Meeting minutes
close item 4
clear q
next item
Lisa: Julie sent message about TPAC, re: how to sign up and pricing may depend on expertise/invite expertise.
Lisa: Connect with me (Lisa) if you need additional help or context
https://
Lisa: While we do have interesting info, we're not complete enough for any TPAC presentations.
julierawe: First two days of TPAC, Monday AG is having retrospective WCAG3 and discussions. Good place to have COGA folks in place to make sure our decisions emphasized and advocated for.
julierawe: Day 2 is about conformance models; no decision made yet for models, there will be discussion on things that could affect COGA. Not sure if there will be a final conformance models decision made that day.
julierawe: On Thursday, there is a AG + Internationalization working group that julierawe will try to sit in on.
Lisa: We shouldn't have a regular meeting next week because of TPAC.
julierawe: Connect with me if you need a hand on site.
Lisa: IRC isn't letting ongoing login as far as we know. It may log you off somewhat randomly.
julierawe: Maybe set up Slack channel?
tburtin: will try setting up a slack channel today for use only for TPAC for now, call it COGA for now - private by invitation only.
tburtin: and... done. Setup and will ping folks.
tburtin: This will go out today by email
julierawe: Please connect as well if you need help registrating
next item
next item
close current item
Lisa: Re: new call times. No conclusive favorite time that works. Lisa has a new sheet of preferences. For now, keeping this time.
Lisa: Would like responses back on time preference by next Monday if possible.
next item
Lisa: pull request to be OK'ed, the ask/tag is out there. Just an early one, so we know it won't be perfect.
next item
close current item
next item
close item 3
stucture
https://
eric giving summary from rain
user testing is over (18 participents)
navigation should be toc, and expandable
The TOC sidebar should default to open, but should also be collapsible.
People generally really liked the chunking of content as broken down in the ToC (when they could get to the ToC) and thought it was the right amount of chunking/detail, rather than listing absolutely everything.
The simplicity of the overview section in the multipage version was much more effective for folks than the overview section in the TR style version, which lost people. In fact, many said they really loved it and were quite enthusiastic.
Control+f needs to be supported. A single page experience that still has the simplicity of the multi-page one, and that allows the user to expand and collapse stuff as desired, may be the right approach overall rather than 2 versions (TBD).
There are distinct differences in how someone familiar with W3C documents and someone new to them use the documents, but even folks familiar with the W3C documents said they wouldn’t send anyone directly to the current live version, and probably not to the TR note style one, but they would send colleagues and folks to the detailed pages in the
multi-page version.
The word “scaffolding” was a big fail… we need a different word for the section that contains patterns that are about providing other ways of understanding content. (Though, the educators and instructional designers in the mix understood and even liked the word, while acknowledging that most wouldn’t know it.)
The roles under “how to use the document” need to be labeled with actual role terminology (e.g, engineer instead of tech implementation, researcher instead of research). This was a pretty universal finding. But people love this section!!! Based on what people hoped it would do for them, however, we might want to take it even further than we had
originally planned with some new content that provides more concrete and actionable recommendations for folks.
we all need to take a few
we are now looking at triage document
we all need to help out with the analisis triage
pick a notes file to do the analisi
and put it in https://
Then (2) look at rains example
colume a shows the introduction and the questions
what the intervie seais and the shdaowing
put the triage info in the the analysis triage tab in the structure data base : https://
that is where your write
david: cautr
davids email is at https://
david can you ask for meore time?
it is hard to follow this document so I think we need to do it together
Lisa: the CTAUR document is complex and somewhat hard to read.
Lisa: Some of the requirements that would be expected aren't easy to find - they may be there but this isn't reflecting user needs directly. And this may be me (Lisa)
i couldnt see the first user need i know we need, where I was looking for it
David: Maybe a working meeting, 1st week of October?
julierawe: maybe a fresh perspective of a new user would be useful?
user need i was looking for is need editing to not require multiple screens or multi step. for example I can add content and see its effect. without togeling tabs or screen
Lisa: We need to get COGA perspective on the CTAUR document. Requirements vs. user needs as an example. Currently too dense.
julierawe: The text doesn't strongly differentiate with formatting; I would need to read a lot to get the information I might want.
<DavidSwallow> COGA's Feedback on CTAUR: https://
<DavidSwallow> CTAUR (for review): https://
<julierawe> FYI, Frankie's hand is raised in zoom
<julierawe> I have to leave for a 12pm meeting—thanks, everyone!
Frankie: Mostly structural feedback, was looking for user needs at high level and they weren't there.