– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<Lisa> zakim next item

scribe sign up https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list

<Lisa> close item 1

subgroups updates amd kpis https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#heading=h.1bvszq5s0esc also look at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_pV-lbgorW2oihIB4EdONOFN0EcRmBAkmUEEPdTAEw/edit#

Lisa: Last week we moved Research subgroup into the main group

<kirkwood> kpi?

<Jennie> KPI: key performance indicator

<Rain> KPI stands for key performance indicator

<kirkwood> ;)

<Fazio> I received 5 publications to review from Joanne Nicholson, Ph.D., Professor Institute for Behavioral Health Schneider Institutes for Health Policy

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XWmikm5Ein5CQ02knEJ5iGzO1YJMilTMBJ_aLVCTzs0/edit#heading=h.bc4vqyklmnk0

<julierawe> Can you please share the url for the COGA Action Items doc?

Lisa: We are having extra meeting for mental health subgroup on 15th November at 10 am Boston time .Rashmi will send mail with agenda as reminder

Thank you Rachael

Rain: By next week we will have discussion on feedback for structure
… and we will discuss about qualitative aspect of the research

Julie: Looking forward to the feedback ,and will have meeting by end of December or may be in January

Rachael: I am expecting feedback from AG in Late January or February to circle back

<kirkwood> +1 to research

Lisa: Its very much technology question so that would require synergy from more people on top of technology to work for clear language work

<Rain> subgroup schedule: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups

<Fazio> I'll be in Brasilia next week

<Rain> +1 I will be on vacation on the 22nd and 29th of December

<Jennie> Thanks for the link Rain!

<Lisa> work on the 15th dec and the 5th of january

<kirkwood> +1 ok

<kirkwood> oops i meant ok for both

<julierawe> +1 to meeting on the 15th of Dec and on the 5th of January

Rashmi: I will on vacation on 5t January

Lisa: Let me know if you are available on what dates of January and February so that we can plan meetings

Lisa: For Test plan strategy we made lots of changes
… David swallow is doing potential outreach

<Lisa> next item

Jnnie: For image subgroup we will have updates after next friday

Lisa: Jennie do you need time in main meeting to discuss

Jennie: It may have in the start of December

Jennie: I am not available except 15th in the month of December

Julie: About EO I had interacted with Shadi.

They incorporated all of our suggestions
… If we see anything massively wrong only then we will flag it

<Jennie> I have updated the holidays in December onto the scribe list.

It seems They did incorporated important changes

I will confirm it on Saturday

Julie: I will create a google doc as github is hard and will ask to flag people to flag if its only massive issue

<Rain> Rain will review

<Lisa> thank you

John: I can also review

I want to make a APA issue on github on Audio description track? Did anyone make it?

Lisa: I want to make a APA issue on github on Audio description track? Did anyone make it?

<kirkwood> cognitive & low vision … such as aging related often go together.

Lisa: In the functional need we are missing how cognitive disabilities affect other assistive technology usage

<Lisa> rashmi: mental health overlaps as well

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wu0WYcvCpp-zIz2NzPk2AuTJOrzgh3T4sKQgzCa10ps/edit#

Lisa: as comorbidty and multiple impairment together I will add to the new research agenda along with Rachael's suggestion

<Lisa> close item 4

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: I want to make short interview video to discuss about specific issue making it a bit personel
… If anybody is interested
… they can ping me
… If anything is making training material and are happy to share

Julie: Short video will be more helpful

Lisa: I am planning to make around 3 min conversation
… and would script it beforehand

Thank you everyone

<Rain> Thank you. Will return for test group

testing subb group

continue working on Content Usable's 4.8.1

looking at 4.8.1 in content useble, and making test, and test process

to make sure we know the easy sell testable

and make a leyered aprouh to test as this is approved

lisa: we should document the aprouch of a layed aprouch

<Jennie> Is it ok with the group to start by looking at binary tests for 4.8.1, with the understanding that we will next work on other test types.

<julierawe> +1

shawn: we are looking at the examples in 4.8.1

lisa: i wanted more a test proces

<Jennie> Layered approach could be used

for content useable

<Jennie> Phase 1: Identify areas in examples of 4.8.1 that can be tested in binary fashion

<Jennie> Phase 2: (option 1) write way to test binary elements (only) for Making Content Usable

<Jennie> Phase 2: (option 2) Identify areas in exaples of 4.8.1 that can be tested using another test type like procedural

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/Testing

<Jennie> Lisa: need a process document on how to test Making Content Usable

<Jennie> ...Doesn't have to be filled in

<Jennie> ...Example someone wants to come along and say they conform to Making Content Usable. What does that mean?

<Jennie> ...This could be a layered approach, but collecting tests would not necessarily do this

<Jennie> ....We may need an example test of each kind, then move to the document of this structure

<Jennie> ...We have not agreed on whether accessibility could be a user involved process or not

<Jennie> ...There is lots to do there

<Jennie> ...We know there are unit tests there

shawbn: we are aligning with silver? so should it be alighend with 2.x

<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to say are should we test Making Content Usable to WCAG 2.X testing method?

<Jennie> Lisa: that is not what we were trying to do

<Jennie> ...We should add this as an agenda item

<julierawe> Lisa: When we set up the KPIs in our new charter, we said we were going to have a section on testing Content Usable.

<julierawe> Lisa: We said we were going to work on how to test for it. Could be an appendix, could be a stand-alone.

<julierawe> Lisa: Rachael said she needs to know what it's going to look like. A process? Focused on user-testing?

<julierawe> Lisa: I think we're trying to make a proposal of what testing Content Usable should involve, not just what we can do to make it aligned for Silver.

<kirkwood> Is the “resource” “test section of editors draft’ resource link not accesssible anymore? https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#convention-tests

<julierawe> Lisa: We have to put forward a proposal, an outline that people can discuss — it doesn't have to align with WCAG 3

<julierawe> Lisa: I don't think we should start with how to align the way other people test

<julierawe> Rain: I think the goal is to break this out into chunked tasks so we can move forward

<julierawe> Rain: Trying to do all of that at once might be hard to make progress

<julierawe> Rain: It makes sense to start with the easy things and then get them out of the way

<julierawe> Rain: The nice thing about identifying the easy binary ones can be put into the testing program.

<julierawe> Rain: The stuff that's not binary will involve a more subjective process with people.

<ShawnT> Jennie: agrees with Lisa

<ShawnT> ... on the original goal

<ShawnT> ... we had some constraints on the original goal

<ShawnT> ... the types of test Silver / names of tests keep changing

<julierawe_> sorry, my internet dropped—am back now!

<julierawe_> Jennie: If I gave a testing protocol that is not complete, then many organizations would not use it.

<ShawnT> ... if someone wants to test Making content usable we need to show that some test as possible

<julierawe_> Jennie: But if we say here are some tests with high interrater reliability, orgs will use it.

<julierawe_> Jennie: I don't want to spend all of our time on binary testing. Once we have a couple binary tests, then we can move on.

<Jennie> Julie: I want to say that Lisa has made an excellent point

<Jennie> ....I was looking at 4.8.1

<Jennie> ...It starts with "easy to find on a page"

<Jennie> ...This is very different from "is there a phone number"

<Jennie> ...To me it sounds like this is where we could come up with ease of use

<Jennie> ....We know we can find a phone number

<Jennie> ...But how easy is it for people to find the phone number

<Jennie> ....Does it take 20 clicks to get to the phone number?

<Jennie> ....If we weren't trying to get aligned with the other processes

<Jennie> ...and set those aside

<Jennie> ....How would we guide organizations to do user testing so they are accessible to people with cognitive disabilities

<Jennie> ...Then we could show how to do guidance on how to get their different teams

<Jennie> ...It is going to be challenging to map it out

<Jennie> ...Lisa has persuaded me

<Jennie> ...So we don't focus on how to align with the other initiatives

<julierawe_> Rain: I'm liking the way this conversation is going in terms of how we think about these tests.

<julierawe_> Rain: It does actually align with how the testing group is thinking.

<julierawe_> Rain: Prescriptive tests come in two forms: computational is yes/no is there a phone number. Qualitative is the phone number usable.

<julierawe_> Rain: Adaptive is are using with certain color coding able to identify and use the phone number.

<julierawe_> Rain: Is there a phone number is an important binary because right now it's not required. Then we need to move on to the qualitative questions under a series of different contexts.

<julierawe_> Lisa: Another approach is a maturity model. Does your research include people with learning and cognitive disabilities? How many? How many different ones are included?

<kirkwood> is it in a standard place? - is there a style guide? has a usability test been done? are the link and scrolls? .. is there a self attestation to include cogntive disabilities in testing?

<julierawe_> Lisa: The maturity model is a completely different angle. Does your user testing include people with learning and cognitive disabilities? Do the tasks include getting help?

<julierawe_> Lisa: Coming from an entirely different angle. But if you've included in your design team, a focus group or qualitative testing with variety of people, then you've done it and I think you've done it better than a unit test

<julierawe_> Lisa: Having some unit tests, yes, we need to identify them. But is that phone number above the fold? Is that phone number findable?

<julierawe_> Lisa: I'm not saying we should do this, but maybe this is a better direction for Content Usable. What are the different approaches, the different ways that an organization could do it

<julierawe_> John K: I agree with everything that has been said.

<julierawe_> John K: To address through internal style guides and commitment to test with people with learning and cognitive disabilities

<julierawe_> John K: To attest that it was done and get feedback from users to ensure that this community is heard

<julierawe_> John K: The phone number is a great example. I have a lot of hesitation around phone numbers online with larger entities I've worked with.

<julierawe_> John K: I'm a little bit wary of putting too much into phone numbers because a lot of companies can't do it just from a scaling perspective, so I want to ensure we don't depend too heavily on phone numbers

<julierawe_> Shawn: I agree with what's been said. What I'm hearing a lot is usability testing. Test with people with disabilities.

<julierawe_> Shawn: Binary testing is good. I agree with Rain that baby steps are good to start off small and hopefully end big.

<julierawe_> Shawn: Make sure you have a human person to call or email is just a start. Make it findable is another thing.

<julierawe_> Shawn: I think focusing on usability testing might be where we have to go.

<kirkwood> +1 to focus on usability testing procedures

<julierawe_> Jennie: My perspective is I'm hearing lots of support for this idea. One of the things we have to tease out is which section to focus on for our example.

<julierawe_> Jennie: To do that, we need to weed out certain parts to make sure we're focusing on specific area that will be the best example to test.

<Jennie> Proposal: homework - each group member write out a sample structure of what the document that could be created would contain.

+1

<julierawe_> Jennie: Does the group feel that one homework assignment — to write out the headings — is helpful?

<ShawnT> +1

<kirkwood> understand that my hesitation for phone number can give an ‘out’ to ensuring that the site is independently accessible for those with diverse cognitive needs

<julierawe_> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Rain> +1

<julierawe_> Lisa: Taking 4.8.1 as the one that we use might be a good one to experiment with. My husband and I are neurodiverse. We're trying to get through to an organization. We tried their What'sApp chat and it's a bot

<julierawe_> Lisa: We can't reach anyone who is vaguely helpful.

<julierawe_> Lisa: What is the process to make sure all the unit tests? If they have a phone number and the phone number takes you to a bot?

<julierawe_> Lisa: If everyone does it, then we could see how they compare

<julierawe_> Lisa: We may see the limitations of the help

<kirkwood> … that said a well-designed phone tree can be better than a website

<julierawe_> Jennie: This has been a really good conversation. Shawn, can you put link to where we'll put the homework?

is it this link?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Otsl4HTCvpQj63xYVKzOVkulf6o75dWEthu6WI9Vtj8/edit#heading=h.7ejnh0q5wdpx

<julierawe_> Jennie: Coming back to our KPI: We have initial draft created, feedback from key stakeholders like AG and Rules Working Group, and get to working draft.

<julierawe_> Jennie: Does anyone have concerns about that plan?

eg is for example

<Jennie> Julie: I want to address John K's concerns about the phone number

<Jennie> ....We may want to think broadly to include the other ways to get help other than just a phone number

<Jennie> ...It is valid that having a phone number as the only option for help would be onerous

<kirkwood> ok thank you

+1

<Rain> +1

<ShawnT> +1

Initial exploratory draft created, feedback requested from some stakeholders (EG silver, rules WG) Plan to get to working draft (phase 1)

<Jennie> Initial exploratory draft created, feedback requested from some stakeholders (EG silver, rules WG) Plan to get to working draft (phase 1)

<julierawe_> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<julierawe_> Jennie: March 2023 is when we're scheduled to complete draft and collect first round of feedback

<julierawe_> Lisa: Confirmed

<julierawe_> Jennie: Is the group confident that if we put together some proposals together that we could achieve that KPI in March?

0 need to see how it looks after the homeworks....

<Jennie> Julie: I think that a question I have - the draft is doable

<Jennie> ....I'm not sure how long it will take to get feedback

<Jennie> ...Example: it could take a couple of months

<julierawe_> 0

<ShawnT> 0

<julierawe_> 0 because not sure how long it will take to get feedback from other group

<julierawe_> Jennie: Is is reasonable if the group confirms the KPI the next time we get together?

<julierawe_> Lisa: It's good for us to think about do we need to adjust the KPI

<julierawe_> Jennie: Did Shawn find a spot for drafting the homework?

<julierawe_> Shawn: Lisa posted the link

is it this link?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Otsl4HTCvpQj63xYVKzOVkulf6o75dWEthu6WI9Vtj8/edit#heading=h.7ejnh0q5wdpx

<julierawe_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Otsl4HTCvpQj63xYVKzOVkulf6o75dWEthu6WI9Vtj8/edit#heading=h.7ejnh0q5wdpx

<julierawe_> Jennie: I'm adding a section "Draft your document structure here" and will put each person's name so you can search for your name and find your spot

<julierawe_> Shawn: I'll fix the headings

<julierawe_> Jennie: It sounds like we have a plan for the next meeting. If there are questions in between, please reach out to Shawn and myself

<julierawe_> Julie: When do we need to complete homework assignment?

<julierawe_> Shawn: Dec 15 is our next group meeting

<julierawe_> Jennie: That works for me

<ShawnT> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups

<ShawnT> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/Testing

<julierawe_> Lisa: Confirm that's what's on the subgroup page

<julierawe_> Jennie: Wishing everyone a wonderulf rest of your day!