<Eric_hind> meeting: Github issue review

<Eric_hind> scribe: EA

GitHub issues and concensus - Eric does not have the updates to hand

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/

WCAG 3 was updated last week - no actions needed but let Rachael know if any issues arise/

Eric shared screen to show a googe form

<Eric_hind> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd66mCw3DkT_OUrxGfsQja4UzhzSRsXWQSniCdqPCFIBic8AQ/viewform?resourcekey=0-VDSD5-MIXbXBBqeV767KSQ

Expand STEM acronym to STEAM - no issues added

Issues 295 in GitHub - about wording in Content Usable - about being extraneous and hard to understand. May need more clarity - Rain added

<Jennie> +1 to Rain's comment

Rain said we are working on it as the structure is re-examined and will also add illustrations to help with comprehension - it is iterative with continued effort so can close the issue and point to the work being undertaken

<kirkwood> +1 to Rain

Julie added that the general note about language complexity is really important but as we work on the style guide we need to think about the sentences that need adjusting but is there a way that we are making some changes... or going through the whole thing

Eric feels that with the iterative process - circling through will hopefully pick up on things.

<kirkwood> we shouldn’t be afraid to use AI to simplify. plain language introduction?

<Rain> +1 to having a working group that is specifically looking at this question

<kirkwood> +1 to Becca

Becca feels the language is complex and is there appetite for a companion document

<Jennie> +1 - follows our advice in Content Usable

Rain and John agreed to this idea

<Rachael> This was the companion document (which was then also put into content usable) https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#summary

Jennie as well - Rain said that on the side there could be a short simple version for those complex sentences and a working group could help with this idea

John K said that with AI we could get help for the simplicity work

<Rain> +1

Eric said we have improved process but getting a working group perhaps in GitHub would help

<kirkwood> +1

<julierawe1> +1 to Jenny suggestion

Jennie - Perhaps it would help where the end users could see where the work is being done might help with the response - Julie agreed.

GitHub really needs to be set up so reponses to issues could be seen - need to reach back out to the person who raises the issues - perhaps an email back so there is a way of having a follow up.

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<julierawe1> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

Eric asked for a vote on progress ongoing

<JMcSorley> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

Eric then went on to say we need to discuss the idea of a working group for a style guide and John K asked for more specifics... so reduce language complexity

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Rain> +1

All voted +1

<JMcSorley> +1 for style guide to reduce language complexity

<julierawe1> +1

Issue 298 - phrase difficult to parse - simplify by replace the group of description with cognitive processing

Felt it was necessary to give more concrete explanations

Rain agreed what was written might be confusing but felt the exact use of different terms was more important than using a phrase such as cognitive processing to cover the different aspects of the process.

<kirkwood> age related cognitive decline?

<kirkwood> agree on rewrite

Rain felt the whole line might need a re-write to ensure clarity

Julie agreed - need to be specific and discussed how the three bullets might need clarification so that the final bullet does not need to be so complex

<kirkwood> +1 to cognitive processing is not specific (and not propefly used here i feel)

<kirkwood> are we losing age-related cognitive decline?

<Rain> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<julierawe1> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<JMcSorley> +1

Rewite was agreed

Issue 300 terms difficult to translate without example - Additional terms would help

John K need to actually add the terms to the glossary

<kirkwood> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<Jennie> +1

<JMcSorley> +1

Jennie in response to the issue - need to consult with the Internationalisation group - once received the specifics we can close the issue making sure we add the required terms to the glossary

+1

<Rain> +1

<julierawe1> Eric, can you share your screen again?

Issue 301 needs to be completed - voice menu systems not clear - using zero and when this should be requested.

The issue is complex - expect to get help at any time or beforehand - it has been assumed that the number zero will lead to help.

Julie - Help as a result of selecting help ... should be mentioned at the start - is that an option

Eric felt this might fall into the scope of editorial - check the research

<julierawe1> +1 to John K—this is very hard for organizations to resource

John K most difficult thing is to have human help all the time - bypassing phone trees is not always possible and need to realise this aspect

Julie user preference at top of menu but cannot always staff this feature and so recommendations are more nuanced and acknowledge resource restraints.

<kirkwood> very good pt about accessiblity option

Jennie - if people here the option of zero first means everyone would want to use it so could one add an accessibility option at the start but this may need more research to see if this is feasible

+1 to more research in this area

<JMcSorley> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<Jennie> +1

Hear not here the option!

<kirkwood> neurotypical is quite well used

Issue 302 5.4.1. general population used in context of the coga population and should it be changed to some of the other examples such as neurotypical or neuronormative but these could be seen as being complex in some circumstances

<Jennie> +1 to Becca's suggestion if others ok with it. Reason: more plain language.

<Becca_Monteleone> "without cognitive and learning disability"

Could we just say 'not having a cognitive disability' but John K said that this has a precise legal definition in USA law

<julierawe1> Is "neurotypical" an OK alternative?

Becca added that many people use the term as part of the ADHA and autism spectrum

<Rain> +1, can we anchor on the need instead of the diagnostic-concept? e.g. a more simplified version of "without cognitive and learning disabilities or barriers to access"

Julie says that using the cognitive and learning disability whether with or without makes for a very long set of phrases in one sentence.

<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to having a larger conversation around these labels

Eric felt we may need to discuss this at a later time and Jennie added that may need more people on the group to tackle this issue

<Rain> +1 to John's suggestion, maybe come to a future meeting with some ideas in front of us?

<Rain> +1

John K suggested have a scratch pad with the options that would allow all the potential options. May be complicated but might provide more people with the chance to choose the option they felt was best for the document

Julie noted that 'general population' is only used 4 times.

<Eric_hind> +1

Eric would like to have a scratch pad option

<kirkwood> +1

<JMcSorley> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<julierawe1> Gen pop is only used 4 times, meaning there are only 4 times where we need to replace that particular phrase :)

<kirkwood> really against ‘general population’ btw

<Jennie> +1

Issue 304 5.5.7 Unclear final point regarding process - previous idea - "and document the steps that will be taken on feedback"

Julie looked at how the organisation will respond to feedback.

<Eric_hind> j -rain

Juie felt that it might take time for an organisation time to process and work through to feedback a resolution - is it instantaneous or does it allow for time

Rain felt that these issues are appearing to a general lack of clarity and this might be sorted by looking at the need for plain language - send it to the working group with specific tickets - give this feedback to those adding issues of this nature... also confusing as the type of feedback required.

There may be a legal risk for some issues - need to clarify the circumstances of the type of feedback needed as well as the different way the feedback needs to be documented - the processes required. May need a small group to put together a way of how these issues can be clarified to ensure they are handled correctly

<Rain> +1

<Rain> +1 that makes sense to me

<julierawe1> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<JMcSorley> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

Jennie wondered if the plain language group need to sort this out. Jennie felt that help needs to be separated out from feedback. One group looking at a similar version and another group looking at specific issues raised

<Rachael> +1

<Jennie> +1

simpler version of coga not similar

Issue 318 4.5.6.4 More details reference to title in unclear way - title attribute in HTML or titles?

John K. looking for context to make a decision

Eric felt he did not have enough context

<Rain> "such as the title attribute"

<Eric_hind> +1

Julie confused by the way it has been written - is it. ARIA HTML title attribute - may need to show it as an example so a text to speech reader rather than a screen reader voices it - this is because those with cognitive disabilities may use a synthesised speech for having text read aloud

<Rain> +100

<JMcSorley> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Jennie> Nice job leading today, Eric!

<julierawe1> I have to hop to another meeting, thank you, Eric!

Eric then suggested we pause on the review

This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: EA, Rain, Jennie, Becca_Monteleone, Rachael, kirkwood, julierawe, Jan, DavidSwallow
Present: EA, Rain, Jennie, Becca_Monteleone, Rachael, kirkwood, julierawe, Jan, DavidSwallow, julierawe1
Found Scribe: EA
Inferring ScribeNick: EA

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report


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.)