RE: Important survey (COGA references)

Hi John and everyone,

Just to check, were those points things you copied from the survey content?

I sent this survey to the group towards the end of September, and it formed the basis for a discussion at TPAC.

I think the survey is closed, or will close very soon, so feel free to comment here or to me directly.

To summarise the discussion, we (the chairs) proposed that:


  *   Task forces (and the group in general) can create new content or updates in any medium that suits them, e.g. Google docs.

  *   We expand the number of ‘editors’, so there is a larger core-group of people who can take on updates to the spec & documents.

  *   New content is sent to the editors, who then create a new branch in github for that content and add it.
We need a better way of previewing that content, that’s an open issue.

  *   We continue to use Github for comments / issues, but in general that is all people have to do on github.

  *   We will limit the number of the bits of content we work on at one time, e.g. if we do a 2.2 (or silver), we’d work on 3-5 things at a time.

  *   We need new content from TFs to have cross-discipline collaboration. So from the start we have both domain experts (who know the user-need) and technical/spec experts working on the new content before it goes to the wider group.

Also, a good idea that came out of the discussion was to bring ‘testability’ forward in the process. At the moment we went from success criteria, to understanding document, to techniques.

Now that we are doing techniques, writing the test-procedure is highlighting little edge cases and misunderstandings people had about the SC.

Therefore, new success criteria / guidelines would need an associated test-procedure from the start. This would also help to prevent disagreements about whether something is testable or not.

This is all still to be agreed, but I just wanted to provide an overview of the direction things were going.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
Sent: 22 October 2018 19:41
To: lisa.seeman@zoho.com; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Important survey (COGA references)

Hi Lisa and All,

The survey is great.

I noticed these what-I-think-are direct or indirect references to our needs. I hope you find this list useful.


  *   Github has a complex interface, which is especially difficult for some COGA folk.
  *   Need to get a better mix of skills in Task Forces (and in future work in general), e.g. technical / standards-experienced people working with domain experts.
  *   Experts in task forces feeling they are not believed and/or that the wider group does not understand the issues;
  *   Strength of feeling has lead to misbehavior (perceived or actual), which contributes to a negative atmosphere.
  *   Some TFs need help with translating requirements to SC, earlier in the process;
  *   Include plain language versions of everything, or at least plain-language summaries.
  *   Possible proposals to support more understandability of work:
     *   WG works in plain language, somebody charged with translating to spec language
     *   Work on spec language, but with more emphasis on understandability, with explicit WG review step for that (try to avoid recycling due to concerns of over-simplification) - this could be a complementary mode to above that we continually cycle between
     *   We develop spec language, but when it matures somebody makes a plain language version.
     *   Develop spec in plain language - but may not be concrete enough.
  *   Focusing 2.2 on COGA
     *   Pro: Fills in gaps, allow focus without distraction from other areas.
     *   Con: If SC don't fit 2.x methods, will hinder adoption; disagreement over relative priority of the needs.

John

John Rochford<http://bit.ly/profile-rj>
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center
Director, INDEX Program
Faculty, Family Medicine & Community Health
www.DisabilityInfo.org
LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-rochford/>

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies of the original message.

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 1:41 PM
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: Important survey

Olease look at the following wcag survey

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/process-results-pt1/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2002_09_wbs_35422_process-2Dresults-2Dpt1_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=AipLZ7NUrnXGHkcwcde0X2NpdhY5v57MtcI2DEMcg3w&s=d4CHQzXumIcj4vg0GnqAEQ8NotlF0EX2hN0Hh5Fg_tk&e=>

it is about how wcag want to change their processes  - hopefully to include us

Do we think this will do the job?

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__il.linkedin.com_in_lisaseeman_&d=DwMFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=AipLZ7NUrnXGHkcwcde0X2NpdhY5v57MtcI2DEMcg3w&s=GfncpsOPibZGMvOYmfxIxEAxU05fonKyPxealARURpI&e=>, Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_SeemanLisa&d=DwMFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=AipLZ7NUrnXGHkcwcde0X2NpdhY5v57MtcI2DEMcg3w&s=z4TB--ogcZM_WnoMNN8a9agxgEh-5A8L7KZvf8kG1A4&e=>