<LisaSeemanKest> Addressing open issues. See the document to track issues from my email and (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fc7TI8V6dNgFrD6wzGR8CjbbtO7Az0U-zYylrRSy8QQ/edit?usp=sharing)

<LisaSeemanKest> remind me in 15 minuets

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: Rachael

Lisa: Today skipping action items since that is the agenda. Any objections?
... There have been more discussion on content usable. There are two sections. First is 3 sentences that need wordsmithing. We have some proposals. We want to clear it. The other is what to do with Agenda C.

Most recent document: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-from-ag-meeting-may-2020/content-usable/index.html#

Wordsmithing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyoEkaLWbnW2Q0lgigY4DI3PBl761U_YujEvGHqMvQ8/edit#

The most recent raw version was updated two AG meetings ago.

Rachael: There is some new proposed wording that came late of hte survey. The content is on the wordsmithing document. The last paragraph on the abstract is new.

Lisa: first paragraph.

The Objectives and Patterns presented here provide supplemental guidance beyond the requirements of the WCAG accessibility guidelines. Following the guidance in this document is not required for conformance to WCAG, but will increase accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities. Often users with cognitive and learning disabilities could use content if it used different design patterns. When users cannot use content

because the design patterns are unusable by people with their impairments, that content is inaccessible.

Paragraph to address Judy's comments: This document is divided into parts. Each part can be used when needed by different groups in the development team. User considerations should be taken into account when deciding how to apply this document. For instance, Web content and applications that address individual safety concerns, health, critical services, autonomy, care-giving, social integration, and workplace needs should follow as much of

the advice in this document as possible.

Lisa: Problems wih this?

David: I think the first part will exacerbate david's concern.

He is concerned about ambiguity.

Lisa: Where do you stand?

David: I think its great.

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: me\

<LisaSeemanKest> =rachael: the ag chairs, pointed out that ag has agreed and published that they will write supplemntswe are working aroung

<LisaSeemanKest> so we should use the langage

abi: I like it. I have one comment. Purely about the word inaccessible vs. barriers to access which is a wider definition.
... often its cumulative effect that creates the inaccessibility.

Lisa: Do you disagree with it? If users can't use the content because of the design patterns.

Abi: I agree with the purpose. It may be to do with cultural use. Inaccessible is rarely used in the UK.

<scribe> scribe: rachael

<LisaSeemanKest> abbi - that inaccessible is realy use. not accessible is better

<LisaSeemanKest> (in the uk

inaccessible means that it can't be used.

JohnK: Not accessible to people with cognitive disabilities?

Abi: I'd agree. Not accessible woudl be fine.

<LisaSeemanKest> not accessible is fine for abi and john

<EA> +1

<Abi> +1

Rachael: Judy had suggested the rewording: Often users with cognitive and learning disabilities could use content if it is presented using different design patterns

<Jennie_> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> rachal and me will try and make it more positeve but the same point

Lisa: Is it OK if Rachael and I have a brief conversation to make this positive and use "not accessible" instead?

<LisaSeemanKest> (plus 1 are a bit to fine)

Lisa: Moving to the Introduction. The new conten is: It is organized by high level objectives which are listed along with user stories in Section 3. The Objectives and Patterns presented here provide supplemental guidance beyond the requirements of the WCAG accessibility guidelines. They are intended to address user needs that currently could not not be included in the normative WCAG 2.x specification and may not otherwise be addressed.
... Should we change "user needs" to "accessibility needs" or "accessibility issues"? User needs is soft.
... I think accessibility issues or accessibility barriers would make it stronger. I think we need to avoid the idea that this is usability.

<kirkwood> accessiblity barriers

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Abi> +1 to accessibility issues or barriers

+1

<Jennie_> +1

Lisa: are we happy with that text other than that?

<EA> +1

Lisa: We can move onto the discussion of appendix C.

appendix c

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

Lisa: Appendix C had a table in it but we lost the table. The table said almost all of it was very important. Now that table has been taken out and it changes the meaning. The result is harder to understand. It gives the impression, from my take, that policy makers shouldn't use it. ...Options: We can wordsmith this, we can take it out and make it a wiki and link to it - treat it as we have business considerations so it doesn't have the same kind of consideration.

Lisa: If we wordsmith we would add in Jennie's wording.

Extra wording: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyoEkaLWbnW2Q0lgigY4DI3PBl761U_YujEvGHqMvQ8/edit#heading=h.ng19mt5fe21

<LisaSeemanKest> For example, a Web site for accountants may find it impossible to always follow all advice on accommodation for people who do not understand numbers, whilst recognizing that many of their colleagues have other learning or communication impairments and age appropriate forgetfulness. Further, people

<LisaSeemanKest> Some of the advice in this document is not applicable to every web site. For example, a Web site for accountants may find it impossible to always follow all advice on accommodation for people who do not understand numbers, whilst recognizing that many of their colleagues have other learning or comm

Rachael: Another option was to remove links to the tables and add an editors note that the content is being worked on.

<kirkwood> +1 Jennie

<Fazio> +1

Jennie: I want to present the concept from a governmental standpoint. The concept of linking to documents that are fluid and being updated. It makes the document more difficult to use in a policy. I understand the group's reason for keeping the document linked to but I also see how it may make this language difficult to bring into something for the government.

John K: I am in full agreement unfortunately. That is very much the case.

Fazio: I agree. I used to work in this area and you can't use documents that are not time stamped.

Lisa: As context, we are talking about appendix C. It was the considerations for uptake in contexts and policy.

<LisaSeemanKest> This document is not normative or designed for wide applicability for all websites and contexts. There are sites that may choose not to follow some or all of the advice in this document. For example, a Web site for accountants may disregard any advice on accommodation for people who do not understan

Lisa: the controversial bit is the "This document is not normative or designed for wide applicability for all websites and contexts. There are sites that may choose not to follow some or all of the advice in this document. "

<LisaSeemanKest> Further, people with dyscalculia, who are bad with numbers, may be a manager or have some other role in the field. If more content than necessary is unusable for them, they can not do their job.

Lisa: that is the suggested extra sentence.

Abi: I would rather opt for not pulling out a single example. I feel that could skew interpretation. I would vote for removing the example.

For reference the current language is: This document is not normative or designed for wide applicability for all websites and contexts. There are sites that may choose not to follow some or all of the advice in this document. For example, a Web site for accountants may disregard any advice on accommodation for people who do not understand numbers, whilst realizing that many of their colleagues have other learning or communication impairments

and age appropriate forgetfulness.

Suggested content: This document is not normative. Some of the advice in this document is not applicable to every web site. For example, a Web site for accountants may find it impossible to always follow all advice on accommodation for people who do not understand numbers, whilst recognizing that many of their colleagues have other learning or communication impairments and age appropriate forgetfulness. Further, people with dyscalculia, who

are bad with numbers, may be a manager or have some other role in the field. If more content than necessary is unusable for them, they can not do their job.

Lisa: Who wants to remove appendix C?

Rachael: +.5 because it shortens it.

Lisa: Other option is to add the extra sentence about dyscalulia?

<LisaSeemanKest> add sentence :Further, people with dyscalculia, who are bad with numbers, may be a manager or have some other role in the field. If more content than necessary is unusable for them, they can not do their job.

<kirkwood> son’t like the word ‘bad’

Jennie: I wonder if we can go sentence by sentence or at least talk about the first sentence. Policy makers will skip to this section so I think we need to keep the sentence This document is not normative.

Lisa: What do you think of the second sentence?

Jennie: I think its helpful.

Lisa: We also have user needs again which is not good enough.
... are people ok with this sentence if we replace the word "bad"?

<Jennie_> have challenges with numbers and math equations?

<Jennie_> +1 to may not from John K

<EA> Are we allowed to use 'may'

John: I would change it to "may not be applicable to every website.

<Abi> +1 to may not be applicable

Lisa: Changed "user needs" to "accessibility issues."
... Are people comfortable with this?

<Abi> +1

<EA> I like the use of 'may' as it allows for the fact that everyone is an individual

<EA> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: Any objections?

<kirkwood> 0

<EA> 'bad' with numbers is not good - I agree with John

John: I am having a difficult time wiht the dyscalculia aspect of intellectual disabilities. I am having a difficult time with this one being that way.

Lisa: We've changed it to "have challenges with numbers"

<EA> difficulty with numbers

John: That goes way beyond discalculia. It seems like a larger thing that we are talking to. are we exposing a gap?

Lisa: I'm not quite sure where we are at.

Jennie: I wonder if the issue is. If you are only concerned with the everything from the third sentence down, becuase we've covered everything in the patterns and user stories perhaps we don't need the examples?

Lisa: This is in the appendix for policy makers. They may not read the whole document.
... if we are writing that this may not be applicable to every website.
... we are adding an example that is quite limiting of when the advice. We add in there that even though accountants may need to be good with numbers there may be other people in the role.
... like a marketing role.

John K: I think your point is valid. I think it is the jump.

Jennie: I am wondering if we take what John is saying and we bridge it the way he's saying. What if instead of the example, we imagine the policy maker's perspective and state "Some of the design patterns may be more appropriate in some situations than other. "
... giving them one specific. Put it on the roadmap for a future iteration.

<kirkwood> +1

<kirkwood> +1 Rachael

Suggestion: add bridging sentence, use the "User considerations..." paragraph". REmove the specific exampels and add an issue to create a more thorough list later.

Abi: Agree with Jennie/Rachael. I was going to suggest removing the dyscalculia but I agree with working a more detailed list later.

Lisa: It does change it.

<Fazio> +1 to removing diagnosis

<kirkwood> +1

Abi: I think its John's point that it applies to more than just dyscalculia. It gets into the diagnosis approach.

Fazio: I had a similar experience. I spent a year and a half arguing w/ disability services where they were tyring to find someone else who had the same experience as me. Since they could not, they would not approve.

Lisa: ARe people happy with keepign the appendix with the revised wording?

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

+1

<Jennie_> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<EA> +1

<Fazio> +1

Lisa: We have consensus. I would like to spend 3 minutes on issues. Then move onto glossary. I wrote an email about getting issues dealt with.
... that had been building up.
... I didn't get feedback.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2020Jun/0007.html

<Jennie_> +1

Lisa: Reads proposed response. Any issues?

+1

<LisaSeemanKest> issue reponce 1: +1

<Abi> +1

Lisa: Sees consensus.

<kirkwood> +1

Lisa: any objections?
... Next one was a term they were not happy with. "Thank you for point this out. We hope to have a new version.."

Jennie: Because some people may have forgotten since they put in the issue. I suggest putting the term in the response and what we changed the term to.

Lisa: I think the whole heading went away but I will try to do that. With Jennie's suggestion of expanding hte issue?

<LisaSeemanKest> with jennies sugest,exponding the iss

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

+1

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie_> +1

Lisa: I will leave hte other issues. Please respond on email. They are all pretty simple.

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

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

glossary - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AuM-06Alk5VgVgFPTsJD2DcadIrcGIRVDcNgFwPiQRc/edit#heading=h.vifybsxkua2x

Lisa: Reads defintiion of Age Appropriate Forgetfulness
... any objections?

<Jennie_> * Yeah EA!

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: Next one is AAC. (reads). I think its good and understandable and reflects a lot of work. Any objections?

<EA> +1

Lisa: The next one is anxiety but we define anxiety disorders. I think we should change it to Anxiety Disorders. (reads definition)

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Lisa: I have a comment. I was a bit worried about "once in a while" but Abi noted it was a medical statement

+1

Lisa: ADHD (reads)
... I am concerned that anyone who has trouble focusing for longer periods has ADHD.

Is ADD the right term?

Jennie: It depends on which DSM you are looking at. It seems that current diagnosis has Hyperactivity.

Lisa: I thought that ADD and ADHD were different.

Jennie: I think they are measuring it differently now. They are focusing not on physical activity but rather on brain activity.

Abi: In terms of usage I see it with AD[H]D

<EA> I agree and it really is hard to say which is right https://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/childhood-adhd/add-vs-adhd

Abi: I think that mentioning both in the title accounts for regional differences in use.

Lisa: Can we say ADHD and ADD?

Abi: We prefixed every definition with the name we were defining so we would be making it very long.

John: I have watched the trend and I now see AD[H]D as the current trend. I'm afraid its trendy.
... but I would probably use the brackets right now to be inclusive.

Lisa: We are at time. We have 3 glossary entries which we agreed on which is quite good!
... if its OK I will put that in the actual formal glossary that we have.

Jennie: I have a punchlist of suggestions and will send them to Abi so we are ready to come back to the group next week with the next set.

Lisa: Everyone, please read and put comments on the next 3-6 items.

<EA> Apologies for not being around to script - let me know when you want me to do it!

<EA> I mean scribe!

scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list

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)

Default Present: Jennie, MichaelC, JohnRochford, Abi, Jennie_, Roy, kirkwood
Present: Jennie MichaelC JohnRochford Abi Jennie_ Roy kirkwood
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Found Scribe: me\
Found Scribe: rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael
Scribes: Rachael, me\

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

Found Date: 11 Jun 2020
People with action items: 

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.)