Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

01 Jul 2021


Rain, Jennie, cweidner, Joshue, Albert, johnkirkwood, Roy, EA, Joshue108
Kris Anne, JohnR, Steve Lee, Justine P, Lisa


<Rain> s /beer /beer

<Rain> scribe: EA

<Jennie> Happy Canada Day too, to all who celebrate!

Rain introduced Josh and XR feedback topics

Josh began by saying me may not need the full agenda time - He has been discussing the feedback from coga -thanked for contributions

<Joshue108> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/main/xaur/index.html

Josh has passed the requirements to the github branch - incorporated the feedback in different ways - informative as well as an overview

Please comment back as well as some specifics but as Lisa is not in the present meeting he will keep these till later

Rain asked when feedback would occur - feedback ending should happen in the next week

Research questions CFC coming up soon - final stretch to publish

Rain - as a group up to 2 weeks if necessary if possible for return of comments

John K. says it is good news but there is a slight editorial issue with TBI and auditory feedback - may have visual as well as auditory processing difficulties

John K will email Josh

Customisation and personalisation pushback - Lisa to share the status of the documents - Josh feels these are very important and where they stand - suite of related specs that could be very useful and are in the coga space

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/

Josh wanted a discussion around these ideas in the personalisation semantics

<Joshue108> Personalization Semantics Content Module 1.0

<Joshue108> Requirements for Personalization Semantics

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-requirements-1.0/

<Joshue108> Personalization Semantics Explainer 1.0

<Joshue108> W3C Working Draft 27 January 2020

<Joshue108> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-1.0/

Need to think about accessibility APIs that support user customisation - Need more extensive APIs that can do more advanced things for those with disabilities

Rain wanted clarification if this was about Lisa sharing the work that went into these documents

Josh said it was not as heavy as this - just about in the context of personalisation - not just a get out clause - want to point to specific specifications that would be useful for particular users etc

Josh also wanted to say that all the feedback has been parsed - it is all in github and there are also the responses.

Any quesitons for Josh - none

Josh thanked for all his work

<Rain> zakim take up item 2

[20 mins] Continue responding to WCAG 2.2 actions: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/labels/COGA

Next agenda item is WCAG 2.2 responses -

<Rain> Starting with https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1912

Rain - Accessible Authentication

<Rain> "Show password" requirement, the response we sent last week: As COGA, we recommend that there should be a feature that is a toggle that says “show password/hide password” that enables the user to see their password as they enter it. At the same time, this is something that should be in the understanding document. This is technically not a cognitive function test, which is what the SC is about.

Responses Patrick said that if this idea is accepted it should be a not and Alastair added it as a paragraph

<Rain> Paragraph that Alastair added: <p>Another factor that can improve the changes of success for people with cognitive disabilities is being able to see the password as it is typed it. Password visibility is not a requirement of this criterion, but a good way of reducing the cognitive load, so including a feature to optionally show the password is very helpful.</p>

Alastair feels it is a new requirement and does not belong in the document and Jake said the same.

Rain asked whether there was agreement with a change to the typo or do we have other concerns and want to add more

<Jennie> *thinking

John K asked for the paragraph to be repeated

John said it sounded good to him

Jennie said 'cognitive functional text'

<Jennie> transcription, such as typing in characters;

<Jennie> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-cognitive-function-test

<Rain> Proposed re-edit: <p>Another factor that can improve the chances of success for people with cognitive disabilities is being able to see the password as it is typed. Password visibility is not a requirement of this criterion, but for some individuals with cognitive disabilities, password visibility may be essential.</p>

Jennie asks does the definition with the word 'transcription' in cognitive functional text - makes it possible that it could be seen as an option

EA agrees there is a difference between transcription and seeing what I am typing...

John K agrees a full transcription may not be seen at the time of typing.

<johnkirkwood> remove word transcription it is confusing

Rain suggested that should we see this as another requirement

Jennie suggested a revision for cognitive function test - decide on a new definition and then decide if it needs to be a separate requirement

Need both parts - see and review as part of the cognitive function test.

Jennie said last sentence and said that we need to see what is written and then check what has been seen

John K the aspect of being able to see the same thing twice even if not seen - the item has to be repeated.

John K said it is not necessarily a bad thing if the items are repeated

<Rain> a?

John K confirmed you have to know that you have not mis-typed

<Rain> After reading Alastair’s PR and the comments following our response from last week, we agree with the point that this is a new requirement:

<Rain> In order for this to not be a cognitive function test, we need the user to be able to: See it as I type, see it after I type with time to review.

<Rain> The next steps that we see are: We need to revise the definition of transcription. Then we need to update the understanding document and decide if it needs to be a separate requirement or not.

<Rain> Please help us understand what the next steps should be to address these concerns.

<johnkirkwood> +1

Johm K said it all sounded good and Jennie asked if the succes criteria could be read aloud

<Jennie> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#accessible-authentication

<Jennie> For each step in an authentication process that relies on a cognitive function test, at least one other authentication method is available that does not rely on a cognitive function test, or a mechanism is available to assist the user in completing the cognitive function test.

Rain suggested that we need to clarify an aspect of the requirement

Rain wants to clarify the last phrase in the requirement

Jennie had a question about the three components that Rain put up.

EA +1

Jennie feels it is part of what is already in place

Rain proposes that she drafts a response and sends it to coga task force for feedback by the end of the week and then post to github

<Jennie> +1

JohnK ask for the inclusion of when the responses is needed

<johnkirkwood> +1


<cweidner> +1

<Albert> +1

[15 mins] Check in with all sub-groups and action requests: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/PlanningPage

Rain suggested that we continue to work through the process in the next meeting and asked if there were any concerns - none expressed

Mental Health sub-group - Justine away - Albert updated. No meeting this week as no one around - next meeting in two weeks

Rain asked if everyone in the sub group has access to literary reviews due to not being in academia. She suggested making a Google doc that has a list of the documents that cannot be accessed and others could look at the review.

Albert confirmed this is happening already - others are sharing their ability to review the papers

Albert also confirmed that the document was under the shared drive for Mental Health. Albert will send link

<Jennie> *Cognitive function test? (wink)

<Rain> Link to COGA shared drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/4/folders/1i7L_7aPkmzsZjdLo-9adKbpGpiqaxod3

<Albert> "Mental Health Sub-Group Research"

Mental health group has a subfolder in that space - Google doc for literature - Mental health subgroup research

Rain asked if anyone had any questions... none and then asked Jennie if there were any other updates?

Jennie said she was getting back on track but no updates

Inclusive Work group -

<Rain> Inclusive work groups document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RbjN7fLaucSzVfTqQdoCHoX3GFEoyHz2iiz3ap9Yd6k/edit

Goal is to help W3C know how to work with our group and also with other individuals with specific needs. Put initials by the items that you agree with or want to add additional thoughts

Rain asked if there were any questions - none.

Rain asked if more time is needed?

John K said that people may have reviewed it but did not want to put initials by individual items - i.e. just review and put initials at the end to say they have reviewed it.

Rain confirmed this was a good idea and she will send an email out to just add initials if you have reviewed it or whether more time is needed

Rain to follow up with Jennie on her sub group and and Rain said that the help subgroup will meet after this meeting

Rain confirmed that Jan was happy that breaking up the documents would help.

Clear words group meeting later in the day but not everyone who has a stake in clear Words.

Jennie asked if one of the opportunities to be at different review stages to see documents.

Rain said yes this will be discussed later in the meeting - people have said that they will would also like to be included in the review stages and as part of the coga meetings as well as for those from outside the group

<Jennie> *Sounded like agreement!

Rain mentioned that Jan has followed up with the idea that there will be a group set up to check the wording of the Silver documents - Jean has put the idea of building the group up until the writiing of the documents is nearer completion. It will not be the task of the coga group to have to look at all the documents unless they have volunteered separately.

Rain has said that the idea of a more informal get together will be discussed later.

Thank you Rain

<Rain> RSSagent: generate minutes

<Rain> RRSagent: generate minutes

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: 2021/07/01 15:03:02 $

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)

Succeeded: s/bear/beer/
Succeeded: s/TBA/TBI/
Default Present: Rain, Jennie, cweidner, Joshue, Albert, johnkirkwood, Roy, EA
Present: Rain, Jennie, cweidner, Joshue, Albert, johnkirkwood, Roy, EA, Joshue108
Regrets: Kris Anne, JohnR, Steve Lee, Justine P, Lisa
Found Scribe: EA
Inferring ScribeNick: EA
Found Date: 01 Jul 2021
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]