Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

12 Mar 2020


Jennie, Rachael, LisaSeemanKest, kirkwood


<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: jennie


Rachael: We made all the changes in the group last week to the document.
... We talked to Michael and found out that changing the W3C template is a 1-2 year process, which is not viable for what we want.
... We are exploring flattening it out before a wider publication.

Lisa: I think we should publish as is, then publish again in a month once we sort this out.
... We can discuss this more later in the agenda.
... It needs to get out this week on the TR page.
... Then we can send it to Roy for processing.
... Any other updates?

actions and wcag review

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

Lisa: We have limited actions.
... Main actions: reviewing by mental health professionals - that is done.
... John has received some questions.
... Those will be for the next version.
... The WCAG 2.2 review.

<Rachael> Jennie: We received some comments yesterday. I will be reviewing those and other comments into the survey.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_Criteria_Groups


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

<Rachael> Jennie: We are talking about findable help. We were excited at last meeting because of the comments coming in but after there was a slight shift. I am looking forward to the next opportunity to talk through the issues.

Rachael: We have gotten them from the COGA point of view, then the AG group needs a few weeks to consider it.
... I think yours is just in the thinking period.

<Rachael> Jennie: I think that is where we are. Steve and I find that working with members who have a a concern we can talk with them. We discuss vocabulary to reduce concerns. We are at a good place where we are massaging the last few bits.

Lisa: One of the problems with 2.1 was not being able to respond to all the comments, so breaking things into groups has been helpful

John K: I wanted to reiterate and agree with what you are saying.

scribe: Having people looking at these early and wanting them to move forward has been really great.

Lisa: John do you want to discuss the one you are working on?

John K: I think I need some time on the call later.

Lisa: O
... OK
... Rachael, can you update us on the other ones?

Rachael: From the AG point of view, there are only 6 or 7 we have not yet addressed.
... Find help, before submission, visual indicators (most at risk), essential controls (just needs to go through final process)
... I think information in steps made it through, visible labels is getting an understanding update
... Visible labels is not on the agenda - I will double check that.
... We have gotten several already through, so we are down to the last few.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#pattern-make-it-easy-to-undo-errors

Lisa: Let's talk about John's

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pcg6ixAfuwlo6jb2tkZBGTDhF0fAiO49h21E6HCbQ6I/edit

John: Error correction

John K: There has been a lot of input back and forth.

scribe: I feel much more comfortable with Steve on this.

Lisa: He is not feeling well today. Shall we leave it now?
... Rachael - is there anything you are aware of that needs to be?

Rachael: Did it make it through?
... Let me take an action to get a status on each of the COGA ones.

<LisaSeemanKest> ACTION: rachael to find out statis on wcag proposals

<trackbot> Created ACTION-326 - Find out statis on wcag proposals [on Rachael Montgomery - due 2020-03-19].

Rachael: It is not on the agenda

John K: I am very available. Message me if you need me on a call.

Rachael: OK great. I will find out the status, and then maybe get on a call with you and Steve.

Lisa: If there is an issue or 2 issues that are blocking something that need to be addressed, if you can bring that to our attention.
... Hopefully this publication going, it will be more reasonable for the group to focus time on these SC issues

Rachael: That makes sense.

prposals for next version

Lisa: We are going to update the working draft, and next week we go with the processes.
... If there are any huge issues, please let me know.
... We had some proposals on the next draft, what will go in.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#updated_time_line_-April_2020

Lisa: The starting place on our planning page has an updated timeline.
... We are a few days late.
... We were intending on a wide review draft in May
... (reads from timeline)

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z52phGcYg1oG1kVWxPZJqKom-Zg6bZJcOhEBBhet_yg/edit#heading=h.875mqqb6j928

Lisa: As we were editing on the editor's call, we were collecting issues for flattening things out, questions
... We also have some new sections we were thinking about, like the business case.
... Testing statement
... those from the proposals for 2.1, as well as editing in small bits and pieces.
... We were also going to add images of a good website, and a bad one, one per objective to help people get the idea.
... So we need 8 screen shots.
... Rachael, you had a different proposal?

Rachael: My proposal isn't too different. To be very selective about new content we put in.
... Limiting it some what. And doing a number of editing reviews.
... And go through as a Note with WCAG 2.2, so we can advertise it for things that don't fit well as an SC
... I want to focus on the timeline with a hard end date rather than getting all the content in.
... Then we would immediately begin getting the new content in within a year.

Jennie: +1

Lisa: I see 2 pieces
...1: that we might not have some sections, such as leaving out a section or shorter than we had in mind.
... be more harsh with content, but be rigorous so we fit the WCAG timeline
... I think we should decide these separately.
...2: When is the next iterative version.
... in about a month, but that is the 2nd discussion.

Rachael: I think we should decide on the timeline first. If we decide not to tie it to WCAG, then we have a longer time line.

Lisa: And it will come with a cost like a smaller glossary.

Rachael: We can continue to put comments in, but if we added a whole new section that would be harder.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/project

Lisa: I saw Jennie's +1, and we need to send this to the list
... I have that they want to go to CR in July
... Our process for the Note is slightly different
... I don't know if we have a CR as a note
... We certainly have a wide review.
... 2 weeks before WCAG would be good so WCAG could link to us.
... in their abstract.
... We would need to check when they need it finished by

Rachael: I will take that action if we think it is a good idea.

<kirkwood> +1

Lisa: Add a +1 to being ahead of WCAG

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to being ahead of wcag

Jennie: +1

<Rachael> +1

Lisa: OK we are happy with this, and I will send this to the list.
... that's an action for me.

Rachael: The next bit is what we are willing to drop.
... My proposal is on the harsher side.
... We won't get to Wayfinding or Mental Health so we don't integrate any new issue papers.
... We refine what we have, the glossary is a good to have but I think this is a stretch goal
... Based on how busy everyone is, and the to-do list, even with the mapping
... Plus we want EA to read through at least once, Jennie, with a critical editing eye.

Lisa: We have what we want to do within that iteration in a month.
... We could have the glossary version if Jennie wants to be running with that on the side.
... We might decide to do 1 iteration in a month, and 1 in June or July.
... And have more of a glossary
... We can have those in, finally, because they don't interfere with anything else.
... Any new patterns should be in so the tables are up to date, in the next version.
... With the Wayfinding, conversation of bots, add them to the user needs and the personas, and follow through that way.
... Not have a formal issue paper, but have them in a persona.
... So we can have the most important user needs, follow through writing additional patterns if we don't already have them.
... Not have them until the next version.
... I'm proposing something rather in between.
... In the next iteration, focus on mapping and the glossary.
... 2 parallel tracks
... If Jennie is open to this, for identifying terms, where there is an overlap, Learning Disability, Traumatic Brain Injury
... For the current iteration, we could put into the personas, patterns, check that we have Wayfinding and bots in there.
... Does that sound doable?
... We want to stop doing patterns
... Does that make sense?

<Rachael> Jennie: I am concerned with that tight timeline that the quality of the glossary will be able to be done well in a parrallel track. While I could be working on it, I agree with a harder edit. We could break down everything into a priority list. 1. Hard edit 2. Glossary 3. Select key glossary items and get those in. It would help to have agreement on the priorities

Lisa: I think that is a great idea.

Rachael: If we could list everything, assign it to someone, and only add things in when they are ready, so we can move forward.

Lisa: I think we are proposing to be ruthless about the timeline, only put in pieces we have drafted.
... Other than responding to comments, which we have to do.
... We need to write a list of priorities of our wish list, and then try to get as much of that in as possible.
... Is that how we see it?
... I should take an action to write the to-do list

<Rachael> +1

Lisa: the wish list.
... If people can work on things in parallel, that's fine, and if they fail to meet the deadline, then we leave it out.

Jennie: +1

Lisa: I think it will be much easier to work off a Google doc with a very detailed work list, with priorities and order
... Then some things may just have to wait.

Rachael: When you do that, my suggestion is a whole new Google doc, so we can reference back to it.

<kirkwood> agreed

Rachael: Then an action such as "fix editing" then we still have that archived.

Lisa: Minimal terms need to be in the glossary, because people don't know what we mean when we say learning disabilities.

Rachael: I agree, we need to decide on critical terms.

John K: There is an internationalization - different terms mean different things in different countries.

scribe: Even the term mental health. How are we choosing a primary language?

Lisa: We have a page with these types of decisions.
... We have been trying to follow the WHO
... Our primary language is American.
... I think we need these terms decided before we edit.
... People will need that glossary while they edit.

John K: Yes, very good.

Lisa: And maybe, we have this beautiful proposal Jennie did with links and cross references, a lot of that might be for the next version.
... We need the critical terms defined.
... Then we can put in cross references in the next version.
... What we have is so useful to many people.
... Is there anything else?
... I thought this would take longer!

<LisaSeemanKest> should we making a vertual csun meeting in two weeks for difrent proposals and projects, invite more people

<LisaSeemanKest> john for that

<LisaSeemanKest> jenni thinkks in more then two week - in a month

<LisaSeemanKest> and ask about captions

<LisaSeemanKest> Jennie volenteres wofr legistics

<LisaSeemanKest> jeniie uses relay services captions etc and downloads ahead of time

<LisaSeemanKest> john ... maybe also some discusion topics eg how does memory effect accessibility

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: rachael to find out statis on wcag proposals

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: 2020/03/12 14:58:27 $

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 Rachael LisaSeemanKest kirkwood
Found Scribe: jennie
Inferring ScribeNick: Jennie

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

Found Date: 12 Mar 2020
People with action items: rachael

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]