Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

14 Nov 2016

See also: IRC log


MichaelC, kirkwood, JohnRochford


<Lisa_Seeman> trackbot, start meeting

<Lisa_Seeman> agenda: this

<Lisa_Seeman> scribe: Jan

<Thaddeus> + Thaddeus

<Thaddeus> Thaddeus present

Lisa: Introductions - quick round table

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/change-on-request.html

<Lisa_Seeman> . https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html,

LIsa: There is a deadline at the end of the month to submit everything we need for WCAG 2.1
... Two types of questions and comments are that you either completely disagree or that you have some changes you would like to suggest. If you look at the SC status, there is one left that has not yet been submitted to the group for review.

<Lisa_Seeman> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DHoA9fQRsNtfrhxpf-HGVzbNpe6KUxv-cgxY6NM4mGI/edit#

Lisa: I found one additional SC that was suggested as a AAA that has not been drafted. First priority has been getting drafts into the templates that we were asked to use. I am trying to fill in the gaps where I can. Editing for spelling, etc. is not as big a priority as getting all of the pieces into the templates.
... If you make comments that come in after the consensus deadline, please mark that the comments came in after the SC was approved. We don't want to ignore the comments, but we need to note when they came in.
... The first SC deadlines have passed, but comments are still welcome - just note whether or not they were after consensus.

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/table.html

Lisa: First - we have a draft of all of the SC that we want to put into the extension. This might be a good time to review the tables of user needs to make sure that we are addressing all of the needs in our proposed SC for the extention.
... Look at the table to see if there are any categories that are not addressed or that are missing. If we can get this done in the next week, we might be able to get them into WCAG 2.1.

JohnRochford: You were going to talk to people about doing copy editing?

Lisa: Yes - we need to talk about that and put some process around it.
... Copy editing is important and it's a good synergy of skills and we know that we are going to have some issues / needs in this area. These will be reviewed by WCAG. There are 33 current SC that will need copy editing. Is there anyone else interested in helping?
... If something is grammar or punctuation, then you can change that, but if there are substantative changes, then you need to add the change to the Google doc and draw Lisa'
... Draw Lisa's attention to changes that affect the meaning or intent - like "should" to "must"

<EA> So sorry I have been away and am so behind with emails etc. Mike and I are down for reviewing 3.2.4 and 3.2.3 - I have read them all and did not have any comments other than the odd typo. I am not sure it Mike has commented

Lisa: You might want to put substantative changes in bold so that Lisa will be more likely to see them.
... Each SC comes with the suggestion about whether it should be A, AA, or AAA
... We need to offer our justification for what level we think the SC need.

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask whether wcag priority levels are on the table?

<Lisa_Seeman> ACTION: Jan and john_R to do copy editing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/14-coga-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-188 - And john_r to do copy editing [on Jan McSorley - due 2016-11-21].

JohnRochfod: Let's talk about how we need to do the editing. Jan - if you could start from the highest numbered one and work toward the middle.

Lisa: I suggest that you write - copy editing started by <name>
... Jan - you need to get a user name and give that to Michael and he will give us access to the COGA repository
... user name for github
... I will doing changes after the copy editing, based on the comments. There might be some small grammatical errors, but I am comfortable with that. Is everyone else comfortable with that? I tend to copy straight from the comment.
... Whatever we submit will get pulled to pieces and that is okay. People won't like the wording, they will want to change the scope or the definitions, but all of that is okay. What we are doing is making the case that these user needs end up in 2.1
... Everyone just needs to be aware that there will be a lot of critique after we have made our submissions. The main point is that user needs will be addressed.
... There were no objections to the process defined by Lisa
... When you are in github - it is important to synchronize your documents before you begin, do your changes and the reupload and sync when you are done. If you have problems, please contact Lisa or Michael.

EA: 3.2.4 and 3.2.3 were the ones that we reviewed

Lisa: Were there any comments that you think we may need to discuss?

EA: No - I will be able to read them and copy in examples
... Because they are all so different and the layouts are different, it is difficult to compare the SC

MikePluke: Sometimes the language is not typical SC language.

EA: There is quite a lot of that; the "framework" one needs to be looked at again - as does "undo"

Lisa: Jan and John, if there are any changes in the SC wording, please put those in bold with lots of exclamation points into the Google Doc so that I can find those.
... Mary Jo, do you have any substantative comments?

Mary Jo: I haven't made any additional comments. I will need to go back and look at my comments to let you know if there is anything in there that would be considered substantative.

Lisa: To Mary Jo, please let me know if you need me to look at anything from Mike

Mary Jo: Go ahead and look at the 2 you got from Mike because I am working through the initial 15 or so.

Lisa: To John Kirkwood, I put some of your comments into "familiar design" - are there any substantative comments that we might need to discuss on this call?

John Kirkwood: Not that I can remember, but I will look

EA: I did not worry about typos or style, is that an issue that we should comment about? Some have references and some don't, the benefits often need more information. If people are struggling with the concept that cognitive issues can be tested, what can we do about that?

Lisa: We need to keep the wording consistent with WCAG as much as we can. We have a section on testability, but the rest of it is trying to explain what the intent is, why this is important and why this is an accessibility issue for people with cognitive disabilities - there the wording doesn't have to be explicit WCAG wording because we are just trying to explain to our audience - in this case WCAG working group - and they can reword later.
... Techniques just have to have a heading, we don't have to have full detail in there right now.
... The testability section should show that this is human testable. If you see something that is not testable by a human, then be sure to shout.

EA: White space for people with cognitive impairments is an example that is hard to measure.

Lisa: Where is that?

EA: It is mentioned in clarity.

Lisa: What succes criteria? Chunking?

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/chunks.html

EA: Yes, in Chunking and in Clear structure and relationships

Lisa: We could write a SC about it.

EA: Does anybody else agree that this is an issue?

Lisa: I agree

John: I agree

<JohnRochford> +1

<JohnRochford> Gotta go, folks.

Lisa: I think we should write white spacing as a SC, where we talk about A, AA, or AAA, we could say that we have found it difficult to make this testable, but that we think it should be included and then leave it to WCAG to figure out how to handle it. They may put it as AAA, but at least it would not be lost.
... EA, can I ask you to do a draft?

EA: Yes. Lisa - please send me the template again and I will work on it.

<Lisa_Seeman> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/template.html

Lisa: Support APIs and Support Personalization - could also be a CSS issue
... To EA the white space around objects and boxes, headings, and paragraphs is adjustable according to the user preference or is easily adjustable by the user. That is the wording that I think you want because it is "adjustable" because that is testable.
... Don't be afraid to call out a missing user need, even if you don't have time to write up the SC. Still call it out and we will figure out how to make it happen.

<Jim_S> Thanks Bye!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jan and john_R to do copy editing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/11/14-coga-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.148 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/11/14 18:00:01 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.148  of Date: 2016/10/11 12:55:14  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: Jan
Inferring ScribeNick: Jan

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: MichaelC kirkwood JohnRochford

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 14 Nov 2016
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/11/14-coga-minutes.html
People with action items: jan john_r

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]