Meeting minutes
Updates on transitions
<tzviya> https://
MichaelC: Michael C. will report to Ralph.
<tzviya> https://
MichaelC: Not an adverse thing. This is the only new item from the transitions.
lisa: Is there a way to send thanks?
MichaelC: There hasn't been a message on a public list to reply to. I'll think about that as a to-do.
… We'd like to do a similar thing for Judy.
MichaelC: In short term, Judy is 20% of her time. Michael C., Kevin, and Ralph are all taking over different aspects of her responsibilities.
… don't expect any impact, but longer term will need to figure out structure for moving forward.
shawn: In terms of Jeff and Ralph transition, WAI will still have good support.
Infoshare
<shawn> https://
shawn: Thanks to all who contributed to EO videos. We have super-tight turnaround due to needing to get done by Dec.
… Need help developing fake web pages for the video - this week and weekend. Can be in prototyping tool or html.
<Brent> We also call them "digital props"
jeanne: We did some work on fake web pages, so can send those to you
shawn: We'll be filming next week and will have drafts to review. No refilming, but if there's something we missed we want review/input on that.
… Short turnaround - let us know if you can review.
Brent: This is a rough-cut of the video. It won't be polished in the first iteration.
shawn: EO will be working on the polishing, but invite others to identify what is incorrect.
lisa: When you're making examples, and promote how you do things, and it isn't full of things we are asking people not to do.
shawn: Welcome you to look at the digital props and give feedback which we need this week.
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: On behalf of Roy WAI Adapt is getting ready to publish 3 weeks from now.
janina: Mindful we need messaging for the FPWD and the CR adapt and will get in draft to Michael C. next week.
MichaelC: I shared steps for publishing that with Roy.
<lisa> https://
<Ryladog> Good idea Lisa
lisa: We put out a survey on our research documents. If you intend to use these documents, please fill out survey to help us prioritize work.
MichaelC: We'll circle back, this is our Agenda 4 item.
Cross-group review procedures
MichaelC: We had a discussion on how to do this. What can we do to make reviews more smooth?
MichaelC: What would be needed for discussion - list of challenges we've run up against, a proposal, or what?
Brent: Sometimes it is hard to know where to go to comunicate to the various groups so the communications go to the right place?
<Ryladog> Do we need a cross WG review for a11y, i18n, privacy, security?
<shawn> [ Shawn notes that we had a wiki page to list cross-group reviews, yet I don't think it got much traction? ]
<Ryladog> web page?
Brent: Directly to people, to certain listservers? Maybe if we had a list of places.
lisa: Things mentioned on the coordination calls and making use of liaisons is helpful. We have difficulty tracking comments in GitHub issues and knowing what's going on.
lisa: Having meeting earlier in the day, or a special call to do this would be helpful for non-US participants.
lisa: Awareness that resources exist is important, otherwise our feedback winds up late.
lisa: The groups that are coming up with supplemental guidance is available with the resources we create.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention call time and to say compiling list and to say reduce dup and to address idiosyncratic and to say timelines w/o adding
MichaelC: We have been trying to improve, but still can work on this. Want to move the call to a better time, but not just yet.
MichaelC: A compiled review list could be made for the WAI groups, but we have to make sure they are kept current.
MichaelC: Documentation of procedures and how much consistency or diversity is needed will need to be determined.
… want to make sure the review requests are communicated in this call, with a reasonable timeline that can be done with advance notice it is coming.
<Zakim> Brent, you wanted to say detail in proceedures about type of reivew, how to respond, where to respond, timeline.
<lisa> +1 to michals points
Brent: When EO is looking for review, we have a working group process and tend to expect other groups to follow that.
Brent: Reviews should communicate the essential aspects of the review - who, what, how long, how to respond, where to respond, and deadline.
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to mention review groups from others and to say review template
Brent: Procedures should specify what things are required.
MichaelC: A review template might be helpful
MichaelC: Different groups or types of reviews might have different procedures or timelines so this should be somewhat flexible.
Research partner organizations
<MichaelC> https://
lisa: A lot of our research needs to be updated, and we realize many research organizations will be doing literature reviews and similar work
… We would love to piggyback off of their work. Say one organization did a literature review and we'd like to contact them to see what they can share.
… Would like to compile a list of contacts doing research. Should the focus be wider accessibility, not just COGA topics? Would others benefit from this resource?
kim_patch: We are doing the same in mobile and are compiling a list. There's not enough research and it isn't easily discoverable.
… We have a spreadsheet to show what research is happening and a listing of missing research - where it is needed.
MichaelC: I'd like us long-term to be coordinated with research and the RQTF task force is a good place to get together with COGA and Mobile TF
<shawn> [ low vision could use as well (when we get going again) ]
MichaelC: and bring back what you do to this group.
… I will check back in about 3 months to see what progress has been made.
lisa: We're looking for existing literary reviews. We have a database of research.
kim_patch: Us too.
Exploration of GitHub projects
shawn: I've been using it with APG.
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: Does anyone have any advice that has used projects?
<lisa> this is giving me a 401 error
MichaelC: we can circle back periodically to be able to share tips for using tools such as GitHub project. You have to be logged into GitHub to use the above project link.
Glossary project https://www.w3.org/2021/09/draft-wai-glossary.html
<MichaelC> https://
MichaelC: A little over a year ago I began compiling glossary items from various WAI specs, including many duplicates.
… We have to pick which terms should have one common definition, or allowing the duplicates to continue? What is the priority - should we do this, delay, or drop this work?
<Ryladog> Agree with Kim - interactive
kim_patch: I started working on this. If we had a tool where people could quickly comment this is a perfect thing to quickly eliminate redundant terms or come up with a common definition
kim_patch: Needs to be interactive. Don't want to abandon resources like this.
<Brent> +1 to Kim's comments
lisa: It's confusing when people use different definitions or different terms to mean the same thing. A consolidated dictionary is good.
lisa: "Focus" for someone with a cognitive disability is very different from "focus" in WCAG, so there's two very different definitions.
lisa: Need to have someone who is responsible for ushering the definition and handling comments, keeping primary expertise with the group where the term has specific meaning.
janina: When there isn't agreement between ourselves, we can't communicate the desired definition to others.
… Need a process or tooling that works for all who are working on this.
… Need to focus on places where there are clashes of definitions. A good first pass to take.
… dictionaries do have multiple definitions, depending on use and there would be legitimate reasons for that and describe where and why they are used with different meaning
<Ryladog> +1 to Janina
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to ask gsheet?
MichaelC: There is a lot of interest in this project. If content is moved to a Google sheet, is that a good enough interactive tool?
kim_patch: Yes and if there's issues, someone from Google and let them know the use cases where the tool is difficult or doesn't work if that's the case.
kim_patch: If there are different definitions for a term, this is good to get people together so help everyone understand why there are different definitions.
janina: Sheets has a bunch of proprietary shortcuts that are hard to remember or learn.
janina: It would be nice if the same commands were available from the browser.
MichaelC: Would it work if we come up with a workflow where we can start in a Google sheet and find a way to make the process work for us.
daniel-montalvo: Filtering when there's merged cells is also difficult, making spreadsheets difficult.
jamesn: Excel has the same collaborative ability when the document is in the cloud.
<jeanne> List of WCAG3 Testing websites
lisa: Not everyone has paid a subscription fee so may not be able to use Excel.
MichaelC: I'll start in Google sheets and maybe Excel as well.
Ryladog: Google sheets can be used to open an Excel file.
MichaelC: Not sure how well merging changes works between tools.
… I'll circle back next time and we'll go from there.
janina: Could Microsoft comp the W3C access to Office 365?
<Ryladog> Good idea Janina
MichaelC: I'll connect with Phillipe to see if this is possible.
<Ryladog> Office 365
<lisa> thanks Michael
MichaelC: I announce these calls in UTC, but the meeting invites are in Boston time.
MichaelC: Next meeting is 30 Nov. then 14 Dec. and we won't meet for a month. Will try to come up with a better time in the new year.
MichaelC: I'll be sending out a scheduling poll later.