Meeting minutes
Joshue108: Feedback on COGA call. Any thoughhts?
Joshue108_: How we felt it went, was it useful?
JakeAbma: Always useful. Felt like they thought they had something else than us, I don't think that's the case. We're not that far apart.
JakeAbma: Would be good for them to give feedback on FN list
Joshue108_: Usefule, constructive meeting, and open to their ideas and input.
Scope has to be managed.
<Joshue108_> Not this one? https://
<MichaelC> https://
<JakeAbma> https://
<Joshue108_> JOC: I really like this https://
<Joshue108_> Useful, clear, terse
<Joshue108_> + 1 to using this - nice way of adding these COGA requirements into our Matrix
Have to step away for a minute
<Joshue108_> <discussion on naming conventions on Adapt etc>
<Joshue108_> JOC: Next steps on COGA
<Joshue108_> JOC: Lets invote COGA again in a month, Josh to reach out to Rain and Lisa and we can discuss approaches to using the Suppl guidance doc
<Joshue108_> JOC: I thought it would be interesting to hear their perspective on our Deceptive Patterns work
<Joshue108_> We can add that our agenda for next time.
Review of Jeanne and Mary Jo's feedback
<Joshue108_> Review of Jeanne and Mary Jo's feedback
<Joshue108_> https://
<Joshue108_> They've added comments on our doc- lets discuss
<Joshue108_> Main Functional Needs - Main User Needs - Main Outcomes
Joshue108_: Walking through wwhat Jeanne and Mary Jo left in their feedback
Joshue108_: Can walk through comments left in the doc
<Joshue108_> <Discussion of Bruces comment - on Safety>
JakeAbma: Big problem with intersections
Josh, I missed that, I've got fires at work I'm trying to contain
<Joshue108_> MC: Safety is a general user need and not a functional need as such
Thanks Josh.
<Joshue108_> We could on that basis remove
<Joshue108_> JA: I have an issue with some of these intersections - we should review
<Joshue108_> MC: Discussion of user needs for Deafblind
<Joshue108_> JA: Some blind users may not know braille- or have their needs covered in other places
<Joshue108_> JA: There are potentially endless amounts of intersection, so we have to be careful
<Joshue108_> MC: Right, we should not create intersections because we can
<Joshue108_> I'm inclined to be minimal
<Joshue108_> MC: Lets keep it simple, if we can avoid some intersectional joinings
<Joshue108_> JOC: It's an issue of coverage
<Joshue108_> So the question is do we still need this "Essential Use without physical harm or risk (to self or others within a physical environment)"
<Joshue108_> MC: We should bring Charles back in.
<Joshue108_> JOC: Do know harm *grin
<Joshue108_> I think it was XR related
<Joshue108_> MC: What about multiple disabilities?
<Joshue108_> JOC: Right, and competing user needs.
<Joshue108_> JA: In this case - we should ask people to prove something is an issue, or the requirements of the intersection doesn't work
<Joshue108_> This would be a trigger to see if it is something that we should actually document
<Joshue108_> MC: Makes sense
<Joshue108_> MC: So not abandoning the possibility of an intersection but expecting them to be exceptional
<Joshue108_> JOC: I'll ping Charles and see where he is at
<Joshue108_> <Discussion on Lisas comment on 'Restoring context' for people with dementia>
<Joshue108_> JA: This could already be covered by the existing functional need - on memory etc