Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

14 May 2020


Jennie, Fazio, stevelee, kirkwood, Abi, Jennie_


<LisaSeemanKest> Status updates and Actions

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

<LisaSeemanKest> clear agenda

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

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

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: kirkwood

How are we addressing open issues. see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit

<Jennie> link without " https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit

LS: talking about actions, dealing with glossary processeing issues, funtion type, wiki homepage
... can deal with that and then WCAG 2.2

Rachael: only one left is visual indicators
... it was deferred

LS: when we saw precedent we wondering point
... big thank you to David McDonald for his help
... a gig company doing our work, and short video of work

Rachael: all of hard work was attached to an issue for WCAG to look at so wont slip

LS: are people able to make a call next week?

Steve: a holiday for me possibly

Jennie: imagine may be difficult and drop at last minute

Abi: will be quite busy too

i can

LS: next week same week as GAAD

JR: not me

LS: inough people for call so we will have it, borderline number of attendees
... APA havent heard back
... there we to CFC's
... made a wide review APA and AG
... APA only had one set of comments
... sent in an email to Janina to see next step might need to check with Judy
... could be a few more hoops to jump through
... second group put out some comments
... their survey just closed we are having a meeting monday going through comments
... with strategy will take to WCAG call on Tuesday

Rachael: AG two step process

LS: may not pass

Rachael: could be true will talk to commentors

LS: would be good if some attend call

SL: question came up at end

Rachael: will only have a coga hat on tuesday

SL: does it get voted on tuesday

Rachael: goes to email for 48 hours for voting

LS: like to make sure we are all comfortable with process on our end
... the Monday call is not a regular call for us
... we are coming out with suggestions

Rachael: we come up with all requested changes

RS: next thursday dedicate to review changes on thursday

LS: oon MOnday we review changes, then send doc to list. Monday afternoon Tuesday morning to look over changes. we review on thursday.

Rachael: let me know if didn’t get it

LS: if anyone finds themself free can go on IRC channel

SL: the CFC is apporval to be published?

Rachael: yes

LS: abit EA are you comfortable with it

Abi: yes end of day hope will have time on tuesday morning

LS: outcome will go to list

EA: Monday can read anything fllowing day or thursday

LS: if we do not blocked if not comfortable with it

I intend to

<Jennie_> I intend to

LS: JR attending?
... if there is a problem put in irc
... reasonable way forward

JR: yes

LS: seems everyone is ok with process at this point
... issues, not really going to solve right now

<Jennie_> Link without quote: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit

LS: cnetral doc is a google doc above
... pulling issues from different places with a link
... can respond in github but hard to track whats where.
... put comments we had and date and links to them in same document
... all in the same document
... if get comment from other places can put inot miscellaneous
... all in google doc so can work and suggest comments
... make sense?
... silence taken as yes
... first comment broken links need to check with link checker
... thank for pointing out link and close issue
... written out proposal for dealing with issue for example

<Roy> There is a W3C link checker could be useful - https://validator.w3.org/checklink

LS: put a line under ‘do you agree’ then put +1
... more discussion put proposal discuss this

Jennie: broken link proposal, could crawl with technology from w3c for that?

LS: we can assign different people than review

Roy: put link checker in ric for checking doc

<Roy> https://validator.w3.org/checklink

LS: another link checker have in mind
... check, thank person and close
... here wrote proposal and whos assigned to it
... did first pass, but for more complicated assign and person writes proposal and we agee
... do we want a table instead?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit#

Rachael: thik it reasonable

<Rachael> kirkwood: So we are creating a central document and then we'll add all proposals here. Then we'll work here?

<Rachael> Lisa: Yes

<Rachael> ...we may link rather than copy. We'll update status here as well.

<Rachael> John: yes.

LS: we will assign it and move forward through this primary document
... this wil be our process then
... where you see there is a proposal want to fill in where agree

Rachael: write process at top of document?

LS: yes i will do that
... no problems with that it seems
... think we are done, will write process at top and make structure a bit neater
... then put do you agree space under each one where people can fill in, before wide review
... like to have some closed before wide review
... next item glossary
... first link to spreadsheet and then docuement

Jennie: went into the doc put in everything people contributed
... reviewed instructions thank you
... will work through IRC, name of source, paste in text and see agree

LS: i’d put source together

Jennie: just wnat to make sure people comfortable with source selected
... lets go through

<Jennie_> Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

<Jennie_> Source: CDC

<Jennie_> The severity of a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may range from ‘mild’ (i.e., a brief change in mental status or consciousness) to ‘severe’ (i.e., an extended period of unconsciousness or amnesia after the injury).

<Jennie_> A TBI can cause a wide range of functional short- or long-term changes affecting:

<Jennie_> • Thinking (i.e., memory and reasoning);

<Jennie_> • Sensation (i.e., sight and balance);

<Jennie_> • Language (i.e., communication, expression, and understanding); and

<Jennie_> • Emotion (i.e., depression, anxiety, personality changes, aggression, acting out, and social inappropriateness).

<Jennie_> https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/outcomes.html

Abi: is this a direct quote

Jennie: direct quote

Abi: when looking at localization do we have a consistent way of changing

Jennie: how to feel about terms language?

LS: need to have related terms
... problem i have with this defintion, its not really a definition
... its not really saying what it is really

<Fazio> +1

LS: i think need to have dfinitions in glossary
... my first suggestion is impariment to brain caused by injury

<Jennie_> DSM V: impact to the head or other mechanisms of rapid movement or displacement of the brain within the skull, with one or more of the following: 1. Loss of consciousness 2. Posttraumatic amnesia 3. Disorientation and confusion 4. Neurological signs (e.g. neuroimaging demonstrating injury; a new onset of seizures; a marked worsening of a preexisting seizure disorder; visual field cuts; anosmia; hemiparesis).

LS: one is we have term becomes more of a definition
... second need a bit for process to catch atlternative terms
... we put with definition of term with more process for editing

<Rachael> kirkwood: I agree with the essence of what Lisa is saying.

<Rachael> ...this is talking about the functionality more in the forward part. It doesn't describe/start with the functional issues that it effects. needs to be heavier on the functional issues since that is what we address in the document.

David: seems more like a blurb
... i agree

Abi: tow differnent purposes in this glossary

s; tow/two

Abi: we keep flipping between two requirements and disentangling which can inlclude professionals as well

LS: click on term and get more information from easy language definition
... in wide review we’d like a few crucial terms defined

AbI; wide revew esay language or more information?

LS: saying to have easy language version of definition, if thats what we want.

Jennie: taken two shots at this have spent quite a few hours, seems different request for each can do
... like to work with abi in a quick call?

Abi: yes would be very willing

Jennie: had a question about that, original request had timeline confused about deadline

LS: when APA says CFC is over

Jennie: approximate date?

Rachael: endo of next week, conversation on tuesday, looking at two tuseday unti9l AG approves this

LS: might go longer if not smoothly, optimistic realistic
... we want to put in for wide review
... most have not heard of AC

<EA> But do you want an easy to read version as well as the complex one?

Jennie: list of `0 wnat to be able to validate to go back to edit remaining ones’
... wand ready for DAD call rest ready for june

<EA> Do we need to follow the WCAG glossary look and feel https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixA.html

Rachael: think can go wide review without definition sooner the better

LS: have 10 terms defined by the 26th

Jennie: conern about that only brought to vlidate on the 21st that may not give us enough time

LS: suggesst try to send list here are the two to comment on

Jennie: don’t think a lot of movement from group when sent out via email

LS: have added in

Jennie: yes say yours


Abi: i can do work on glosssary over next week but means content usable becomes impacted
... might be unmanagable
... don’t know if we will get 100 percent agreement

EA: we are asked to do an easy version and complex version, shouldn’t we be using the WCAG style?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixA.html

EA: which does make it easy for us
... started put them in, but if want to through international organization
... have simple one liner and note and where definition comes from

<LisaSeemanKest> +1


<Rachael> +1

EA: happy to help anytime concerned don’t want to get too complex

LS: what Abi and
... jennie come up with start from there
... we have isntruction emails that came from Gab
... abi, ea and jennie don’t need to read all content usabile cocuments and hour on monday

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: 2020/05/14 15:06:02 $

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 stevelee kirkwood Abi Jennie_
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood

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

Found Date: 14 May 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]