Re: Follow-up from the meeting

Hi Sarah,

>  I spent some time reviewing the documents and added comments and
suggested edits, mainly to the images of text and headings documents.

Thank you so much for your comments and suggested edits on our draft of the
image of text.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h5IiwbIvsWZr8N2qXNm9NQBR46gQWmfvWpDvtxHxR9o/edit?usp=sharing

I accepted most of your suggestions. Domo arigato for your time! I left
some comments to check in the larger group. You'll be able to see them at
the URL above.

Cheers,
Makoto



2020年8月24日(月) 4:01 Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>:

> Hi, everyone.
>
> I know I’m coming in late in the game, and after this I will stop
> apologizing in advance of stating the obvious or rehashing something you
> already talked through, but know you can always tell me to hush up!
>
> I spent some time reviewing the documents and added comments and suggested
> edits, mainly to the images of text and headings documents.
>
> The three documents are really quite different, and in different states of
> completeness. Also, they take different approaches to the sections and
> subsections. I know they are due for a plain language review, which I’m
> sure will help even them out.
>
> But I was wondering if it would make sense to choose one of the documents
> and take it all the way through the process. We could treat the one method
> document as a pilot or prototype, and design and iterate the heck out of it
> until it's rock solid, and then use it as a model to build out the others.
> Would an approach like that work within our timeline?
>
> Best,
> Sarah
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2020, at 9:21 PM, Jeanne Spellman <
> jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> At the end of the meeting I asked that people please make time to review
> and comment on these drafts before we send them for plain language review:
>
>    - Images of Text
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h5IiwbIvsWZr8N2qXNm9NQBR46gQWmfvWpDvtxHxR9o/edit#heading=h.eyftmriw7ts1>
>    (discussed in the meeting)
>    - Methods for Content Structure
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ya8LB2YL0qRHdFEHIQoXG8rfaR8fdUpcO79ceMiGLQs/>
>    (started but not completed)
>    - Use Clear Words
>
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p-FayvZYonpDIlojblFSofi_KzjNdY5SrBOKauvV0u8/>
>
> Key points to look for: The Functional Outcomes, the Scoring, particularly
> the critical errors and the rating.
>
> For those not at the meeting: These are drafts of the new format of
> Methods. This new format reflects the changes agreed on from the merged
> Conformance draft last week.  The Functional Outcomes are more granular
> than success criteria. Each should have tests and how the Method should be
> tested and scored.
>
> Please comment as a suggestion in the document or in a separate email to
> the list.
>
>
>