COGA meeting minutes, March 25, 2024

The meeting minutes weren't started as expected so they are copied below;
will make a copy of this email share-able and re-run the attachment through
the minutes Agent to post the link (so the meeting minutes will be
published as normal but will link to a shared file within the minutes link.

[11:00] == Eric_hind [~Eric_hind@c080ddbb.public.cloak] has joined #coga
[11:00] <Eric_hind> present+
[11:00] == Frankie [~Frankie@c080ddbb.public.cloak] has joined #coga
[11:01] <Jennie> present+
[11:01] <Frankie> present+
[11:02] <Eric_hind> scribe+ EA
[11:03] == JustineP [~JustineP@c080ddbb.public.cloak] has joined #coga
[11:04] == DavidSwallow [~DavidSwallow@c080ddbb.public.cloak] has
joined #coga
[11:04] <EA> Agenda has updates due from projects and David Swallow update.
[11:05] <Eric_hind> q?
[11:05] <DavidSwallow> present+
[11:05] <EA> No further agenda items added/
[11:05] <EA> Shared on screen Coga action items.
[11:06] <EA> No updates from several groups as not on the call.
[11:07] <EA> GitHub training and Roy is the person to contact at his email
[11:08] <EA> David Swallow updated on the collaboration document that was
raised on CTAUR
[11:09] <Jennie> q+
[11:09] <EA> Some issues may be resolved but David walked through the issues
[11:09] <Eric_hind> q?
[11:09] <EA> Jennie thought the document was excellent but wondered if
there were items that were a priority
[11:10] <EA> David shared the link
[11:10] <DavidSwallow>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CFJoA8DHst31mej6o2en49wXhoMMLVe15fUzQB-owk8/edit#heading=h.37zt14gox8e4
[11:10] <EA> Taking the most important items...
[11:11] <EA> Early items have already been discussed.  The biggest one was
what is and what isn't in scope
[11:12] <EA> They have rewritten much of the scope now but David has not
had time to check the rewrite
[11:12] <Jennie> Here's the link to the what is collaboration tools area:
https://w3c.github.io/ctaur/#collaboration-tools
[11:12] <EA> John mentioned that the WYSIG was rejected but now there is a
glossary - felt to be an old term but they felt it was appropriate
[11:14] <EA> Does the collaboration tools fit what is required now.  Common
pit falls were felt to be included throughout the document
[11:15] <EA> David then went to the original feedback from Coga
[11:17] <Eric_hind>
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd66mCw3DkT_OUrxGfsQja4UzhzSRsXWQSniCdqPCFIBic8AQ/viewform?resourcekey=0-VDSD5-MIXbXBBqeV767KSQ
[11:17] <EA> Eric added that there is a coga issue form that is now in the
GitHub issue tracker. Eric has made changes and will discuss them now
[11:18] <Jennie> q+
[11:18] <EA> Eric started with the Maths section from 2017 - need to add
STEAM - Eric felt that there would need to be some additional research.
[11:19] <Jennie> q-
[11:20] <EA> Jennie added that developers with cognitive difficulties have
problems with references.  Jennie felt that she was aware of this via
anecdotes.
[11:20] <Jennie> scribe+ Jennie
[11:20] <Jennie> EA: There is little good research that includes a number
of users
[11:21] <Jennie> ...Before saying we would add all the STEAM users if we
can't properly reference it
[11:21] <Jennie> ...Yes, there is a problem. Yes we need to broaden it.
[11:21] <Jennie> ...We have begun in the UK to look broader than STEM
[11:21] <Jennie> ...Let alone going further
[11:21] <Jennie> ...But I don't feel, unless we look at the experts who
have reviewed science subjects...
[11:22] <Jennie> * Back to you EA
[11:22] <EA> John feels that some of the naming of cognitive difficulties
is a problem in particular in the learning area
[11:23] <EA> There are more indepth issues that need to be addressed before
we add the problem - Eric felt that the form should be filled to mention
the fact that more thought is needed about STEAM
[11:23] <Frankie> +1
[11:23] <Jennie> +1
[11:23] <EA> +1
[11:23] <kirkwood> +1
[11:24] <Eric_hind> +1
[11:24] <DavidSwallow> +1
[11:24] <EA> A vote was taken that more research was needed.
[11:24] <EA> David came back with common pit falls suggestion No 59
[11:25] <EA> Suggestion for common pit falls section was a user need and
requirement in the middle of the text
[11:26] <EA> with the feeling that the content within the common pit falls
was already in the document
[11:26] == tburtin [~tburtin@c080ddbb.public.cloak] has joined #coga
[11:26] <tburtin> present+
[11:26] <EA> The group are going to refer to Content Usable from the
document as well as pointing out where the pit falls have been covered.
[11:27] <EA> Janina is going to point out the places in the document at a
later date... they have Content Usable in the references at the moment.
[11:27] <Jennie> q+
[11:27] <Jennie> q-
[11:27] <EA> Feed back is needed from the group about the changes they have
made
[11:28] <EA> WYSIWIG is now in the glossary - and the group felt that was
sufficient
[11:28] <EA> 57
[11:29] <EA> Scope of the document has been revised - collaborative tools -
features etc all expanded - tools mentioned but not named as standard.
[11:30] <EA> They stressed it is a collaboration tool if it has the
mentioned distinct features
[11:30] <Jennie> q+
[11:30] <EA> David felt that they have improved the scope and expanded the
specifics but asked if it needed to be taken further.
[11:31] <EA> John felt that the main part that was missing was GitHUb
centred rather than realtime centred but it does appear to have been
improved with co-editing now feasible.
[11:32] <EA> Every one uses co-editing and John felt some of it is a bit
too deep - Need to make sure the size and scale of co-editing is included.
[11:34] <EA> Jennie felt that one of the things that need to be added that
coga thanked the group for clarifying the scope as this has improved the
set of up the structure.  Now there is more mention of co-editing tools are
rightly compared to GitHub - the need to be able to consistently work in
all three of the main tools that allow for this type of participatory
writing.
[11:34] <EA> David felt that the group were receptive to the feedback and
he would pass on Coga's thanks.
[11:34] <EA> 54
[11:34] <Jennie> q-
[11:36] <EA> Examples not understood - the group felt that the right click
that can fix spelling and must not produce a different window ... wanted a
clearer example
[11:36] <EA> John agreed this seemed to be a reasonable request - clarify
the example.
[11:37] <EA> John felt that tracking what is going on causes problems for
those with cognitive difficulties. - When and how it happens and what has
been changed
[11:37] <EA> John felt this concept that might be a bit too deeply buried
in the document.
[11:37] <EA> Jennie felt this could be prioritised as an issue on Wednesday
- Issue 50 - review history
[11:38] <EA> David suggested that this problem of tracking and seeing what
changes should not be in history but perhaps move
[11:38] <Jennie> q+
[11:39] <Jennie> q-
[11:39] <EA> Jennie said that those with co-occuring or multiple
disabilities have these issues mentioned in history is not restricted to
just those with cognitive impairments
[11:40] <EA> John added that if you know a lot has been added to a document
since previous entries then it can be managed - if you do not know what has
been added you cannot manage it.
[11:40] <Jennie> Or other disabilities, without a cognitive disability,
such as some with low vision or screen reader user who does not use vision
in the co-authoring location
[11:40] <EA> David felt that the scoping issues had probably been addressed.
[11:42] <EA> Added sentence for the collaborative editing tools... needed
more clarification -
[11:42] <EA> Jennie added the optional user interface - it is about the
features
[11:45] <EA> Issue is linked to No 52 - thinking about the way the editing
tools are provided by say GitHub as opposed to other collaborating tools -
need to have personalisation of presentation would make GitHub a lot easier
for some people and also other applications such as web versions
[11:45] <EA> No 51 was accepted and will add it as a specific requirement -
related to permissions
[11:46] <EA> No 50 was rejected that was the history one and will be
discussed on Wednesday
[11:46] <Jennie> q+
[11:47] <EA> No 49 plain language example was rejected - the problem with
GitHub has many complex terms such as 'fork' but can't dictate what
applications use or to change them.
[11:48] <Jennie> q-
[11:48] <EA> Jennie - noticed that they did accept the concept of glossary
- perhaps No 49 could include vendor specific terminology as a specific
glossary items
[11:49] <EA> John asked if anyone was still using IRC and Jennie added that
it was specifically the 'fork' reference
[11:49] <EA> Jennie said that trying to use the GiTHub interface could be
difficult and perhaps having a glossary could reduce the issues that occur
for some users.
[11:50] <EA> John felt it was the right word and yes a glossary item would
resolve the issue
[11:50] <Jennie> *Fork is from a specific tool, not IRC. Just clarifying
here for those less familiar.
[11:51] <EA> David - No 48 rejected as in notifications - raise this if not
happy with outcome
[11:51] <EA> 47 accepted - add glossary
[11:52] <EA> 48 rejected - why and how would it help... raise this if still
not happy
[11:52] <EA> Helping users correct mistakes was felt to be generally good
practice rather than specific to a collaboration tool - will tweak it
[11:53] <EA> 42/43 accepted with caveat - again just good practice. Well
covered in Content Usable and may look at it in the editing
[11:54] <EA> 41 rejected - do not explain for a specific disability -
covered in existing user need - need not be explained in detail
[11:54] <EA> 35/36 - rejected because general editing advice
[11:54] <EA> 33/34 same issue again - ditto to above.
[11:56] <EA> David felt that if there was a way of making them more
collaboratively related then the issues might be reconsidered and also
later in the document more appropriate examples would be needed
[11:57] <EA> 16/17 not applicable - how would this work with something
graphical - may suggest supporting this where actually needed - David felt
this was a bit like the history issue
[11:57] <EA> David felt that the mention of summary was a bit confusing -
could be change log and related more to tracking
[11:58] <EA> 18-21 Open to further discussion - not clear what
notifications wanted.
[11:59] <EA> 22 again not specific - change history -
[12:00] <EA> 23 accepted - social usage advice - will add something to
improve this one
[12:00] <Jennie> * Apologies - have to drop. Looking forward to the
Wednesday meeting. Thanks for your work on this David!
[12:00] <EA> Others accepted - comments at the ned of the document up to 26
about following threads in discussions - felt this was covered.
[12:01] <EA> David has pulled out the important issues to be discussed on
Wednesday and reiterated that the group were open to the feedback
[12:01] <kirkwood> present+
[12:02] <Eric_hind> RRSAgent, publish minutes


-- 
Powered by Google <http://www.google.com>