<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Accepted_WCAG_2.1_SC

<alastairc> scribe: alastairc

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe: alatairc

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> zakim next item

updates on abstract for WCAG and objections

<alastairc> Lisa: Update on the objections. Some discouragement about objecting, but several people have.

<alastairc> ... these objections were not ignore, it was very much noted.

<alastairc> ... what is going to happen is a change of wording, perhaps not huge change, and there will be a link to something else we are doing. Might be wiki, or some of our work somewhere from the introduction.

<alastairc> ... if we aren't happy with wording we can object again. It doesn't mean we will like the new wording, but it will try and reflect the changes. Possible next step would be 'formal objection'. Would be on grounds of spec not doing what it says.

<alastairc> ... There is a thread outside WCAG where people are working on additional wording, small group that grew. If others want to be on it I can ask, but it is getting big. However, good for another COGA voice to be involved.

<alastairc> ack: jan

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to suggest that emphasis on objections at this current time not the best approach

<alastairc> Janina: I don't think focusing on objections is best use of time. Commitment made to address the problem. We were also asked a question by chairs, which we should answer. Gave me a perspective that was meaningful. I.e. do you think we've been lying in previous versions of WCAG?

<alastairc> ... focus on the wording and making useful changes, move that conversation foward.

<alastairc> Lisa: I thought I'd been answering things, would be good to see that question again.

<alastairc> Janina: I'll dig it up, back soon.

<alastairc> Lisa: There was a formal objection, we can referback to that.

<JohnRochford> Lisa's formal objection: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0118.html

<alastairc> Lisa: Other comments?

<janina> Email from Andrew went to the COGA list on 25 January

<alastairc> John: I'd make a distinction, I don't think of it as intentional lying, I think it was a mistake.

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018Jan/0049.html

<alastairc> Jan: I don't think using inflamitory language is helpful, we aren't going to solve this problem if it becomes combative. 2.0 did not meet the needs of people with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities.

<alastairc> Jan: There shouldn't be a culture where people who are subject matter experts don't feel they can contribute.

<alastairc> AlastairC: Don't think it's a lack of caring about the user-need, but the feasibility of changing content guidelines.

<alastairc> Janina: Not surprised to hear that some aren't experienced with COGA needs, sometimes difficult to see how to deal with it. We do need to make progress, and keep making progress.

<alastairc> John: Another issue is people asking for research, where often there isn't sufficient research. People don't realise that we are experts, have experience with this.

<alastairc> Janina: It's hard when there isn't research, but we solve that with very wide community review, so their comments become reflected in itterative drafts.

<alastairc> Lisa: We had a lot of research, but some requests were very specific.

<alastairc> Lisa: My experience is that I can use upto 4, and there are significant number of people who can't use that many.

<alastairc> ... more would have helped, but the more review & people the better it would be. When we publish the next version of the gap analysis, we have to focus on that.

<alastairc> ... that said we had FunkaNu and others supporting, but wasn't enough.

<alastairc> John: Good news, the webauth group is engaging with me, and are friendly. I'm expecting them to ask how I know that. At least with that group, this issue will come up again.

<alastairc> Janina: Can you CC the list when you have these conversations?

<alastairc> John: It's on github.

<alastairc> Lisa: If you representing us, even unofficially, please CC us so we can be in the loop.

<alastairc> Janina: APA should be doing a review with them as well.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> alister: sometime people use reserch as an excse when they are not comfortable with an SC

<alastairc> Alastair: Often the requests for research are a symptom of people not understanding how to solve it, those objections need to be worked through, not the justification.

<alastairc> Jan: Agree, it often isn't a case of proving it, it is a case of how to solve it. A web dev I know pointed out every person is a single data point, manifests differently person to person. It is often about solving problems.

<JohnRochford> WebAuth working group GitHub conversation: https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/733

<alastairc> ... going forward with COGA, it's one of the most complex areas to deal with. I'm really concerned about the culture issues, an unwillingness to find solutions. We need to think differently about solving this problem.

<alastairc> ... what WCAG 2.0 did is unbelievable, it accomplished a lot, we have to figure out a way to progress with that.

<alastairc> Lisa: New front section on the wiki, which points to where our advice is. This should help other people find things, rather than being our scratch pad.

<alastairc> ... give people a fighting chance to find what they need. I also took out some old content.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Research_sources

<EA> Thank you will add things to this page

<alastairc> ... have a link there for research sources, EA has some wonderful research put into github. Need to put things in here.

<alastairc> Lisa: Put in a note about it's topic, and I'll move to the top of the page.

<EA> I find it much easier to use the Wiki

<EA> yes

<alastairc> Lisa: EA also sent so many good sources, could you add those please? (Yes)

<alastairc> Lisa: Let's carry on collecting them.

gathering reaserch

<alastairc> EA: I'll be putting in the URL, but many require institutional access or payment. Is that a problem?

<alastairc> Lisa: We don't require that, for the wiki anyway.

coga freindly content https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit#heading=h.rgqn5t5157lo

<alastairc> Lisa: Content friendly, if you look under the timeline in the wiki,

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page#Timelines

<alastairc> ... that's also been updated, and if you have problems please say now: asking APA and WCAG to publish the gap analysis in a couple of itterative versions.

<alastairc> ... would like to make 3 publications, updating gap analysis. Make a quick update next month, then may/june.

<alastairc> ... I think we want to put in the outline in what we have in the feb/march version. More comments we get the better, so publishing as often as we can is crucial. Then a final itterative version in Sept, although earlier if we can.

<alastairc> ... wishlist items are nav, voice, [missed something]

<alastairc> ... any comments on that?

<alastairc> Janina: These are called "working drafts", which are a bit more formal than editors drafts.

<alastairc> Lisa: The roadmap is going to be a note, not specification. It is still a publication, so one level away from that.

<alastairc> ... the appendix might be seen as a separate document, which would be fine for us. the sooner we can get it out and get comments the better.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit#heading=h.rgqn5t5157lo

<JohnRochford> I must go to join the low vision TF call.

<alastairc> Lisa: Has a sub-group meeting on Tuesday, which was good, but not as many people attend as said they were hoping to. To get into the March publication timeline, need to finish end of Feb. Need to move a bit faster and have more people participating.

<alastairc> ... I'd like to see if anyone can volunteer?

<alastairc> EA: I'd like to, but 6pm is really difficult as i'm with students, then in the car. Happy to read & write, if you can direct me to it, I can write or proof read.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit#heading=h.dri688yftf4

<alastairc> Lisa: We did an example of one of the mini-items (like a success criteria but not), 1st item was 'make purpose of your page clear'.

<alastairc> ... weren't trying to make testable statements, but wanted to make it clear and readable. Not trying to be a normative document. Includes statements, short explanation of benefits, and hopefully pictures/examples.

<alastairc> ... then have the link to the issues where we defined it in more technical places. There is more stuff included, but we need to put them in different places, so they are small and clear.

<alastairc> ... then there is a list of things to check.

<alastairc> ... any comments on that?

<alastairc> If people want to sign up to re-do some of them, please do now or get in touch. There is also a few sections which haven't been written yet. Andy was going to do the user needs, a section on personas, and about user testing, focus groups & feedback.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18bjXRKSW7hT8PQyS2TCzPyo90i55pJamIGSdTrYdBIQ/edit#

<alastairc> Lisa: That's great, covers a lot.

<alastairc> EU: Traveling for a few days, but after that can work on it.

<alastairc> Lisa: I think JohnR offered, looking at the snippet above?

<alastairc> Lisa: Anything urgent?

<alastairc> Lisa: Thanks everyone...

<alastairc> trackbot end meeting

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)

Succeeded: s/we an refer /we can refer/
Default Present: janina, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, kirkwood, alastairc, JohnRochford
Present: janina LisaSeemanKestenbaum kirkwood alastairc JohnRochford Jan
Regrets: Mark Niel
Found Scribe: alastairc
Found Scribe: alatairc

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 143 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Scribes: alastairc, alatairc

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


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)