Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

08 Aug 2019


Jennie, Fazio, Roy, JohnRochford
Abi, Steve, Justine


<Rachael> scribe: Jennie

Actions and updates

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/PlanningPage

Rachael: Everyone being successful sharing it?
... we will talk about personas in detail next week.
... Abi made some process in this area

<Rachael> Jennie: Glossary update. Focused this week on the COGA SC so didn't have time to add information into document. No other feedback received so I will move forward for next meeting.

<Rachael> ack: Jennie

<Rachael> Jennie: Question about sending out content usable. Is it OK to send it out this week?

<Rachael> Lisa: yes.

<Rachael> Lisa: Were you OK with comments on the glossary?

<Rachael> Jennie: Please tell me the date you sent comments and I will review it.

<Rachael> Lisa: I sent it last thursday before the meeting.

<Rachael> Jennie: I will review it and email you if there are any questions.

Rachael: Roy - update on design guide?
... ok, moving on and Steve can give us an update when he gets back.
... editorial group met, and we are waiting for comments from E.A.
... any objections to cancelling the editorial meeting?

Lisa: maybe we should follow up on the list? To move it forward if possible?

Rachael: absolutely.
... we will talk about the SCs in a moment.

Silver follow up discussion

<JohnRochford> Hi, Jeanne!

Rachael: short overview of Silver was taken up last week, looking at some of the evaluation criteria.

Lisa: I didn't have a chance to review them.


Jennie: I reviewed the first 5


<Rachael> Jennie: The proposals have similar titles which make it a bit difficult. The first one is Proposal to Define Scoring Parameters

<Rachael> ...I think about how difficult would it be for someone with a cognitive disability to score. If we are comparing products using the score. This one indicated a large number of person hours. The discussion around usability - while we all agree it is a great thing to do, its not always feasible so I had some concerns about that.

<Rachael> Lisa: Did you think all the patterns and advice from coga will fit into this format?

<Rachael> Jennie: For me a lot of hte personas and descriptive work informs how a person will create materials. To me it feels less about how we go through a process for evaluating materials. We always feel the person evaluating should be strong in evaluating digital accessibility. I'm not clear how they correlate.

<Rachael> Lisa: I'm not involved in Silver. I want to make sure that when we review it is will it provide a format that will enable COGA to be included in the evaluation process. The kind of things we are recommending in our patterns won't all make for clear testable statements.

<Rachael> ...how much space is there to address them.

<Rachael> Jennie: There are two ways COGA was included in the proposal. In all of them there was a prioritization of people with cognitive disabilities at a high level. I think the usability scoring was heavily included in this one. But knowing, for example, the state of Minnesota tries to purchase from companies...

<Rachael> that include people with disabilities. I worry that some of the more complicated testing would reduce the number of people who...

<Rachael> ...could participate.

Jeanne: we are at a tricky point.
... a number of people are pushing hard for the test statement approach exclusively.
... everyone agrees that we want a more open approach, and more variety of tests to provide a gradient.

Jeannie: then you could say the use of plain language in this document is fair in this document, for example, but the better the job you do, the more points you get.

Jeanne: then we can give people more reason to advance.
... what we want to do is have a minimum that is roughly equivalent to WCAG 2.1 AA
... then have more of the advanced tests at a higher level.
... what is not currently in any of the proposals but we have discussed is to have a variety of user testing available, so we can consider the needs of small companies and enable them to get to the top level but we haven't worked out the details of this.
... There are some people in a hurry to establish the points system.
... I feel need we need to understand what we are measuring and why.
... Rachael has suggested a cost analysis of the different options, with pros and cons.
... on the wiki page

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

Jeanne: one of the things we have talked about a lot in the group is how to say how critical a individual piece of guidance (called success criteria now)
... during feasibility of testing of the conformance model: whenever you say this particular success criteria is more important to one group than another, it begins to establish a hierarchy.
... for example, some are talking about alt text being easier to figure out than plain language.
... for those coming from the WCAG viewpoint, they have been trying to keep that type of structure.
... COGA is one of the groups representing individuals that suffer the most from this type of structure, and what we want to get rid of
... any comments people can make on the proposals is very important.

Lisa: please give me an action item, so I can review them.
... Jennie, I'm not worried about the need for testable statements. I'd like us to be reviewing with the lens of the COGA taskforce.
... if people can figure it out, then the people who can get it are outside of our use groups
... we need to support that notion. We have got some good user needs - we have to get them out better.
... we need to show you where are personas are, and feedback for how it can help the Silver taskforce
... regarding the expense, making something WCAG 2.0 AA conformant, it takes a lot of time.
... most people have an aunt or uncle, or someone they know that they have noticed their memory isn't as good as it used to be. Seeing where there are mistakes, what needs fixing, this will address lots of the COGA issues. This is much cheaper, and will serve many more people.
... we have to say doing a bit of user testing with people you know - this will get things much further.
... asking a few people to do some critical tasks, I don't think this will be more expensive than WCAG 2.0 AA as it stands.
... WCAG 2.1 will not work half as well, as having some people testing.
... all people with disabilities are important.
... I don't think it needs to be only one user group.
... if you only choose WCAG, you have not included people with cognitive disabilities.
... the beginning point should include some usability testing with user groups as an option.

Jeanne: I really like that idea Lisa.

Lisa: I'm wondering if to support it, if we could write an issue paper.

Rachael: I will add an action item for Lisa.
... Jeanne, I did do the pros, cons task analysis, as a Silver response, not the COGA response.
... this particular proposal was good because it flattens the user groups.
... it measures the number of different things: inclusion of people with disabilities, ease of implementation
... etc
... I felt the biggest pros for this one is its inclusion of COGA
... I agree with Jennie, the challenge with be its complexity
... I think everything we choose should be easy to implement, and this one is not.
... the biggest gap right now is that results are fairly ambiguous
... a risk is that it may encourage some teams to not be as accessible so they can show improvement
... I think regularity is a tough piece for this.

<Rachael> Jennie: Understanding how to implement the usability testing in a variety of situations needs to be addressed. The usability testing is important but I want to make sure that what we put in there will serve people with cognitive disabilities as well as possible, including employers and employees w/ cognitive disabilities.

Jeanne: this is really good feedback, thank you.

John R: I know we are talking about Silver, but we started out with updates on the SC work - are we going to get back to that?

Rachael: I am hoping to get back to it before the end of the call.
... anything else on the first proposal?


<Rachael> Jennie: Number two proposal called scoring and reporting proposal. It is a google doc titled scoring and reporting proposal JF. This one, I really liked. I had concerns about how people w/ cognitive disabilities implementing it. There needs to be a text description provided to allow more people to review it. Should it go forward to a different review status, a different interface is needed to help people understand how to score.

<Rachael> ...You need to be able to state the number of images when testing. The ruberick may be difficult to implement. But each disability area receives its own rating. I think that visible placement could in many ways push things forward. People have to read the word over and over again.

Jeanne: I'm going to contact Jennie outside of this is that ok?

Jennie: yes, that is fine

Rachael: this measured effort, impact, and severity, and started to pull in density.
... I think this would be easier to implement in an automated testing scenario.
... my fear of multiplying by user group I'm worried would create problems.
... do we add multiple user groups e.g. dementia, ADHD, etc.
... the concept of measuring severity gets back to what Jeanne was discussing earlier, this is a severe failure for someone, but then things that cause fatigue over time, would be ignored.
... I think this one is riskier.
... this doesn't include usability testing, which is a concern for me.
... the equations are so complicated, it may cause bias.

Jeanne: thank you I appreciate all of the feedback.
... these are some of the problems we are dealing with.
... one thing to keep in mind is that most users of Silver are never going to see those equations.
... they will see: use plain language. Then, if you do it this way, it is worth this many points, this way: will receive this many points.
... the only people that would need to know the math are people that go in front of a judge or government to explain it.
... right now the way the levels are decided is through discussion in the group. It is not an easy to follow reason.
... we want to get rid of the comprise/discussion way of deciding why something gets the number of points it does.

Lisa: does it make any difference how many people, e.g. number of people with each type of disability in these equations?
... and then the question of undeclared disabilities - when people start having issues, they don't necessarily declare it to the world.
... that is something else to bare in mind when the math is decided.
... I think there is some way, but it can be complicated.
... the other suggestion I had: is there a system being proposed that focuses as a starting point on a user need. Then, for the blind that may be " I need it all to be x" and for people with cognitive disabilities, is there a way to say you have addressed this by starting from here?

<Rachael> Jennie: Look at the 3rd proposal. That asks people to disclose what pieces are needed in a particular interface.

Rachael: I think we need to start with the 3rd proposal next week.
... Jeanne, can you join us next week?
... let's pause this here, and revisit it. We need to get feedback to them in the next two weeks.

Status of 2.2 SC

Rachael: can we start with John R?

John R: mine is accessible authentification. And I need to talk to someone about this.

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11IKqjRFvkRd2dAfUiyc5whhB3yIYXvSiirWct7KQIB0/edit#gid=0

Rachael: Steve is on vacation, and I am happy to talk to you about this.

John R: thanks.

<Rachael> Jennie: Making it easier to get and use help. Steve is my #2 and is out. Went in front of AG and got support. Michael Gower is assisting. No AG members came forward to provide more support so I've reached out to analysts and specialists in my IT department to work through concerns. I hope to put suggested revisions to COGA in the list next week.

Rachael: thanks. David, do you mind speaking to yours?

David F: I have got mine started, then got consumed with my workload, but am getting back to it.

David F: I'm running into some issues with the discussion around relying on memory.

David F: some of the language included talks about going through phone calls, and I'm not sure that applies.

David F: some of the issues around applying as a vendor for being a diverse employer, I'm trying to wrap my brain around an actual process.

David F: if someone can provide some scenarios we can reference, that would be helpful.

Rachael: does any have background with the SC on memory that would provide an example?

Lisa: can you remind us what the SC text is?

David F: I don't have it in front of me, but it is called "Do not rely on user's memory."

Lisa: you can always put an exception, such as like except when a piece of information required for the task, and cannot be automatically filled through standard automated means.
... so long as you can think of specific cases that cause an issue, you can always write an exception. Just provide it in clear language.

David F: that would be a good idea.

Rachael: would an example be trying to purchase an airplane ticket?

Lisa: we have in the google docs some examples.
... one example would be automated voice systems, and when you are expected to remember the items two steps later, and you can't remember...
... we wrote these at the Face to Face and it is in the Google docs somewhere.
... for example, press 2 for x services, you have to remember the 2 while remembering the service it is tied to

David F: that's what through me off, because I didn't see the applicability of the automated voice services to the digital technology we are tasked with

David F: It makes me think of form fields with text inside to tell you what goes in the field, and if you get distracted after entering the field and you no longer have the help text, this is an example.

Lisa: yes, that is a good example.
... the reason that the voice example is in there, first, it is a huge problem. But, there are more and more things like Alexa, that also can be conversational.
... it could be doing the same thing as those voice menu systems.
... some sites, like for getting a medical appointment...

<Rachael> Rachael: John Kirkwood presented to the AG group Tuesday and also got feedback. I met with Alastair and Andrew yesterday to work through Essential Controls. We are moving forward with using personalization as an alternative technique to guaranteeing the content is on screen at smaller resolutions.

Rachael: we are at the end of the hour, so I think we should revisit these
... thank you everyone for joining us.

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: 2019/08/08 15:10:05 $

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)

Present: Jennie Fazio Roy JohnRochford
Regrets: Abi Steve Justine
Found Scribe: Jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie

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

Found Date: 08 Aug 2019
People with action items: 

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

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]