<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> clear agenda
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Zakim 3. next version of the gap annalisis https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html - approve and proof read
<scribe> scribe:alastairc
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page#Timelines
Lisa: Timelines, for gap-analysis
we're lookign to publish an itteration in August. In this case,
finding your way around better, and addressing some issues
raised.
... We have some must-do items, and some wish list.
The key items for the next publication were wayfinding, and separating out the make-usable document. We have that as a separate doc.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable
Lisa: As we're trying to get this
out, we wanted to suggest a URI (URL) for approval.
... we were thinking of coga-usable
... do we like that? Or any other suggestions?
JK: I like that, seems very straightforwrd.
<kirkwood> +1
Lisa: I'll put it to the list, check people are happy with it.
Shari: The URL is fine with me, something else to raise on the design doc.
Lisa: Would like to decide what we do for the next publiciation, so making actions and deadlines.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018Jul/0032.html
Lisa: The AG group asked for
feedback on this processes. My understanding is that we hated
them, we put together two docs of changes that didn't happen,
found it very difficult.
... more likely to get change if we say what the problems
are/were.
... Based on those docs, had a couple of meetings with the
chair & W3C.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sprgvsr9rFGxPyVTMar-l-eHIe5jPP6FywUkd0Jlm9E/edit
AC: We're taking stock, rather than in rush for publication.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bxhXLpsqIy5p6zZHxlsSvjmhUjFqSFGCgE4eelRJxH8/edit?ouid=110409080524773921565&usp=docs_home&ths=true
Lisa: those are the two docs from before
AC: Thanks, will take a look.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html
Lisa: We have a new version of
the gap analysis, we had a couple of issues we can
process.
... JohnR wrote an easy read summary, we should proof read
now.
... Jan, Shari, issue that we weren't sure who it was
for?
... the main doc is for people making standards, whhat was the
appendix is more general
John's summary: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018Aug/0013.html
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coga-comments/2018Jun/0004.html
Lisa: One issue was having the
easy reading summary
... another was this comment
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coga-comments/2018Jun/0000.html
Lisa: duplicate paragraph
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html
Lisa: Main gap analysis is for standards people.
<kirkwood> that is the working draft from 16th of agust and appendix has been removed from main table of contents
Lisa: I can see right now a
problem with "A." for the appendix, the A.1 A.2 etc should be
updated.
... A couple of people mentioned a paragraph duplicated, we can
take care of that.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html
https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues
<kirkwood> Ialistair could you put the steps you are saying in here?
<kirkwood> I would much rather have in a google doc
<kirkwood> but whatever people want. just commenting in github is fine if need to thats fine
AlastairC: Would prefer issues on Github
Lisa: Others would prefer editing in Google docs.
AlastairC: Then suggest only changes are done in google docs, or the google doc is the place for comments, like an issue.
Lisa: Could have a read-only google doc, and people only make comments on the doc, not changing it.
Jan: What about the track-changes?
John: I'm happy with that, see the current and the changes with 'track changes'.
Lisa: Ok, a to-do item to create the google doc.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> John's summary: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018Aug/0013.html
Lisa: Where do we want to have
it, and are we happy with it?
... Johnk, could you take another stab at this?
... probably goes in the introduction?
... it's meant to be an easy read summary of the gap
analysis.
... I think needs a bit more work for the easy read bit.
<kirkwood> discussing making “easy reading summary of the gap analaysis”
Lisa: is anyone happy with it?
AC: Generally good as a
replacement for one of the top paragraphs, we can use it whilst
doing the review.
... In the intro
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> 4. design criteria - were do we stop for the next version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit?usp=sharing [from
AC: Just suggest the top bit includes "which focuses issues people with cognitive disabilities have, and what standards makers can improve:"
<kirkwood> if the summary is put into a google doc I would participate in editorial of summary
JohnK: I did some edits in the design doc, let me check
Lisa: I added in from the last meeting, a bit on usability testing into the theme.
AC: I'll work on the usability testing questions...
Lisa: We've still got quite a few to do, how about we team up a bit?
Shari: Looking at my assigned
design req, the links just give me text on providing text on
providing feedback. Do I take that text and make it simpler?
(Language)
... just realised, once I started, I wasn't sure what was
needed. The content is written, is it just a case of
transposing it?
Lisa: The content is there, but
written for WCAG, so very testable, but harder to understand.
The scope was narrower in many cases.
... so what we can do here is write short easy to understand
sentence(s).
... at the beginning we have a template we're using. The first
one is well filled out and reviewed, people happy with it.
Shari: Ah, ok, I was just
confused the language was already there.
... I modify the content to be easier/
Lisa: We know what we want, just hadn't been able to fill it out.
<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit#heading=h.n3p4akmtiy7n
EA: I looked in the one which I
was involved in, small chunks of text. It was intended to be
against long paragraphs, but has been mistranslated ever
since.
... trying to explain that is really hard, how to be succeed
this time?
Lisa: We can use an example and
explain that, how it works, without it having to conform to a
particular framework.
... in this case we adjust these to match what we had in
mind.
rssagent create minutes
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: shari Jan alastairc Roy kirkwood Found Scribe: alastairc Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]