Cognitive Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

04 Jun 2020


Jennie, MichaelC, JohnRochford, Roy, stevelee, Rachael, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest
EA, Abi
kirkwood, Rachael


<LisaSeemanKest> new glossary https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UywUybP9Sr3Wuek9q3INT3io3nLkrqQ7ENIf71pJd48/edit?usp=sharing

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: kirkwood


LS: first item actions
... sent first batch to list
... WCAG 2 to talk about

RM: i will talk about WCAG 2

LS: will put items to list

JD: want to make sure we are using the right glossary link

<Jennie> Glossary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AuM-06Alk5VgVgFPTsJD2DcadIrcGIRVDcNgFwPiQRc/edit#

edits to content useable

LS: will get to the CFC. issues with content usable

<Rachael> For wordsmithing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyoEkaLWbnW2Q0lgigY4DI3PBl761U_YujEvGHqMvQ8/edit#

LS: we have made this document and has gone to CFC in WCAG
... they have made comments
... rachael has written to list issues
... some things in Rachaels email
... fist thing we had lots of examples
... messes up tense wnat to change

LSL use and avoid

LS: suggested use and avoid instead of do and don't
... some issues with alt text not done
... been changed and hopefully improved
... reordering of bullets
... its in the email
... written guidelines but need to change word

RM: its difficult to approve in guidelines changed to guidance

LS: appendix 6 is a bit ogf an issue, will discuss
... changed must to should
... editors note, written mental health and avoid triggers… we want that reemoved
... out of scope, personnally think its just good to open as an issue. mental health out of scope

RM: call out as an issue in future

LS: maybe version 2 haws it more

RM: great area for next round

i agree

LS: integrating Judy commnet into conversation

RM: can steve talk to point 10

SL: point 10 something on appendix point B

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyoEkaLWbnW2Q0lgigY4DI3PBl761U_YujEvGHqMvQ8/edit#

SL: one apect to deal with rest can wait
... appendix B

<Jennie> In the google doc it says Appendix D?

SL: links out to a table another html page, which links to issues we have taken out to move to wiki

<stevelee> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-from-ag-meeting-may-2020/content-usable/table.html

SL: link to the table, has short names, differnt order, out of date, last column was interested in
... maybe should be in wiki, but needs to be updated

LS: its out of date this table

RM: take link out for now

LS: yes agree

SL: yes agree

LS: change link to wiki might be ok with that
... now to name qualifying statments

RM: scratch pad

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyoEkaLWbnW2Q0lgigY4DI3PBl761U_YujEvGHqMvQ8/edit#

wordmithing area

<Rachael> The Objectives and Patterns presented here provide additional advice beyond the requirements of WCAG. They are intended to address user needs that could not be included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification. This guidance is provided as advice on how to address user needs that may not be otherwise met and this advice will help more people with disabilities use websites and applications.

RM: want to make sure we’re on the same page, current poposed ttext:

<Rachael> COGA Proposed Text: The Objectives and resulting Patterns presented here are not intended to replace or add requirements to the WCAG accessibility guidelines. Rather, they are intended to address user needs that may not otherwise be met so that more people with disabilities can use websites and applications. This guidance is not included in the current normative WCAG 2.x specification.

previously proposed text

SL: need to talk about it now
... this is a new type of content doesn’t fit within wcag need to agree what its called and define it somewhere, could be techniques

S: need to define what type of content this is

<Jennie> There was disagreement about using techniques as it is too similar to terms used for success criteria.

Cooper: cant use the word techniques

<LisaSeemanKest> rachael the wcag chair...

<Jennie> +1 to Rachael's idea

RM: supplemental guidance could move to wide review could start at task force facilitators meeting. supplemental we used in SCAG 2.1 could work with advice now and move forward
... wouldn’t be comfortable

i agree with RM

LS: lets not say its a supplement possibly
... have a few problems with this wording of advice rather than guidance
... saying not be included in normnative is not good
... concerned softening of what we’re doing
... straw poll

JD: I would like to keep refernences to WCAG
... to see relationship
... agrees to keeeping in WCAG reference

i don’t like beyond, I think we should have the word current requirments


<LisaSeemanKest> 1=ok, 0 can live with, -1 problem

<Jennie> 0

<JohnRochford> 0

problem with “beyond”

<Rachael> 0 as long as we register an issue around supplement

<LisaSeemanKest> -1 will help and advice

<stevelee> 0 plus what Rachael said

prefer allows over will help

<Jennie> I wonder if guidance is too close to guidelines?

SL: sligthly concerned about going around after survey

RM: survey not helpful right now old

<Jennie> Timeline for needing a decision?

LS: think thats a consensus

JD: could be a thought that 2.x, saying only looking at backward rather than forward
... more about what would be push back from group

RM: argument we make without that we can’t put in 2.x

_1 agree

+1 agree with Rachael


<LisaSeemanKest> +1 reviced text

LS: think about next steps
... abtract original text says almost same thing tryiong to work out change

RM: removing supplement

<Rachael> scribe: Rachael

Lisa: Suggested edits.

John: Suggested adding current

Rachael: Challenge with adding current to "Current conformance" will cause issues and pushback. Implies that this document will eventually affect conformance.

<Jennie> +1 to Michael's idea for future, and also linking to those techniques in this document's future version

Michael: Recommend considering turning this into techniques.

+1 to creating a separate meeting.

<kirkwood> want to be included

<Jennie> I don't need to be included, but if it works out I would like to attend.

<Jennie> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AuM-06Alk5VgVgFPTsJD2DcadIrcGIRVDcNgFwPiQRc/edit#

<kirkwood> LS: jennie sent gloosary to EA and Abbie

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UywUybP9Sr3Wuek9q3INT3io3nLkrqQ7ENIf71pJd48/edit#

<Jennie> * thank you for clarifying!

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

Lisa: Google Doc for issues. also emailed.
... either works

Redundant Entry Change: For steps in a process, information previously entered by or provided to the user that is required on subsequent steps is either: to For information entered by or provided to the user in a process, at least one of the following is true.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<kirkwood> I would like the word previously entered

<LisaSeemanKest> lost audio

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/06/04 15:32:03 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/shoud/should/
Succeeded: s/agee/agree/
Succeeded: s/work/word/
Default Present: Jennie, MichaelC, JohnRochford, Roy, stevelee, Rachael, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest
Present: Jennie MichaelC JohnRochford Roy stevelee Rachael kirkwood LisaSeemanKest
Regrets: EA Abi
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Scribes: kirkwood, Rachael
ScribeNicks: kirkwood, Rachael

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

Found Date: 04 Jun 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]