Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

Meeting minutes

<lisa> zakem, next item

<Le> David, could you please drop the the link for that study you were talking about? I'd love to take a look.

<lisa> zakem, next item

Updates and Actions. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#

Lisa: EO document
… It is looking good. We still have to work on it a bit more.
… Julie - do you want to organize a meeting for next week?

Julie: Yes, I will send around another survey. I will send a calendar invite once we agree on a time.

Rain: We have an issue now around the personas

<Rain> Issue regarding EO personas: https://github.com/w3c/wai-people-use-web/issues/226

Rain: They had asked that we publish it as a formal issue on github so they can track it
… Lisa, I tagged you on it
… It is also on our timeline document as well
… Please feel free to add to the issue if you would like to

Lisa: We still have the document that Julie's taking the lead with
… and we have these other comments. That's fantastic.
… The other 2 items are at good places.
… David F has been doing work on the mental health - it would be great if you could put it somewhere

David F: Can someone email me the link?

Lisa: I will put it on my to-do list.
… Jennie will give a review later.

Julie: The Google form was shared last week with the COGA team.

<Fazio> Schizophrenia and internet use paper: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/21169176

Julie: There are now 2 ways to submit examples: use the Google form, or use the Google doc
… Any example submitted will be debated by the team
… Clear language examples
… Anywhere you submit an example is locked down (non-public) so you can submit live examples
… If we decide to include any example in a draft we share with the public we will anonymize it

Lisa: Link for the Google form for Clear Language?

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SLEcmo40iiExe9eWiV424XW4kn7BH2aQ0ZtlvjaxRus/edit

Lisa: They don't have headings indicating which are for the community group or the task force
… We have also asked if everyone can submit 2 examples - that is really helpful for us
… They can be good examples, bad examples, or those that need discussion

Julie: Thank you for pointing out that the Google form - I adjusted the title so it is clearer. The one above is the task force one

Le: Everything is fine with my tasks

Lisa: There was another item sent to the list - our work statement
… We reviewed the work statement, it went both to APA and to the AG working group
… They both approved it
… It is now online as the new work statement of what we are doing
… Thank you Roy for putting that up!
… Now we want to work on it, achieve it
… Well done everyone!

<Roy> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/work-statement

Rashmi: I have made some changes in the Clear document example - should I share that form?

Lisa: We have a task force meeting afterwards, so I have not put it on the agenda today
… If we have time at the end of the meeting, we can review it then

Update on WCAG 3 and testing

Lisa: I am using it

Lisa: We will move to the next item until Rachael joins

Gaudenship draft https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oNrl_kghy8J1Pab-L1a_XNZr4YsIMrbEgYuttOCvtFo/edit#

Jennie: sharing guardianship draft doc
… took all suggestions and starting to go through to incorporate them. When two conflicted, we merged the concepts together
… example, took both problem statements to ensure that we had both concepts included
… now a couple things left to resolve. Will go through those after reviewing the structure

<Jennie> Guardianship document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oNrl_kghy8J1Pab-L1a_XNZr4YsIMrbEgYuttOCvtFo/edit#heading=h.5udnukkm2ygf

Jennie: structure review, start with the Goal
… changed the document to reflect the goals of the document
… people in a person's life may also require cognitive support
… spoke through different types of requests for people who are in the community groups

Jennie: first unresolved comment
… vulnerability is a consideration
… if a person is vulnerable in any way,
… want to verify that having two examples of vulnerability are helpful

<Fazio> +1

Jennie: example 1: robo calls and phishing attacks targeting adults with cognitive challenges

<ShawnT> +1

Jennie: would like to remove "other"

<Le> +1

<lisa> +1

Jennie: general agreement in the chat, so removing the word "other"

Julie: see two examples in the paragraph, so want to suggest considering turning them into bullet points for easier skimming

Jennie: doing that not

Jennie: second suggestion, in online interactions, when identity is available through publications people they might encounter who are not part of their daily interactions may become aware of them
… so individuals who participate may become a target
… any concerns?

Lisa: need to clarify language, and in W3C, person's identity is available in publications

Jennie: we've been using the word publications to include W3C, so adding official notes, meeting minutes, use case publications
… enough to give the idea without listing every kind of publication

Jennie: if a person is not savvy about publishing their name, then what can happen is that they may not be aware that someone can search the internet and find their address

Le: yes, we ran into that a couple of years ago, where states started publishing tax reports
… so if someone owns a home, you can get their address from their name

Lisa: how about "this can be important if the person's address is findable on the internet"
… was not the point I was making
… discussing challenges, and what people do for security, what they do isn't secure
… have to make very sure that that doesn't happen
… example of a potential issue, that now people know that someone writes their password and puts them next to their desk

<lisa> I like how it looks now

Jennie: what we may need to clarify that individuals may not be aware that people are reading the minutes, so what they share can impact their safety
… may need to qualify how we write it be specific to cognitive
… could we qualify "related to disability" to sharing use case and address being findable to highlight the difference for people with cognitive disabilities doing these tasks

Lisa: not sure we need to spell it out, because disability information is sensitive no matter what kind of disability it is
… I think this says enough

Jennie: okay, then going to accept the suggestion that we have and that will resolve the issue

Jennie: suggestion from Michael Cooper, note that this applies to participants in non public groups but where the content is public
… W3C may at its discretion grant member access to confidential information

MichaelC: I'm not sure this applies in this situation

Jennie: one of John Kirkwood's concerns was where one person in a corporation grants ability to participate to others in their corporation who are not part of the group itself

MichaelC: refers to member confidential groups. None of the WAI groups are member confidential
… for all groups we are talking about, not sure this is relevant
… more complex if we are also trying to talk about member confidentiality

Jennie: challenge we were having is how to scope the document. Not just relevant to COGA, but to any W3C group
… went through remainder of comments, and broke out the suggestions into Recommendations headings, with proposed
… pieces that apply to before you become a member, ways to help people participate, and support person or organization option

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk procedure and tooling

MichaelC: do we need some kind of proceedure or tooling?
… what do we need official tools for, and what can we do by improving procedures?
… member representative has precedent
… there is enough content and questions now to bring to the legal team, so suggest doing that now

Lisa: do you feel would be interesting for them to look at as is, and then finish in the next 3 weeks?

MichaelC: yes, think would be good to have them look at it as is so that they can respond to them now

Jennie: feeling secure about the level of security of the document, fine to share now

lisa: resolution is to allow W3C parties outside COGA to review
… and add comments

<lisa> reolution, to alow other w3c parties outside coga to review and add comments?

<lisa> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Rashmi> +1

<julierawe> +1

<Le> +1

<ShawnT> +1

lisa: if agree, +1, if want to talk about more, 0, if against this, -1

<david-swallow> +1

MichaelC: putting on to do list to schedule a meeting with legal team
… think Jennie or John K to present, and will invite Lisa and Rain (off list)

Update on WCAG 3 and testing

Rachael: There are a lot of ways we refer to this

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PsPVWTEjDwZUfevlvywI6NeepAxkveU8_SxYuCVAY80/edit#slide=id.g120a12cbea9_0_0

Rachael: We will try the exercise with the plain language group in the hour following this call

<kirkwood> sorry late work meeting just got in.

Rachael: We are talking about not just how to test, but how we will apply those tests
… Last week, the AG did an exercise
… We broke down existing success criteria and applied this process to see if this is a useful way to think about it
… It is exploratory
… It helps with the work on WCAG 3
… There are different categorizations
… Please add questions into the Queue if you have questions
… 1st, the smallest unit
… We don't have final terms for these
… this could be an interactive component, a paragraph, a dropdown...
… 2nd: the view
… In WCAG 2 that is the page
… In single page applications, all the states that can change - page is not currently sufficient
… 3rd: user process
… (reads draft definition)
… The process to go from point a to point b when completing a task

4th: the aggregate of all those things
… The Wholistic thing we can test
… We test in WCAG 2 these things implicitly
… Talking about them clearly has been helpful
… Questions?
… Next: 4 types of tests
… 1: fully objective test
… Measures against a constant, like color contrast
… Totally objective
… Or, does something exist or not
… Easy to make machine testable

<lisa> maybe the task is important layer

4th: WCAG says "it must be there"
… The tests are objective, repeatable, easy to state
… WCAG 2 tried to make tests like this as much as possible
… 2: Condition (subjective) test
… Measures against conditions
… We say 8 of 10 experts would agree
… Less objective than test 1
… Text alternatives is an example
… You need both the constant test (alt text is present)
… And the condition test (quality of the alt text)
… Another example is meaningful sequent
… You have to evaluate the quality
… Now we are talking about aditionally more subjective
… 3: Test case - measures against an internal baseline set by the developing organization
… WCAG defines the types of conditions and the failures, but not the specifics
… Tests would pass if the (reads from slide 5)
… Example: wouldn't say what reading level would be required, but might dictate that the organization sets a reading level
… This concept hopefully lets us expand the types of tests, and incorporate more of the COGA type of tests

Lisa: Does this include/can this include user tests?

Rachael: The next one does.
… 4: Protocols: this is where user testing would most likely fall
… It would test whether a process was done
… There was a lot of talk about the quality of the results
… Most likely WCAG would have people state the date completed, the protocol
… (reads from slide 6)
… Pieces of plain language would be in other tests, but the full review would be here
… (now reviewing slide 7)
… None of this has yet been determined

Le: The test case: the idea is the customer saying this is my audience
… My goal is to have plain language for a certain grade level specific to my audience
… once they state their audience and their goal, then they have to follow it

Rachael: exactly

Le: The protocol - you need to have things in place, like user testing

Rachael: exactly

Lisa: On the units
… There is user process, and aggregate - none of them are actually a task with a goal
… I think that should be specified in one of them
… I think task is really important
… Rather than the flow of clicking through the process doable
… Did I understand the information - if my task was to understand what I needed to do before my procedure
… I wasn't sure that aggregate or user process

Rachael: User process is intended to be that. I will take that back to the group to make clearer

Lisa: Task completion may be "I now understand something that I need to do"
… That might involve search, reading the information at the end...that knowledge is really important, that it is clear
… That has to be tested for
… These look lovely
… Most interesting - thanks so much for all the effort into these building blocks
… The protocol testing group
… We have to make sure that the protocols and the test case ones
… Shouldn't be: you can do whatever you like
… You need to test it with the range of disabilities that are appropriate
… I would really want to review and comment on that protocol and test case
… as well as the subjective tests.
… I would love to see that well defined
… so we know what is included
… So we can test against the testing protocol
… and know that we have done it

Rachael: We are at the beginning of this, so I appreciate the chance to go over this with you
… The protocol currently meets on Fridays, but they are looking for a new time
… They are very much at the beginning of figuring out how to ensure the quality is there
… They will also bring those to AG if you cannot make the protocol group
… The protocols group are working on that problem

Lisa: It will depend which day for me

<julierawe> I'm still on the queue

Lisa: Please let us know when these meetings for review are up on AG schedule

Julie: The test case is a really interesting idea
… It may solve some problems
… But I am wondering: if an organization can set its condition
… If they say we are setting our reading level for college graduates
… How can we encourage organizations to be more inclusive?
… Is there work to have WCAG 3 reward groups that are more inclusive?

Rachael: That is a great question
… We have had conversations around different ways to score, however
… The trend right now in our conversations is to put that off for the time being
… We recognize that we need to solve the problem
… But we need to clarify what we are talking about - scoping the basics
… One way would be saying "yes, if you do this condition, here is guidance on what it should be if you are doing x
… A school should be doing a grade 6, not college level
… Or we can add points, but we just don't know yet how it will fit together
… But it is still on the schedule

Lisa: Is it better to run over a little bit, or pick this up again next week?

Rachael: That is the bulk of what I wanted to do with the main group
… There are 2 other concepts we are talking about right now
… Functional needs

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ZeCqTRTY0lmWvp1Xv_wO0iH1OzyECBa1UXQ_UeocjQ/edit#heading=h.job6i2kq6fgh

Rachael: And user needs (which is new and exploratory)
… We don't need to discuss those now

Lisa: The plain language subgroup is meeting after this. We will take a 5 minute break
… And continue with examples
… Anyone going to be involved in any of the WCAG 3 subgroups - I recommend you attend
… It will be about how you add pieces into WCAG 3

<Rain> RRSAgent: make minutes

<ShawnT> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Protocols