Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

04 Feb 2021


stevelee, Jennie, JustineP, Fazio, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest, janina, Rachael, krisannekinney, Rain, !
Abi, EA, John Rochford


<LisaSeemanKest> clear agenda

<scribe> scribe: Rachael

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: Rachael

actions https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage#Timelines_and_actions

Jennie: Designer had questions so we have time to chat so she can update.

Lisa: You have also been dealing with issues. You also had a pattern. Do you want me to remove you from that?

Jennie: Yes, please remove me from the patterns. Can the issues be extended?

Lisa: I think we need to resolve it soon.

Rachael: Need to resolve this week or early next.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y4k8AnYZDZe2JMV--WCoX34XvEUmBl1spGJSGSfHAQo/edit#gid=0)

Lisa and Jennie: Discuss logistics

Lisa: How are icons going?

Justine: Last week very busy. I hope to have the changes in place by next week's meeting.

Lisa: You may notice on the list that we made a mockup. Please everyone look at the email I sent to the list and comment.
... idea was a brain with a sticky note.

<kirkwood> yes, ping me can talk over weekend too.

Lisa: Justine, we are moving forward on issues. If you can send me times you can meet on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday I wil set up a time.

Justine: I do have issues that are ready to close out on github.

Lisa: Please send proposals to the list. Thank you
... I think Abi's action is done but we'll wait till she's here.
... David, you had an action to write a summary of teh person first language to list.

David: I will do that today

Lisa: Then we can close it.
... Persona diversity?

Rachael: EA has made progress. I Will try to wrap it up before next week's meeting

Lisa: Roy is on holiday but we've scheduled two days.
... I am finishing up the final review with Rachael and Steve
... A few notes for Rachael?

Rachael: I think they are done but need to close out.

Lisa: Rain Michaels is here from Google. Welcome. We'd like to do 30 second introductions.

All: Give brief introductions

<LisaSeemanKest> thank rachael

Lisa: zakim, take up item 3

APA and Coga

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y4k8AnYZDZe2JMV--WCoX34XvEUmBl1spGJSGSfHAQo/edit#gid=0)

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0002.html

<LisaSeemanKest> email on the topic

Lisa: I wrote the group earlier. We are the taskforce of two working groups. AG and APA. AG handles WCAG. APA handles the specs for other areas. They are a bit more research oriented such as their work on media. Our work on issue papers fits their work better.
... Our next work is on mental health research which may fit better under APA. We also spun off Personalization. There has been a suggestion from APA that we just be under AG at this point.

<LisaSeemanKest> summary is at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0002.html

Janina: Thank you for that introduction and for noting personalization. That work spun out of this group and it is in process for becoming a W3C recommendation.
... that means it will be something that can be done in HTML that will be understood by browsers. It is a hard coded solution to COGA issues. Not all but a
... When we set up COGA we weren't sure exactly where it would end up. Two sponsoring groups is unusual but we weren't sure where the balance of work would be. We thought there woudl be some impact on markup.
... that proved true and became the personalization work. Every 3 years a group has to recharter. Without a charter, we can't do anything. We can't produce standards.

<janina> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/charter-2021/charter.html

Janina: APA has been working on our next charter and we are looking at what we think we are going to do from August 2021 to August 2024. We have a draft charter (link above).
... If you are in COGA with an APA membership, you will see a CFC for approval of that draft charter next week.
... COGA is not in that charter but that doesn't mean we don't want to continue to work with COGA.

<LisaSeemanKest> ag-charter

<LisaSeemanKest> <https://www.w3.org/2019/12/ag-charter>

Janina: I expect most people will vote to move the charter forward. After that it moves through the W3 process for granting a charter. Goes to lead of WAI initiatives, Judy Brewer. Goes through management and then goes to the AC (Advisory Council). With sufficient positive votes it becomes a charter. We are doing this early so our current charter doesn't runout.
... its not a done deal until its fully approved by Judy, management, and the AC. There is at least 5-6 months of work.
... The difference leaving COGA out of the APA charter would make. Right now every publication that goes out from COGA has to be run through AG and APA. APA tends to ignore COGA assuming AG is engaging. AG may be doing the same. We very much want COGA reviews of our specs. APA reviews Every specification W3 produces.
... this lets us advise. We have various expertise doing so but not from COGA. I would like to find a way to fix that.
... I am looking at the formal liason process. We would like a very active COGA liason at APA to better represent the issues.

David: I have been an APA member for a couple years and may be able to be a liasion.

<LisaSeemanKest> ag-charter

<LisaSeemanKest> <https://www.w3.org/2019/12/ag-charter>

Lisa: We appreciate the enthusiasm to get the liason processes going but we are in the middle of hte spec release which wraps up in the next 2 weeks. I'd like to focus on the must discuss today topic which is whether we should no longer be a subgroup of APA.

<LisaSeemanKest> APA /charter.html

<LisaSeemanKest> <https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/charter-2021/charter.html>

Lisa: I've added the AG charter which focuses on WCAG which is some of what we do but not all of what we do.
... I've also added the APA charter.
... one of my concerns is that we are out of scope if we leave APA. Someone could say, thanks for your contribution of our charter.

<Fazio> +1

David: I agree with you. I think when we were trying to get content usable passed, we ran into a lot of issues with AG that it didn't fit into the guidelines. We had more support in APA. AG came around. I am concerned that we lose that support if we leave but I am also concerned that much of what we do is out of scope of AG.
... I understand that most taskforces are not in most groups but I understand from Janina that it can't be just that it isn't done much. Hate to stop something that is working.

Jennie: I am looking at the charter and point 1 says:

<Jennie> Support W3C Working Groups and external organizations collaborating on web technologies to create technical specifications that provide features needed for accessibility to people with disabilities via review of documents as part of the horizontal review process, participation in architecture decisions, and by direct interaction with Working Groups as needed.

<stevelee> technologies like XR need COga input

Jennie: The reason that stops me is that as I think about what is happening between personalization and Silver work being done, there is a Lot of work being done around cognitive and accessibility for tools . Is the relationship in APA important to that new work.

Janina: In 15 seconds, to summarize WCAG says what to do to be accessible. Content authors should ensure that XYZ happens.
... If there is a technology that makes that magic happen, then content authors should make sure content supports that tool.
... So once personalization is done, WCAG 3.0 should point to personalization and say do this.

Lisa: To add context, COGA goal is to look at future needs and tools. We have gotten dug into Content Usable but we want to get back to looking ahead. If we've left by then, it is all through liason. If we are part of it, it may be stronger.
... Issue papers analyze the space between the existing technology adn people and then ask what can be done in the future.

John: I think it would be a mistake. There is a bit of square peg in round hole. It can't just fit into a standards structure.
... I've been finding that there is a lot of focus in the cognitive area and people are chomping at the bit for what we are doing. There is more potential for getting more people in if we are in both groups. We need to be improving technology protocols in the future. I Am wary of closing things down a bit. That there will be less access for people who want to be involved.

me/ I think Janina, LIsa, Michael, and I should meet to finalize the conversation.

stevelee: There was a reason when we formed that we thought both working groups are valid. Those reasons are still valid. Some of content usable is editorial. I'm not sure it fits well in WCAG. It may not fit well in APA either. But it gives us a framework to fit it into standards.

Janina: That is why we want someone active in APA active review.

<Fazio> I'll start attending again

<Jennie> Rachael: I am struggling to understand the benefit from your perspective of us not being in APA.

Rachael: What is the benefit of us not being in APA?

Janina: Mainly less to review and look at. Its just a matter of trying to streamline APA activities.
... In APA there was a lot of surprise that this is a hot topic.

<Jennie> +1 more input needs to come from COGA

Janina: noone has heard from COGA recently.

Lisa: Agreed.

Rachael: Agreed.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to steve

stevelee: Yes, it is a bit of an oversight. We've been so focused we got away from that. If we can somehow fit into your existing review process, then could we make it so that it wouldn't be more work.
... there are other ways to acheive the same thing. The mechanics is potentially different. the impact is that we have COGA support in the horizontal review.

Lisa: If there are any other points, please add yourself to queue now.

<stevelee> +1

Lisa: I think a liason isn't just what you need. I think what we should be doing is reviewing the specifications. The liaison can identify what are relevant and then we do a review. What I don't understand is how a review should be done in taskforce time if we are solely an AG taskforce.

<Jennie> Also, is there a regular schedule a representative from APA can come to a COGA meeting to provide an update?

The liason would likely take that role

Janina: I'm glad you are ending with this point because it came up in the APA list. You raise a very good point. Why shouldn't low vision have this kind of relationship.
... one of the outcomes was that was a good point that we agree with.
... that is a WAI coordination question. We are going to talk about that.
... we have turned to other groups, we do build formal liason relationships. Example, we have a relationship with CSS. Maybe we need to rethink this in WAI.
... that is on the table.

icons and images https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aRoYev1aAIHhIq37Itt96ueBwLh5zXMUeJBYxL0MCkQ/edit#heading=h.7gtdq1fjelio

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aRoYev1aAIHhIq37Itt96ueBwLh5zXMUeJBYxL0MCkQ/edit#

<LisaSeemanKest> right direction

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Jennie> -1 only because I don't think when small many people will understand what the sticky notes are

Lisa: If you don't like the direction for processes that rely on memory.

0 is eh, -1 is don't like it, +1 is like it

<Fazio> -1

<JustineP> -1 for the same reason as Jennie

<krisannekinney> -1 for the same reason as Jennie

<Rain> -1 finger represents a very specific modality

Lisa: We have had a number of ideas. We have had issues with this and all previous versions.
... we need one.

<Jennie> Brain, thinking bubble, with an x over it?

Lisa: any quick ideas?

David: What about the thinking emoji? Face on chin.

Lisa: It can cover everything we do. Its not necessarily memory. But we can do it.

JustineP: I suggest we think about a brain with a circle around it and a slash through it.

krisannekinney: I've been thinking about that as well.

<Rain> +1 to the thinking bubble idea

Jennie: I like that idea but maybe an icon with a thinking bubble. So it doesn't look like its no brain

Lisa: I just don't get how its specifically memory.

Jennie: Is there some way to indicate yesterday in the thought bubble? Then its like yesterday didn't happen.

Lisa: Yesterday icon is a calendar with an arrow on it.

kirkwood: I was thinking conceptually. The thinking bubble and an icon that shows a long, neat stack of paper with one coming out. Maybe a filing cabinet in the head.

<Jennie> Love John's idea!

<Rain> I love that because it focuses on the positive

Lisa: Can someone take an action item to send a few suggestions. Can we vote on the mockups via email?

<Rain> Lisa, I can work on this concept

Lisa: Fantastic! Welcome Rain. We are so glad to have you.
... we will put you down for that action.

closing things on the list

Lisa; We are going to slow. We need to wrap up content usable. Editorial items. If we had 3 editors, we could close it. There was some things that were not quite editorial. There are also things we kind of know what the answer is. This is a really nice idea but we need to do a year of research so we may mention it in a few places but then we will research it for the next version.

Does anyone object if there is 2 editors on a call, that we address those by writing these to the list and if we get 3 +1s then we can close them?

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

Rachael: Getting the responses on the email list is so important for the next two weeks.

<Jennie> +1. Also assuming that this gets added to the decision process document?

Lisa: We will put in very clear subject lines. We won't do this with anything that needs significant discussion.
... yes we will add it to the decision process.



<krisannekinney> +1

Lisa: John, how do you feel about this?
... I'm trying to expand what an editors call can close. For instance, if we have something that we think everyone will agree to that would be good for version 2, can we write the response to the list with a clear subject line and if we get 3 responses, then we can close it.

<Jennie> Proposal for content of email: subject line needs review in x number of days. Content of email: old language, new language. Info on who already approved.

kirkwood: That makes sense to me.

<JustineP> +1 Question: If no responses received, add to a meeting agenda as next step?

<kirkwood> +1

Lisa: I would feel more comfortable with more +1s

<Rain> +1

Jennie: I put in some information that woudl make it easier for me to review.

Lisa: Wrapping up the call.
... thank you all for joining.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/02/04 16:04:55 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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: stevelee, Jennie, JustineP, Fazio, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest, janina, Rachael, krisannekinney, Rain, !
Present: stevelee, Jennie, JustineP, Fazio, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest, janina, Rachael, krisannekinney, Rain, !
Regrets: Abi, EA, John Rochford
Found Scribe: 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: 04 Feb 2021
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]