COGA FtF Day 2 -- 29 Jan 2019

writing design guided pattens

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

Usable doc, Design Guide next steps

https://w3c.github.io/coga/design/

lk: have filled some stuff into this doc, but lots of incomplete material marked with ednotes

to work on an item, copy from this doc

paste into https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit

follow the template

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> google doc for design pattern: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#

so let´s divide into small groups

jd: how to avoid working on the same?

lk: put your name in the tracking table at the top

gs: you´ll see people typing...

jd: should we check with you once we have the intent, to make sure we´re on the right tack?

lk: good idea

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> google doc for design pattern: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#

jk: we used a process of breaking down the original into components

then split it into two and did those components for each of those

plugged that as bullets into the doc

then fleshed it out

lk: expect to find overlaps

and stuff that doesn´t quite fit

need to review after drafting

if entire group reviews everything will be slow

so suggest assign a reviewer with a checklist

for sweeping review, not full review

jk: at BBC this is shepherding

for a given item, the assigned shepherd sees it through the process

and makes the key decisions

then later, the shepherds swap their flocks

lk: maybe on top of that, after writing and review, somebody works on individual components like examples

jd: would like to have a sequence of reviewers

to get more coverage of reviewer pov

gs: minimum viable product is one writer one reviewer for now

lk: sure; later maybe somebody will check for consistency by theme or something

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#

lk: ^ is a review checklist

gs: that sounds good but a little later in the process after we have solid drafts

jk: be careful of links to research because there can be a tendency to find the research you want, not the objective

ea: change to ¨resources¨

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GvlmwHCsWobTgXx9LTWmbRBM6jT8s5lZcardq8u_Ge4/edit#

lk: some people may prefer to be primarily writers or primarily reviewers

jr: process to interact?

lk: comment in gdoc, or talk by phone

ea: comment in doc may scaffold learning

gs: piddly stuff (typos) just fix in the gdoc

bigger stuff I will do as a comment or suggested edit

jk: what is procedure vs github issues?

lk: we use gdocs, more straightforward than issues

whatever way works for you to make your suggestion, brackets are fine too

jd: suggest process is that original author should process the reviewer´s comments

sl: so the author is the shepherd

jd: yes

jk: <documenting above>

sl: where do you review?

lk: same doc

sl: need a way to identify reviewer besides shepherd

lk: so that was first review

second review is about overlaps, gaps, consistency

overlaps may be easy

jk: FtF good opportunity for gaps

like notes on a wall

we haven´t filled everything out but have titles

ea: our group was unsure about potential overlaps

jk: we could write out all the patterns for themes, then stick them on wall and stare at it

jd: Alastair was going to go through what´s already in SC etc.

lk: that´s mainly aimed at potential 2.2 stuff

want a prep chat for that

jd: then I´d like a third review about potential overlap with existing SC that don´t cover COGA as well

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GvlmwHCsWobTgXx9LTWmbRBM6jT8s5lZcardq8u_Ge4/edit#heading=h.sc9lyi0olel

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> doc for ovelaps and gaps https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zmbt7ZfEgVDcICzBnjwkjFRBuGc7In5pMcgB_z6zO34/edit?usp=sharing

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ovelaps and gaps https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zmbt7ZfEgVDcICzBnjwkjFRBuGc7In5pMcgB_z6zO34/edit?usp=sharing

<Jennie> Group reviewed themes and eliminated duplicates, some renaming, and some notes added. Narrative and table both reflect the process. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zmbt7ZfEgVDcICzBnjwkjFRBuGc7In5pMcgB_z6zO34/edit#

<Glenda> scribe: Glenda

<alastairc> I am!

Topic: WCAG 2.2 discussion

Lisa: We’re proposing “Accessible Authentication”.
... Let’s review our highest user needs and pick 4 that are our highest priority (to suggest WCAG 2.2).

Alastair: Yes, that is a great idea.

Lisa: Is their guidance on what is likely to be doable in WCAG 2.2.

Alastair: Suggest prioritzing things that will fit the WCAG structure. (as opposed to things that could be achieved in Silver where there will be more flexibility).

Jamie: is there a preference toward things that can be answered “yes” or “no”?

Alastiar: True…but related to web content.

Janina: I want to go back to design patterns. I think we are talking about a web site being consistent with itself.

Alastair: that may already build on what is currently in WCAG 2.0. And how do you define it in such a way that different a11y experts could test and get the same results.

Lisa: Can you put in the criteria for proposing a Success Criteria?
... Can we propose a different process. Can we proposed a User Need, and ask AGWG to help us develop a new Success Criteria for WCAG 2.2.?
... As we prioritize user needs: “Is this a major barrer for people with cognitive disabilities?”

<alastairc> Suggest you choose a prioritisation method, that's likely to be best F2F without me, and I'll drop back in at 3pm?

Lisa: We have 3 that have gotten top votes.

1) Make it Easy to Find the Most Important Thing.

2) Make it Easy to Undo Errors.

3) Do not Rely on User Memorizing Information (including short term memory)

The next group all have 2 votes: a) Be interntally consistent b) Avoid data loss and timeout (we have something at AAA) c) Make easy to find and submit.

Michael: “Make things internally consistent” I want to advocate for this one. Prevention (rather than cure)

<alastairc> To help decide: which would most easily apply to *all* websites?

c) Make it easy to find and submit help requests, questions, problems (about the site)

<alastairc> Just to note, we're going to have to find ways of defining "easy", "important" that work across sites & testers.

Alastair: We want to make the process easier for making recommendations for WCAG 2.2. So we can see if we are going to move foward with a WCAG 2.2.

Top Vote Winners are: 1) Make it easy to find the most important thing (Jennie has a great idea based on heading and visual)

2) Make it easy to undo errors

3) Do not rely on user memory for information

4) Makei it easy to find and use hep

5) Accessibile Authentictation

(if we can go past recommending 5)….the next up would be:

6) Be internally consistent

7) Avoid data loss and timeouts

Examples for 1) Make it easy to find the most improtant thing

Find the send button on an email.

Headings (visual matches structure)

Anything having to do with danger, healthy, safety

Alerts (kindergarten ended early, do not park here you will be towed, page is no longer being updated)

Things that are so important if you don’t know about them…you may make a mistake/decision that makes you cry (with sadness)

Examples for 2) Make it Easy to Undo Errors

Unsend a email (within x seconds). “Oh no! I sent that to the wrong person!”

You entered wrong data in a form….but you can’t go back and change it without starting completely over.

<alastairc> Sorry, just found the criteria for criteria: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria

Examples for 3) Do not rely on user memory for information

<alastairc> -q

Voice Menu Systems

Conversational Interfaces

Information required to be remembered from previous screens

Examples: Make it easy to find and use help.

Make it so you can find help on every page

Make it easy to find a way to get a human being to help you

Jennie: There are multiple concepts of what we mean about “help”.

<alastairc> Wary that not all websites have help, not all can have help. Therefore would need to frame as: "If a website provides help, make that link easy to find" (and re-phrase "easy")

Lisa: Example of a Failure: When a user gets caught in a cognitive trap. Example….voice menu system where you can’t get where you need to be.

<alastairc> dropping off now, best of luck, which I could have been there!

Lisa: Let’s do 1) Janina’s topic on Gap Analysis ….. 2) JohnR’s topic on Silver …. then 3) Assigning Tasks

Gap Analysis (Janina)

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/#topic-1-authentication-and-safety

gap annalisis

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/coga/gap-analysis/#topic-1-authentication-and-safety

Janina: 3.1 I’m not seeing what I think needs to be present.
... Why are “authentication” and “safety” grouped?
... I suggest that we either clarify why “authentication” and “safety” must be grouped?
... Important to make distinction for what are the different needs for people with cognitive disabilities. Instead, what I’m seeing are assertions (that are actually true for all people).
... What do you mean by “symbol users”?

Lisa: We can add “symbol user” in the glossary (and explain what this means…also including AAC). Make it possible for person who is unaware of this type of cogntive disability…and how they use symbols/aac.

Jennie: If we quantify the “intensity, duration and frequency” of these types of problems…that could help us clarify.

Jamie: for example: As a user who has memory impairments and often forgets passwords they use daily, I need to be able to use a site, without remembering or transcribing passwords and user names, so I can use its service.
... by adding the “use daily” we are defining the differences with the person who has cognitive disabilty (intensity, duration and frequency).

Lisa: So, you want a functional description of impairments of cognitive disabilities that have impact.

Jennie: Articulate the barrier where the impairment is meeting the barrier.

Jamie: My example: When I use google authenticator. It shows me the authentication code with a space in it. Every day I forget that the space has to be ignored when I enter it. So every day I make a mistake entering this code.

Jennie: Suggesting that EA and Jennie work together to do this write-up…so people outside this field could understand this.

Steve: The difference is, “what makes it impossible”

Janina: Important wrinkle that needs to be dealt with in these user stories.
... What about all these “remember your password” software helpers (from browsers like firefox to independent software like LastPass).

Lisa: Where it isn’t solved is in WCAG?

Janina: Who cares?
... if problems are already solved in the world, they don’t need to be in WCAG?

Jennie: are talking about the difference between the existence of a technology solution (janina) AND the requirement to comply (lisa)

JohnR suggestion instead of “norm” go with “typical” or “standard”

JohnR: As we are developing this guide, we do not want to burden the people creating these websites. We should not make them dig for information.

Jamie: I’m not aware of any password system that helps me with 2 factor authentication.

JohnR and Janina: it works in lastpass

Jamie: problem logging in to Tumblr (because it only has the login on one page…and the password on the 2nd page). That was confusing.

Janina: 3rd party password managers (you are allowing a 3rd party to have access to your passwords)
... what about international options?

Silver (by JohnR)

Whirlwind tour of Silve Conformance Model

How do I know I did it right?"

Change from testability to measurability. Not everything has to be a true / false test. There will be a point/ranking system. And testing whether people can accomplish tasks. There will be a substantially meets idea….where there are bugs, but people can accomplish tasks. Another task: removing a11y supported - that burden would be shifted to User Agents.

There are not going to be any additional success criteria levels. It is about assigning points for achieving rather than penalizing for failures.

What conformance could look like: automated tests, true/false tests and usabilty tests…could include all…with points for each achievement. Great innovation - grades could be given based on an olympic standard of bronze, silver and gold.

Bronze would probably include WCAG 2.x (whatever level we are on when we move to silver).

User needs > tests > methods > guidelines

(Virtual Reality is already included in Silver)

Methods and Points: You have a guideline. There are 4 methods for it. Each method may have a different positive point value. You get more points for “better” methods.

Point System Basics: Provide a Bronze, Silver or Gold scoring level based on each category of user needs. Where User Need includes (works for people with no vision, work for people with low vision…and so forth)

Lisa: Does Silver want us to try to use the Silver Template with a more challenging Cognitive User Need (like Plain Language or Familiar Design)?

Jamie: with silver, can you explain how silver overlaps with WCAG? Is the plan that they will exist in parallel or will Silver replace WCAG?

<kirkwood> sorry is there a dial in?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> we only have an hour and a half less but i thinl so

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> we will try and set it up now

Michael: Silver is different than WCAG. It will encorporate WCAG but it is a different structure. The original vision that Silver would replace WCAG. But some people are concerned that Silver may be too hard. So….the decision has not been made.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> michael is putting the link into

<kirkwood> great

Presentation that JohnR just shared (that was created by Jeanne Spellman) https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YGwCbQ1xXILFihGl4YzHuvmiheDxtkge5V7fD7-t_sM/mobilepresent?slide=id.g44d9cf9fde_0_34

Jennie: If we have a gov law that points to a version of WCAG.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018OctDec/0060.html

Michael: We absolutely take that into consideration. WCAG 1.0 is still out there (and is 20 years old)

JohnR: I also wanted to mention that the proposed Gold Level would include testing with people with disabilities.
... I already submitted a “Plain Language” version in the Silver Template

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18TJ8JAC0u0Fa64MnONOA2Cs8MBTcJQxfnFDqK6KVxD0/edit#

Lisa: Gap Analysis - could we take each category of user needs…and have a video interview of a person with this type of disability…talking about the barrier (and how important meeting the design guide would be).

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18TJ8JAC0u0Fa64MnONOA2Cs8MBTcJQxfnFDqK6KVxD0/edit#

Assign Tasks

See the “Tasks” section of this google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18TJ8JAC0u0Fa64MnONOA2Cs8MBTcJQxfnFDqK6KVxD0/edit#heading=h.7xynhgep4brk

<kirkwood> sorry can hear a bit… heard name on item?

<kirkwood> prototypes take two _ and see if can fit into Silver prototyps yes

Lisa: We need to take the Silver Prototype template…and take two of our Coga Design Patterns….and see if we can put 2 of those design patterns into the template.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> Steve - identify terms that need to be defined first

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: Steve - identify terms that need to be defined first

<trackbot> Created ACTION-304 - - identify terms that need to be defined first [on Steve Lee - due 2019-02-05].

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: Steve - Update the table in gogle docs with updates of jamies sesion on duplicates

<trackbot> Created ACTION-305 - - update the table in gogle docs with updates of jamies sesion on duplicates [on Steve Lee - due 2019-02-05].

<stevelee> see the New Design Guide structure - http://localhost:4000/wai-coga/coga-draft/guide

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: Steve - ut in the changes from the overlap conversation into the document - jamies sesion on duplicates

<trackbot> Created ACTION-306 - - ut in the changes from the overlap conversation into the document - jamies sesion on duplicates [on Steve Lee - due 2019-02-05].

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: Page on our user needs per wcag 4 items…jamie with alister lisa / rachael??

<trackbot> Error finding 'Page'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/users>.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: lisa Page on our user needs per wcag 4 items…jamie with alister lisa / rachael??

<trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Page on our user needs per wcag 4 items…jamie with alister lisa / rachael?? [on Lisa Seeman-Kestenbaum - due 2019-02-05].

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: kirkwood Prototype plain language and familiar design for Silver, Rachael , Jamie, John Kirkwood

<trackbot> Created ACTION-308 - Prototype plain language and familiar design for silver, rachael , jamie, john kirkwood [on John Kirkwood - due 2019-02-05].

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: Jamie Restructure Gap analysis Jennie, Jamie, E.A.& Steve are to clarify the user experience for 3.1

<trackbot> Error finding 'Jamie'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/users>.

Glenda: Remember that when CogA is about to go into dangerous territory, we just need an Oli (because he is rather useful).

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: jennie Restructure Gap analysis Jennie, Jamie, E.A.& Steve are to clarify the user experience for 3.1

<trackbot> Error finding 'jennie'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/track/users>.

rssagent: make minutes

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> ACTION: Jennifer Restructure Gap analysis Jennie, Jamie, E.A.& Steve are to clarify the user experience for 3.1

<trackbot> Created ACTION-309 - Restructure gap analysis jennie, jamie, e.a.& steve are to clarify the user experience for 3.1 [on Jennifer Delisi - due 2019-02-05].

- DRAFT -

COGA FtF Day 2

29 Jan 2019

Attendees

Contents