Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

01 Aug 2019


LisaSeemanKest, Rachael, MichaelC, janina, Jennie, johnkirkwood
Rachael, MichaelC, LisaSeemanKest


<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Timelines_and_actions

actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Timelines_and_actions

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11zD_-yePfku549aedni1JvfVLcvp2micQ4Own5c06is/edit#

Lisa: We discussed sending out requests for review of the content usable. We have a table to track it. I didn't see much movement in the document. Did anyone manage to do much dissemination?
... reminder to send out this document. We want feedback often and early.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11zD_-yePfku549aedni1JvfVLcvp2micQ4Own5c06is/edit#

The email is a relaxed email. It doesn't say its a final draft. It says it is early and request feedback. If people just see a final draft then ask for something different, it is much more difficult. Put your name down next to an org and send it.

johnkirkwood: I am working on sending it.
... Are there any organizations we don't want to send it to?

Lisa: No, I don't think so.

Abi: I don't think its ready to send out to general forums yet but I will reach out to individuals within those organizations.
... accessibility specialists yes, general practitioners who might use the advice, not yet.

Lisa: Janina, have you made progress on the personas?

Janina: Not yet.

Lisa: Jennie, you are working on the glossary. You just took that on last week but has there been any progress?

Jennie: The request from last week's meeting was to draft a document with column headers and send it to the group to review and approve. Once approved I would fill in the document. I sent the structure out earlier today.
... if everyone could take a look at it and send out comments, then I can get it updated.

Lisa: Changing action to Everyone: Look at Jennie's email about the glossary and respond.
... That is something on everyone's to do list.
... Abi, have you gone through the personas and identified any that are missing?

Abi: I am planning on doing that tomorrow.

Lisa: Steve has an action to put pictures. Steve and Roy are not here today so we will pass on those.
... we have weekly updates on WCAG 2.2. Jennie, John, and Rachael - do we need to make time for that today?

Jennie: We're currently working through just a little bit of it. I think its easier if I send mine to the list.

Lisa: The editorial group has action items. It will take us a couple weeks until we bring something back to the group. We are meeting weekly.
... Then there are silver. We were going to have Shawn and Jeanne join the call. I don't see them online.

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

rm: can cover that

ls: Note on the call time, you can now join 10 minutes before start; I find the extra time helpful


ls: my recollection is we made a couple prototypes in context of a model they had

rm: we built templates of SC transformed to Silver

they reviewed

they´re now focusing on conformance model

that´s what we wanted them to discuss with us

Conformance model is how you score accessibility in a new framework

in WCAG 2.x it´s pass / fail, at three conformance levels

Silver is thinking of points for criteria

you´d get bronze / silver / gold overall based on points you get

lots of open questions, e.g., should bronze correspond to WCAG 2.x AA?

do you provide additional points based on more critical SC?

E.g., seizure inducing is highly critical

There are several models under consideration

<Rachael> 1. Are we evaluating the right things when we compare the different proposals?

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit

<Rachael> 2. Does COGA have comments on the individual proposals?

e.g., risks, gaps

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Silver_Conformance_Proposals_.28July_2019.29

<Rachael> 3. Does COGA have input on what we should be measuring?

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ccKlaPMaVvazbSqMPgttvMesy9D0KAjGY01pAQES2K0/edit#heading=h.b1oovxl0m7o4

this gets into how you score

there´s a lot of risk of unintentional bias in how we assign points to SC

ls: very important because people focus on what´s measured

if coga stuff is measured, it´ll happen, otherwise it won´t

do we want to submit input individually, or as a group?

aj: suggest individual review followed by group discussion

<Jennie> Is there a timeline for these responses? E.g. is there a deadline by which we need to provide the feedback?

a group input will help ensure they are explicitly receiving the coga view rather than a collection of individual views

rm: they´re actively working on this, but a lot of stuff, so a few weeks

ls: that´s not long

is this out to wider community?

js: there´s standard wide review from W3C, but maybe not at this stage

ls: there´s so much to review, hard for people to participate

maybe we could do an online workshop to go through this as a COGA group

jk: would like to see all the comments in one place

so we can bounce things off each other

ls: this is all in separate docs, you want in one?

jk: yes

rm: it´s a ¨sheet¨ not a ¨doc¨

ls: that ok?

jk: yes

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: LisaSeemanKest

michael: silver want limited feedback - not wide review yet

<johnkirkwood> workshop of just coga task force, i was thinking.

michael: one document and workshop is realy hard
... and they have too much to do

<johnkirkwood> didn't want to mess up what they are doing. fair enough

<MichaelC> scribe: MichaelC

jd: happy to provide feedback but unsure where

not sure I can participate in an extra meeting

would like an alternative, like the doc for comments

ls: how about we set up a working call and start adding to a comments doc at the same time

can use call to cross-fertilize as we go

people could also comment out of sync

will that work?

jk: sure

if it helps to find all the bits and pull them together

rm: could copy their docs into a space for us to comment

though hard to keep up to date

or we could request access for individuals to comment in their docs

<johnkirkwood> + to a COGA a group response.

<johnkirkwood> +1 to a COGA group response

<Jennie> +1 to providing a more unified response.

mc: they try to be open to lots of input mechanisms

but in practice work in gdocs

I think we need a group response, they need to know the TF is ok with the result

js: the process of forming a consensus view is stronger

and has more weight with them

<Abi> +1 group response

ls: maybe do email list discussion

then colate

rm: maybe instead of by doc, by question

e.g., somebody could look at measurement, somebody look at evaluation

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13A8mGMnQujfEVqcw_LmAUYT8DDq_qW0TNcHxmCHd0io/edit

<Jennie> From my notes:

<Jennie> Question 1: Are we evaluating the right things when we compare the different proposals?

<Jennie> Question 2: Does COGA have comments on the individual proposals?

<Jennie> Question 3: Do we have input on what we should be measuring?

ls: worried you gotta review everything to address these questions

js: maybe it´s too early to get in depth

maybe give feedback when they have a more well-defined approach

ls: how about comments to list, group discussion, after which we have better input on question 3

then we´d know better if we want to answer question 2 or 3

jd: a high-level review would allow us to give input on general consensus

see if we have consensus even on that

<johnkirkwood> +1 to reviewing in a general sense and starting to high-level concepts.

<Jennie> I can do some reviewing

<Rachael> I have weighed in on the evaluation criteria but haven't had a chance to dig into the proposals beyond the calls. I can take a pass at the proposals this week along with Jennie.

<johnkirkwood> sorry can't do this week

ls: so Jenni and Rachael looking at proposals

I´l look at question 1

aj: I can comment on email or gdocs


we should have quorum for next week

and hopefully the week after

last week of August will probably be holiday

<Jennie> Just to confirm - are we cancelling August 29th?

ls: yes, 29 Aug we´ll cancel

<LisaSeemanKest> https://w3c.github.io/wai-coga/coga-draft/guide/understandable/

and may cancel week before

design guide online : https://w3c.github.io/wai-coga/coga-draft/guide/understandable/

ls: there´s a written version, good for version control

also considering an interactive version mined from the written version

<shares screen>

collapsible TOC

<Jennie> Link without extra quotation mark: https://w3c.github.io/wai-coga/coga-draft/guide/understandable/

Overview followed by general objectives which expand to specific patterns

aj: more readable

jd: need to fix color contrast

is this an overall site issue, or local?

mc: if overall, it´s WAI, they´d prioritize

otherwise local, easy to fix

jd: focus outline is different color in different places, the yellow one is too light

mc: think it´s fine to the collapsible TOC as the main version

ls: no, policy people need a printed version with all the content

mc: it´s standard to have an ¨expand all¨ feature and when printed everything comes out

ls: a ¨web-like¨ version is less authoritative

<johnkirkwood> need to logoff best, jk

<mc disagrees>

<johnkirkwood> ;)

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/08/01 15:06:21 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/scirbe: lisa/scribe: LisaSeemanKest/
Succeeded: s/objects/objectives/
Found embedded ScribeOptions:  -final


Present: LisaSeemanKest Rachael MichaelC janina Jennie johnkirkwood
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: MichaelC
Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC
Found Scribe: LisaSeemanKest
Inferring ScribeNick: LisaSeemanKest
Found Scribe: MichaelC
Inferring ScribeNick: MichaelC
Scribes: Rachael, MichaelC, LisaSeemanKest
ScribeNicks: Rachael, MichaelC, LisaSeemanKest
Found Date: 01 Aug 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]