See also: IRC log
<ddahl_> scribe:ddahl
<ddahl_> lisa: is there anyone who hasn't been on the call before?
<ddahl_> barry: I've been on the call
<ddahl_> lisa: do you want to introduce yourself
<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: ddahl_
barry: work for deque system, responsible for ?? at the US Department of Education
lisa: anyone else new?
lisa: any new agenda topics?
<Liddy> thank you - ok
<Barry_Johnson> Sorry - Senior Accessibility COnsultant at Deque assigned as Lead 508 Tester at US Dept of Education
lisa: if anyone wants to join UAAG call they're welcom, let me know and I'll introduce you
john: we should be involving our
target populations and set up criteria for who we could be
recruiting to help us
... should we include sensory or physical disabilities as well,
do they need to have web experience?
... Neil and I have access to people, what do people think the
criteria are that we should be recruiting.
lisa: a difficult question
??: i was going to ask about new research vs. literature review
scribe: there's probably a lot of
earlier research
... how do we approach the body of existing research
lisa: the gap analysis so far is
mostly literature research, so when do we want to augment that
with new user group research
... obviously we want to use as much earlier research as
possible and not reinvent the wheel.
... but we can't only rely on that
<neilmilliken> Given the relative lack of literature on my topic (Dyscalculia) relating to the web contact with real live people is key
lisa: we might be coming up with
new techniques that need to be backed by research
... we're definitely going to need user group research, but do
we also want redundancy, to retest important things that are
already out there.
<neilmilliken> I have contacts with UK and Denmark support groups
<JohnRochford> http://clearhelper.org/Resources/
john: has been collecting a lot of resources, would be happy to share
lisa: please put it on the wiki
??: can you tell us more about this research?
john: dates include about
1999-2010
... have published a lot of this
lisa: there's going to be a lot of related research that isn't about web accessibility.
??: a lot of information I have is about seniors and their use of the web, that would be a good place to start
john: also included research that
involves seniors as well
... also did some research trying to find a common definition
of cognitive accessibility, will share that shortly
<JohnRochford> http://clearhelper.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/definitions-of-cognitive-disability/
lisa: to summarize -- we want to
back up what we're doing, we want to include relevant
literature but that's not extensive enough, so we'll be doing
user group research
... we don't have to worry about excluding techniques because
they're few and far between
<neilmilliken> agree
lisa: let's go back to criteria for building user groups
<Barry_Johnson> Agree
<richardschwerdtfeger> Agree
lisa: we want to make things
achievable, and we want to add people who haven't been online
yet
... one criterion should be some level of exposure to the
internet, say for a year or so.
john: that's what I was thinking as well, we should have a criterion for experience on the internet for a defined period
(no disagreement)
katie: basically, by default, as we move along the web is going to be everywhere, we don't want to go back in the past, but cover the present and the future
lisa: we should also say what
kind of interaction -- looking at news, interacting with an
application
... we may need to consider what kind of exposure they have --
tablets, news feed, going to website
... we're more interested in accessing a site than generally
accessing the web
john: do we want to exclude people who also have sensory or physical disabilities?
rich: is there something that's not covered in current WCAG guidelines for those users?
john: It seems that it would be simpler to exclude people with sensory or physical disabilities
<neilmilliken> they should not be excluded
<neilmilliken> we need to address the totality of the spectrum
some people with cognitive disabilities often have related physical disabilities, for example people with aphasia often have hemiplegia
<neilmilliken> and we need to understand the effects of comorbidity
katie: what we want to talk about cognitive issues, we shouldn't talk about excluding people with other issues
john: I think we're saying the same thing
<Barry_Johnson> Yes Neil, comorbidity can be important
lisa: the argument against
comorbidity is the complexity that's being added by a screen
reader, where the assistive technology plus the cognitive
disability is compounding the issue
... if our user groups have a combination of disabilities it
might be hard to decide what techniques are working
<neilmilliken> I understand the argument that Lisa is making - and agree that the primary focus should not necessarily be on this subset of users
lisa: we could treat pople with compound disabilities as separate user groups
??: what about an autistic user that uses a screen reader?
lisa: my proposal was that we could have one group with autism, and another group that has autism along with someone else. that will be a smaller group
neil: let's achieve the
achievable first. let's look at the distinct ones and get the
material collected. comorbidity is important
... some of our techniques may actually run counter to some of
the stuff that we've done before.
... we're working in a world where there are lots of different
needs, but we need to concentrate on the distinct areas of
cognitive disabilities first
lisa: is that part of phase 2?
neil: yes
katie: that's what I was going to
say
... we don't want that in a 1.0 WD but we could say that's
something we'll do later
lisa: with aging, people will have low vision or minor motor problems, but we're interested in people who need additional assistance
john: should not exclude people who are using assistive technology because of their cognitive disability
<neilmilliken> i am dyslexic and use AT and use text to speech feedback but it's not a screenreader like JAWS
john: we might exclude them because they're blind, but not because of a cognitive disability
<neilmilliken> AT is definitely part of the equation
<Ryladog> My suggestion is to identify in the beginning drafts that we will address comorbidity in a later phase but recommend in the meantime that people use current COGNITIVE techniques with the relevant WCAG 2 techniques
<Ryladog> to achieve a solution
lisa: are we confortable that addressing people with a severe physical disability at a later phase
<Ryladog> 1+
(no disagreement)
<richardschwerdtfeger> +1
<neilmilliken> no disagreement
john: in order to recruit people we should have an idea about what we want them to do, so that we can recruit people well.
<neilmilliken> got to run
john: both in terms of the effort involved and what we're trying to achieve
lisa: what kinds of usability tests will we do?
debbie: what kind of testing would we want to do? would it be a formal experiment or more like a focus group?
john: could we even recruit developers and ask them to build things that people could try?
lisa: I think that's essential
lisa: setting goals will help with the answer to what we're doing
katie: later on some improved version of WCAG will be available
lisa: looking at goals will feed into defining what we'll be testing in user groups
john: it's reasonable to wait until goals are defined until we start recruiting people
<Lisa_Seeman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2014Feb/0004.html
lisa: what are the specific
activities that people will be doing?
... for example, with educational software, you want to make
sure that person has learned something. I thought that was
overreach for what we're doing.
l: i wanted to make sure that we had a final defined end
lisa: can someone summarize what Suzanne's saying?
l: I would like to understand our
goals, want to distinguish what the task is vs. how the user is
accomplishing their task.
... for example, "fill out a web form" vs. "open a bank
account"
... not sure that we con distinguish between communication and
social media
lisa: communication might be a
task, but social media might be a context
... being in a specific context might add something that we
need to think about
l: we should not limit context,
for example, to something that implies a desktop context
... user goals should be higher level, for example play a game.
should start at the highest level, in case the context doesn't
apply in five years
... for example, what if the way that opening a bank account
switches to all voice in five years
<Barry_Johnson> The higher goal is filling out a form.
<Barry_Johnson> the detail is opening a bank account.
lisa: we can revisit this next
week
... techniques and recommendations will be abstract.
... are we talking about user goals or testing goals?
john: agrees
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/three/there/ Succeeded: s/disabiliites/disabilities/ Succeeded: s/users/users?/ Succeeded: s/late/later/ Found Scribe: ddahl Found Scribe: ddahl_ Inferring ScribeNick: ddahl_ Scribes: ddahl, ddahl_ WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: AB_ABW3 Barry_Johnson BioRDF DPUB_DPUBIG Debbie_Dahl IPcaller JohnRochford John_Rochford Katie_Haritos-Shea Kinshuk Liddy Lisa_Seeman MaryJo Mary_Jo_Mueller Michel Michel_Fitos Neil_Milliken P1 Rich_Schwerdtfeger Ryladog SW_HCLS aaaa active barry ddahl_ debbie john katie lisa neil neilmilliken rich richardschwerdtfeger You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2014Feb/0017.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 10 Feb 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-coga-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]