Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

16 Apr 2020


JohnRochford, Jennie, stevelee, kirkwood, Fazio
ea, abi


<LisaSeemanKest> close item 3

<LisaSeemanKest> should one person review the names, one the discriptions atc?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/147

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: Fazio


<LisaSeemanKest> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/WD-content-usable-20200327/content-usable/index.html

LS: latest Arafat's of User Needs and Mental Health need one last final check

<kirkwood> yes will check


<kirkwood> yes i lloked at

<kirkwood> yes i looked at it

<kirkwood> I put in some comments as well

Jennie: got to some editing of Content Usable Doc

RM: Editing of Conttent Usaable can continue until April 23

Jeennie: some incocnsistencies in presentation of WCAG like missing links

<Jennie> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> can we ok the google doc, with edits without the final github revie

<kirkwood> Steve gets a prize!

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

RM: arae we comfortable reviewing doc with AAG APAA?

<LisaSeemanKest> Mark show stopers

<kirkwood> Would it be a time to flag issues that a neurosych input?

<kirkwood> neropsychologist

<Rachael> Question: is the group OK with reviewing the edited google document next Thursday and approving that version (not github) to go forward to the APA and AG review the following week? Coga can review the github version at the same time

<stevelee> +1


<LisaSeemanKest> (plus ones abpve were for this qquestion)

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Rachael> +1

wcag review of indicators

RM: Finding Help finally got Consensus Will be reviewed next week
... Visual Indicators was suggested to be deferred during AG call

LSS: Is there anything that can be done to help Visual Indicators RM: doesn't think so Jennie is skeptical

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit

RMLS: agrees with option 2 and 3 of Visual Indicators SSC

<Jennie> I believe that speaks to the technology agnostic piece they were discussing.

RM: do tools exist to implement option 3 of visual indicators SC

<LisaSeemanKest> david to out together email with reserch. also we have the

<LisaSeemanKest> flat design

JK: indication of process is important. We haven't been talking about how this applies to controls in a process

<Jennie> For each dispute: need text that can be reviewed that shows a solution, research for each one, examples, tools.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-1.0/

<kirkwood> i added critical with a comment in doc

Jennie text for solution, research, examples, tools, need to be documented systematically to get Visual Indicators understood and passed

<LisaSeemanKest> i need a voletter

<kirkwood> what about just adding critical to option 1?

JK: q+

<kirkwood> isn’t this really visual indicators in a process?

RESOLUTION: Coga wants to see visual indicators added and will work on a proposal for Tuesday

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U_NVxB-eIljhYSNcW0A7_2aHt9GwNfLnRF5n_stHrbc/edit?usp=sharing

Lisa will start a doc to address to issues for Visual Indicators rest of group will contribute

<Jennie> * I don't know anything about that (smile)

<kirkwood> I think it should be visual indicators in a process

JK: thinks scoping visual indicators to a multi step process might help

<Jennie> suggestion: add a vocabulary section so that there are definitions

<Jennie> * Rachael - can you put text in IRC?

<Rachael> Interactive elements do not rely solely on spacing or a single visually identifiable characteristic to differentiate them from static elements, except for the following:

<Rachael> An underline is sufficient to indicate a link is interactive; A color difference is sufficient to indicate an element is disabled; The control is part of a group of controls that has a visual indicator for the group

<Jennie> +1 to David M, not AG

<kirkwood> +1

process for issues as per email at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2020Apr/0026.html

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pJAP98AFPBSM29dTPJRAEbioh0VzG-LvKjABXAvXfGY/edit#heading=h.j584an2ftx6w

process for editing as per https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pJAP98AFPBSM29dTPJRAEbioh0VzG-LvKjABXAvXfGY/edit

LS: Does editing criteria list look ok?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJE2C0FzzzXgydEp0MNGSdDDvUTTsANViUVvciFK36k/edit#heading=h.bs5oe6ut17hm

process for issues as per email at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2020Apr/0026.html

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coga-comments/

<LisaSeemanKest> maybe let the person dping intial look though to write the standard responce

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Coga wants to see visual indicators added and will work on a proposal for Tuesday
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/04/16 15:05:11 $

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)

Default Present: JohnRochford, Jennie, stevelee, kirkwood, Fazio
Present: JohnRochford Jennie stevelee kirkwood Fazio
Regrets: ea abi
Found Scribe: Fazio
Inferring ScribeNick: Fazio

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

Found Date: 16 Apr 2020
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]