Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

17 Sep 2020


JustineP, JohnRochford, Fazio, Jennie, Abi, kirkwood, Rachael


<LisaSeemanKest> updates on tracking issues documents/ sections of documents:

<LisaSeemanKest> - Actions from issues that we need to assign

<LisaSeemanKest> - Edits from the issues: edits from issues on google

<LisaSeemanKest> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l5xiuYG2IYBP7vgS5FSzOPJ1NtJdPRSckpY6tt3n9IE/edit#>

<LisaSeemanKest> - document to track issues. see google docs on issues

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

<LisaSeemanKest> agedna?

<scribe> scribe: Rachael

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

Lisa: On the planning page, we have actions that have been assigned and proposed actions.
... If you have an action that you would like to see done, you can add it to the wiki under proposed actions so we can track it.
... Anyone can add it there and if you have any trouble putting it in, send Lisa or Rachael an email and we will put it in.
... I've tagged all the issues. Rachael is putting the ones tagged editorial changes into the document. We've approved the glossary so great job to everyone who worked on it.
... John Kirkwood, are you going to ask some groups for review?

kirkwood: I didn't catch that?

Lisa: You had offered to send the glossary to someone who could review it from a disability perspective.

kirkwood: Is it ready to be sent?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CDIdKRaXld_8HHdMj59Tyy4ijd_0b9NXrSvhyp2CSWw/edit#

Lisa: Yes. We have the google doc. Link:
... If you could send it this week, I will give myself an action to update the glossary in Github.

kirkwood: yes.

Lisa: We are working on the editorial review. We have the image subgroup.
... How is that moving forward?

Jennie: I had a note from two weeks ago that John Kirkwood would review the instructions for the volunteers and send to the list. Have you had a chance to do that?

kirkwood: No I didn't.

Jennie: Can we have another week for that?

Lisa: We can but we need to get it out soon because we want to publish in November so we can get comments. You will need time though to do this.

Jennie: Why don't John adn I meet offline?

kirkwood: Perfect.

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Lisa: We have wcag 2.2 on the agenda later. We have people reviewing the wiki page and other actions that can be delayed until after November when we get this out.
... Maps workshop. We've got a panel on web maps for people with cognitive disabilities. John K, John R, David - Does everyone have the link? Maybe we could get together next week for a short call, maybe stay on this call a bit longer to coordinate.

kirkwood: I would find that useful. To cover the run of show.

<JohnRochford> Yes, useful.

Lisa: We have a moderator and I don't know her.

kirkwood: Generally it would be good to discuss topics we will talk about.

LisaSeemanKest: I have her email. I'll reach out to her and see if we can organize a short call with her next week.

kirkwood: Perfect.

David: Can you resend the link just in case?

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/2020/maps/agenda#day-5

Lisa: The time seems very strange.

kirkwood: The time is strange for East Coast

Lisa: Its 6 am for me. Not a normal time I speak to people.
... Any issues before we move to next item?

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Lisa: Last week we discussed tracking system for issues. We have issues on Github and we are going to assign what needs to happen next with a label. We were going to have a To Do list label. Then we will move that to Needs Response when ready for response.

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

Lisa: in our key documents we have links to all the different documents. I needed them in one place.
... there is a working on issues. There is a link to the issues. They may be repetative but still helpful.
... the links for the issues in Github. Then edits for those issues. This is a google doc that when we are going through issues on an editor's call, we can use this doc to track the edits that we need to do. Then we have another google doc that is Document to track issue responses.
... when we have made the changes, then we have to draft a response to the person. This is to write that response.

kirkwood: To make it a bit easer, when we put google doc links in IRC, to include a description of what the link leads to. When going back later, it is difficult to understand the thread of what is going on.

Lisa: That is what I'm trying to do with the single document that links to it.
... that is completely doable.
... if you look at the key documents page, I've bolded some text. Most go to github issues or google docs. So we have everything in one place.

<LisaSeemanKest> key document https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Key_Documents#current_drafts_for_actions

Lisa: You can see it has certain actions and then I've broken things up.
... I've got the issues and edits for issues. A document to track issue responses. And then we assign the actions on the actions and planning page when we have an action to do them.
... I know we have a link to the action page so its redundant but I thought it would be helpful to have them all together.
... Is that helpful?

<LisaSeemanKest> key document https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Key_Documents#current_drafts_for_actions

kirkwood: I'm thnking the key document is the one that will lead to all the rest?

Lisa: Yes. Then it has subheadings.
... just for working on issues.

kirkwood: Yes. It is needed and I feel it will be helpful.

LisaSeemanKest: Anyone else?
... We have some issues from EO to assign.

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

LisaSeemanKest: go to the actions page (link above).
... If you go to the bottom of the page, it says proposed actions. There we have things we need to assign. Some of the issues asked for additional terms in the glossary. Some of those, we've already put in but I think there may have been one or two that we didn't. Like Usability. I was wondering if Abi, Jennie or someone else would be willing to review the issues that have been tagged and then create a draft for new words.

<Jennie> +1

<Abi> +1

Rachael: For terms that are more general such as usability go back to WCAG and WAI to see if they are already defined in an existing glossary.

Lisa: Yes

David: Content usable talks about usability but you are right we don't define it.

Abi: I am happy to go back through those issues. I think its also a question of whether they are raising it in the glossary, then we should also go through the text. Maybe if we need to define it, we haven't described it correctly.

Lisa: Can I put you down for that?
... glossary words or proposals?
... Another to do: Identifying patterns that need more work. We agreed last week that someone was going to do an editorial pass.
... make grammar consistency check. There were also some patterns that are lower quality and need more of an edit.
... I asked Bettie off list but she is very busy this week. It needs to get done quickly. It isn't editing the patterns. It is going through the patterns and identifying which ones needs work.

<Fazio> Fom "Understanding WCAG"Usability testing aims to determine how well people can use the content for its intended purpose.

Lisa: Maybe Steve. He isn't on the call so perhaps we will ask him.

Rachael: Agree.

Lisa: I've also asked EA to do some of the editorial work.

David: I pasted in the definition of usability from WCAG above.

Lisa: Abi - that may be all there is to it.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#summary

Lisa: another that came from comments from EO. We start with a nice summary. We got icons from the noun project. Here is a link to the summary (above).
... we got feedback that some are not clear.

<LisaSeemanKest> 1, 3,7, 9

Lisa: we have a subscription so we can use similar one. 1,3,7, and 9 were not sufficiently clear.

<kirkwood> I agree with the lack of clarity of icons

JustineP: I woudl be willing to help with the task depending on the timeline. Can we have a couple of weeks to work on it?

Lisa: It needs to be done by November but that shoudl give you enough time.

Justnie: That will work.

Lisa: 3 weeks enough?

Justine: Yes.

Lisa: due 8th of October.

kirkwood: ... I would like to help out with that.

Lisa: We could replace all the graphics if you have someone who wants to make icons that are very clear for this, that would be lovely.

kirkwood: We can talk offline or have a meeting

Justine and John will work on this.

Lisa: We have a template but need to identify which ones need work.
... EA will also be working on this.
... This can be overwhelming. There are a lot of issues. Jennie if you have things that you think may make it more organized, please let me know.

Jennie: Are you looking for a different way to organize the tracking.

Lisa: If you think any of these could be clearer, let me know. We can try to organize it better.

Jennie: I will review the tracking and post suggestions to the list.

Lisa: Thank you! Great.
... The only other thing we should think of is that we should write the process for approving issues.

Rachael: Suggest putting instructions on the key documents or linking to them.

Lisa: Where will people look to find them?
... I think I can create an issue and pin it to the top. It would be transparent.
... I will open an issue and say this is the process we are using so people can see it all there. Is that a good place?

Rachael: Not sure but why don't we try that and check in after a week or so to see how its working?

Jennie: What the public needs and what the working group needs is different.

Lisa: I want to track where our process so we can see it. Make sure we know what's going on.

<Jennie> +1 to Rachael's idea

Rachael: What about a wiki page?

Lisa: A bit redundant but may be helfpul. What do you think? This isn't our decision policy. Its our workflow for issues. So if I can't attend a call others can be on top of it.


<JustineP> Agree that would be helpful.

<Jennie> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Lisa: We have a template.
... for issues. It is slightly different. In the link, there is two things. The first is a template for if you are working on a pattern, you can put the before and after in to make it easier to see the changes.

<Jennie> Love that spreadsheet for tracking!

Lisa: I don't think we are going to move the entire document over to google doc. It makes it difficult to work. Then below it is a revised template. It is similar to what we have but it has some small changes. It is just for the patterns.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#pattern-use-a-clear-and-understandable-page-structure

Lisa: we start with the pattern name, then user need, link to user story. Then we have something that we call "What to Do",. I twas description. Here is a link to the original patterns (above).
... the old pattern says Description. The prorposal here is to change that to "What to Do"

If you want to discuss anything or have concerns please call out.

scribe: then "What to Do" should have a short action paragraph and then a list of bullet points. Sometimes they are very obvious that we don't need the bullet points. There is a comment about trying to limit it to 2 sentences. Not sure that is very important. Then it says "Is it clear what to do?"
... I will change it to 2-3 sentences.

Rachael: I am fine with changing it to 2-3 sentences. I woudl like to do a resolution.

Lisa: The one thing is that Steve wants some of the More details moved to What to Do. I have some concerns. We compromised so that common details would be in What to Do but uncommon details would be in a later section.
... During the face to face in England, we were afraid we'd lose people if we got to additional details.

Rachael: I like the division/compromise because it allows us to move some content up which I personally think works better but leaving the technical details further down.

kirkwood: I like the division. I am concerned about the terminology "more details"

Lisa: We will reword that terminology further down.

Jennie: I agree with the proposed solution but I do understand Steve's point. For dual role developers, they will value that content. I agree though that technical content belongs at the bottom. I also agree with the need for a terminology change.

Lisa: Do you agree with moving some of the content?

Jennie: I do agree with moving the common content up but if it's supper technical, not.

Lisa: Clarify that we should move content if its common use and not too technical

kirkwood: I do agree with moving the technical details down. The techincal content can be overwhelming.

<LisaSeemanKest> Sometimes moved from the old “More Details” - but only if common use, and not very technical. We do not want to lose people...

<Jennie> +1

<JustineP> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<kirkwood> +1

Lisa: Who is +1 for this change?

<Fazio> 0


Lisa: We will try to finish up the template. Reachs how it helps.
... that is pretty much the same. Removes sentences abut who it helps. Then we have a change instead of "More details" we are suggesting "Exceptions and Technical Details
... Then we have getting started.
... use common words in headings, labels and common items.
... We thought about moving this up but we don't want people to just do this.

Then examples. We are going to call them Use and Avoid.

<scribe> ...continues to read template

Lisa: Can we change don't to "try not to"?
... these should make it easier to understand.
... Are we happy with this revised template? it is similar. The main change is More Details chaning to Exceptions and Technical Details.

<LisaSeemanKest> are we happy

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<kirkwood> +1


<Jennie> +1

<JustineP> +1

<Fazio> +1

RESOLUTION: Revised template approved.

Lisa: Thank you everyone!

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Revised template approved.
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/09/17 15:04:13 $

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/allthere/all there/
Default Present: JustineP, JohnRochford, Fazio, Jennie, Abi, kirkwood, Rachael
Present: JustineP JohnRochford Fazio Jennie Abi kirkwood Rachael
Found Scribe: Rachael
Inferring ScribeNick: Rachael

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

Found Date: 17 Sep 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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]