<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> what do we want to focus on next publication

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kvWu3PH3j7UHPZvoRkSnBbP_x4Rj5Ves3zpWqlXXS9I/edit?usp=sharing

<Jennie> Jennie present+

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe: kirkwood

table of gap analisis https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2018Oct/0009.html

LS: first item is the table and gap analysis
... this a link to the threaed you will see a link to table that he’s done

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/gap-analysis-table-change/gap-analysis/index.html#secure-web-authentication

LS: Gap Analyis is to describe problem and what can do to make better
... tales you can see down at bottom borke down to user needs and what can be done to improve the usituatio and address the user needs
... what can be done in wcag new symantics and personlization
... Alistair took first section and took it out of table into sub sections
... section discussions in a bunch of subsections
... authentication only had two user needs
... this document is going to get very big
... may be easier for screen readers

<steve> can I have links

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/gap-analysis-table-change/gap-analysis/index.html#secure-web-authentication

LS: it has been liearize3d
... do we preferit?

<steve> yes - much better! Especially on mobile defince in portait

LS: do we prefer it?

<JohnRochford> +1

I agree

+1

Michael agrees better on mobile too

Jeanne: think it would be a key point looks better

<EA> +1 to John's comment - much better with latest iteration

Jeanne: would discourage casual readers think it better

Keanne: not sure if we are meeting that

Keanne/Jeanne

Janina: think it is making it easier but needs some work

LS: can we folow over five headings?

Janina: is this the top level table we want?

LS: so you’d like more discussion of challenges then how technology addressses

Janina: gotta sell making the case

LS: so a different stucture?
... take an issue, make that top level then have disussion on issue paper here then follow how we are going to solve it

Janina: i will do my action item after TPAC
... will work on reorder

Steve: need executive summary at beginning

EA: does that solve repetitiion?

LS: it might
... that might be the need
... maybe shelve unitl Janina’s action item after TPAC?
... Janina has the perspective of coordinating with all the different working groups educating them to what the need is
... the gap analysis hasn’t met the need seemingly

Steve: do we have a clear definition of what the neeed is?

Janina; the bottom line puprpse of the gap identify how the web does not work for various groups of people with various cgonitvie and leanrning disabilites. where the breakage and how can be emeliorated

LS: tyrying to do remotels is ectremely difficutl

EA: its really difficult to do it in bits

Janina: strongly agree

SL: want to know where I am in the content
... table is harder to read

LS: adding to EA point, challeng to come in 4 hours a week and remember where they are and get back to it
... better gap analyis that teaches those who looking for only half an hour can get to the info they need
... jumping around document is too much
... oedioke with cognitive disabilites, problem and solutions

Steve: want people to say oh i get it

LS: we have shown that havent met that
... EA point is extremely good

EA: maybe 2 days on gap analysis then 2 days on usable ide of things

EA/LS

LS: we’ve made some progress but didn’t really solve it

Janina: everything we need is there, just mater of organizing for casueal reader as EA said

JR: might take you up on that offer

EA: ofer is ther its upsetting me not moving forward

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> q

agreed!

LS: we shalll leave gap analysis for now until Janina has a chance to look at whole doc and her description of need meeting
... we’ll come back to Alistairs program and maybe part of big picture
... we need a face to face

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: lisa to scedule face to face

<trackbot> Created ACTION-295 - Scedule face to face [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2018-10-18].

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> zakim next item

review of our document

ED: we had one in London and it was very successful

<JohnRochford> I think I traveled the farthest for our face-to-face in London.

<steve> probably you did!

LS: review of our documents

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page#What_documents_do_we_have.3F

LS: … is the next item in our agenda
... draft if this section in our wiki if people think does/doesn’t meet our needs
... layer 1 background research
... Layer 2 gap analyis
... a bit missing issue paper docs i can add

SL: for gap anaysis did swe split out table?

LS: yes we put it in separate

EA: not been able to find emotional part I can’t find it
... we have not added it to the document

LS: will add links to unfinished work summary

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: lisa to add links to undfinshed workl to summary of our docs in wiki

<trackbot> Created ACTION-296 - Add links to undfinshed workl to summary of our docs in wiki [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2018-10-18].

LS: i did say i would find them for you and will put them here
... Janina points out challenges section in usability have described in research might want to put into gap analyis
... making it better section used to be appendizx to gap analysis

MC: don’t think you should

LS: any other comments?
... anyhing else should be added to make it clearer
... part of reason stuck this first so people know what we are talking about. pull3d out appendix and design requirments

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/separate-usable-doc/content-usable/usable.html#design_requirements

LS: the design requirments section has link to pullout documents which has been complicated
... why this hasn’t gone through because there are all these little documents
... rather than having design requirments in different documents. need to put them actually in this document

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/separate-usable-doc/content-usable/usable.html#persona

LS: EA worked on persona which is a link, nice because makes it shorter but bit of a problem
... propose to put them all dir3ectly into this document and then update them and maybe pull htem out again if feel necessary
... wanted to have design requirments as collapsable but cant do in a normnative note

SL: wnat to make two documents?

LS: yes

SL: because doesn’t have as much weight

<janina> http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/

Janina: we can’t have collapsable? seems we can
... this is an example where we did that
... the link is to a document that refers to a version

SL: at end of section it shows an expandable section

LS: this is exactly what I’m suggesting

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?versions=2.0

LS: under quick ref it looks like this

SL: accordian

LS: has expandable further down
... can to with expandable but not on DR page
... whole doc could look like a mini website

Janina: absolutely

LS: that the proposal put all content into the usable document, maybe a bit messy but will add an editors note about collapasable secions
... will help to get published

SL: dont want confusion

LS: agreed
... anyone have a problem with this?>
... going to happen after TPAC. Is that OK we going to merge it back?

ED: its helpful, just do it
... its easier seeing it all in front of you

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> merging pull docs back into the useable doc

I agree!

<Jennie> +1

+1

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> +1

<steve> +1

<janina> +1

<EA> +1

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ageda?

got items 2, 3 and 4 done, think this is a good direction

update on cfc

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Main_Page#What_documents_do_we_have.3F

LS: try to start on time and end on time
... making gap analyis better. meant to prublish different versions of appendix and gap analysis. What do we want next version to have?
... want to publish every three months
... resgtructuring of gap analyis

or tidy up user research

LS: we’ve got so much in gap analyis and usable document
... design requirments alot are not following same template
... user need and user testing and guidance to policy makers
... think design requirments come first

SL: i say concentrate on design requirements first

LS: I agree

+1

Janina: let me offer something I think reorganization of gap analysis so it hits you between th3e eyes. I think we are not that far awy from getting that finished
... what doesn’t change is the user need
... describing the gaps and naming them, we should be comprehensive and publishing them would be a real benefit to the wider W3C

LS: gap analyis is inside the W3C

Janina: i think the gap analyis is for everyone

LS: we’ve separated thaudinces the main audince for gap analyis is for inside w3c
... design requirments are for people making webistes

SL: as an author want to know why on earth i’m doing this
... got to tell develops why and not just what to do

LS: do we need the why in usable doc?
... I’m ohoping we can get gap analysis moving forward
... anyone have string preference between gap analysis or the design requirments?
... I think we should do both

SL: we have limited resources

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> both

<steve> both - if we can resource

bith

both

<EA> both is at all possible but need more people to help

<steve> I like "bith" :)

<EA> oops if not is!

;)

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
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: kirkwood janina JohnRochford
Regrets: steve glenda
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


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: lisa

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


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.)