to get it through at AA
Andrew: AAA is less used than AA
no doubt.
... it from working group calls it is less likely
<lisa> Personalization Metadata (AAA)For pages that contain user interface components, personalization metadata is used to provide contextual information for content, except where the technologies being used do not support personalization metadata.
Jan: sorry came in las reading. like meta data very much. We have at least one other big pary in W3C that gets somewhant involved they may want The publishing working group. There are mulitilple stakelholders and need to civer multiple stkahloders
<lisa> janina
<lisa> jan/janina
Jan: good start AA versus AAA doesn’t trouble me as much
jan/janina
Jan: a SC manager interested in personalization wnated to thank you for taking a shot at rewording and want to stress personlaizaton in education and critical in our industry
Andrew: i haven’t done any of that work but have identified existin that support congintive use case
Jan: i’d like to be involved would appreciate to get some people and persopectives from a technical persopecitvie and would be happ to help coordinate
LS: part of ARIA group not WCAG
and you are on the list
... this is taling about SC for SCAG
taling/talking
LS: using headers help, knowing a
link is a link, or a button is a button. what is missing is the
context
... if we downgrade to AAA can boraden the scope
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk about stake-in-the-sand and AAA
boraden/broaden
<Zakim> AWK, you wanted to talk about DPUB meeting this morning
Andrews: the fact that its new will send a message. given goal is to provide a hook at AA can serve reaonably well for that. Hopefully will encourage technology development and in fueture can see to lower conforence level
Andrews/Andrew
Andrew: less about enableing access to content more about enabling descrition to integrate meta data into conformance statements. you may be right about 2.1
LS: i see we are broading scop
and downgrading to AAA means very few sites will do
anything
... any chance move foreward at AA so people actully get
content
... think the efffect of helping people on the ground would be
negligible
<Jan> +q
LS: it might help move forward
suggest three things option 1 best we can do the second go to
WCAG with these proposals and here is the difference
... do you chooose it at AAA or AA
... which to you want option 1, option 2 which would be ask
WCAG list do they see a way forward at AA
<janina> +
LS: question should we put clear
language at AAA
... put in at AAA might be best way to proceedc
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to repeat myself and to say even if AAA doesn´t help many users right away, it moves the needle so we can help more sooner
Jan: WCAG is not sufficient at a minimal level. we have to meet. Having somehting in at AAA , dont see it is worst thing. do like presseing for AA
<EA> Does this mean we can go back to other SCs that failed and try to get them in as AAA?
<lisa> maybe - trying to find that out\
<Jan> +1 to Michael
Miichael: it helps to put a take in the sand if it doesn’t help users right away. not going to issue an opinon on giving up on AA we shoud see values in AA
Janina: content when there isn’t user agent support that bar of AA is possible too low. Don’t think eventially this will bgo to single A
LS: if AAA don’t know if can get
funding to get plugins at a deployment level
... market driver the content won’t be there
Janina: if you don’t do this thats single A and that we aren’t talking about it isnt ready
LS: I’d like people to vote
... should we dslide to AA or puch one more time
<EA> I have concerns that our coga users will not be supported in this versions
JR: I’d like to get in at AA
<Jan> I would like to go ahead and discuss the difference between the AA and the AAA with the WCAG group, but not if people think that it would damage our ability to get it in at AAA.
+1
for AA
<EA> +1 for AA
<EA> It is hard but we know that so many are missing out at the moment
<JohnRochford> The +1s are for me saying I think we should push for AA.
LS: see divide between cognitve
disability working people and larger group
... if you see no further retriction to get us in at AA thaen
we go for AAA. if anyone is uncomfortable with me drafting let
me know
... people could please give feedback today
<EA> +1 lisa and happy to read
LS: does anyon abject
... i’ll try and get it out in the next hour
... people can say if they have an objections to that
... we need to mindful of people with cognitive diabilites and
no one is going to be completely happy
... can we look through ones that failed Mike?
... is ther any process Andrew and Mike Cooper if we can have a
converation
Andrew: happy to look at it and dig into other topeics not prepared at this moment
LS: Andrew if can help move
forward
... Andrew Mike thank you and appreciate efforts
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Present: JohnRochford Pietro kirkwood Mike_Pluke MikeGower janina Found Scribe: kirkwood Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 17 Jul 2017 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/07/17-coga-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]