– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

LS: don’t have a big group

LS: planning page, there a couple of things coming
… David i see you sent view to list

David: i still need to do paper

LS: were there more to add to literary review?

david: will have to look, visula onset one so far

LS: Justine and Abby not here

LS: did mapping user stories, and reviewed two papers for lit review

Albert: did review Rachael helped me, wasn’t useful

LS: very good

LS: jennie some things for July 30th

Jennie: we met with designer and meeting set for a month from now, and work various tools next 2 weeks

LS: ok everyone on top of action items

LS: main thing EO and Silver and AG on agenda

draft for community group https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Mk1ygGNCpkH7UA5fW1aVtgk-Z7MWDY6Zr95nnlDjnM/edit

LS: to setup a community group we discussed making a community group

LS: not difficult to setup, but keeping going will be fair amount of work

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Mk1ygGNCpkH7UA5fW1aVtgk-Z7MWDY6Zr95nnlDjnM/edit

LS: need a mission statement

LS: i sent to list at top of document , make primary activity and mission clear

LS: do people want to read over, we can see it here written out

LS: (reading the mission of community group)

Jennie: question how we provide list of contibutors, do we need to specify?
… some may wonder if name will be published

LS: if join group anonymously we can add a sentence we think

Rachael: shouldn’t be published

Jennie: for those not own guardian language to provde language

JR: I can dig up if you want them

LS: discussing guarian language we need wording

Jennie: i have history with writing can work with John Rochford on this

Jennie: think we have to be careful

Jennie: governors advisory has a stakeholder group

JR: legal folks need to review I think

LS: need to bring up with W3C

Kris Anne: is this a community group to be able to participate anonymously
… certainly think we need a decent solution before publishing
… guardianship is a concern i think as well

<Rachael> I am in process of drafting a proposed anonymous policy but it will be a few weeks till its approved. I think we can publish the Point of Contact and move forward knowing this is important and in process

LS: I believe Roy and Michael can possibly have a plan to move forward

Roy: just want feedback, some differnce between commmunity group anyone can join without royalty free commitment

Roy: due to patent and copyright risk in W3C publication will be differnet in terms of task force and community group

Roy: in task force must join AP or AG group

Roy: for community group can do some publication in different format, such as community group note

LS: talking about anonymous issue

LS: drafted proposed anonymous policy, in meantime point of contact needed

Roy: should talk to Michael to see if join anonymously

LS: we want to share personal experience not publicly, if you prefer to join anonymously for moment Roy

+1

<Rachael> +1

<cweidner> +1 provided anonymous join is ok

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

LS that ok for anymously?

<krisannekinney_> +1

<Jennie> +1

LS: we want people to join anynmously

LS: guardianship we need to circle back

LS: may make suggest to COGA rather than creating policy don’t need to go through process of joining APA, AG etc.

LS: are people comfortable with that?

Roy: i suggest we not mention that

CW: can you provide a line of wat community group able to do

LS: is that Chris?

CW: yes

LS: participation and making deliverables

LS: everyone in group participates in many different ways

<Fazio> You must be accepted into a W3C Working Group in order to join a Task Force. Anyone can join a Community GROUP

LS: this group is going to be a big learning curve to participate in helpful way, comes with a time commitment and patent policy

<Fazio> For COGA only APA and AG Working Group members can join

LS: it’s quite a high bar to join

LS: we are possibly missing a broad participation by the community, good place needed for participation an opportinity where users and other interested and involved that don’t have full set of expertise to participate

LS: can aldo be shorter term

Chris: i understand why would want this, have experts but don’t have time commitment to join, wether a not this would be an opportunity to pug in other members without the time commitment and what in Task Force can’t do in community group

LS: the process can draft themselves, the advisory role, the ask is smaller. potentially different clusters, as a developer could say this is great guidance, what do you think of my product

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say including that clarification would be helpful in the document

Chris: that is helpful

Rachael: community groups might not be directly related to working groups, understanding expectations

LS: we’ve written about sharing with COGA, whould we add two sentences, i’m afraid of confusing people

LS: don’t want to lose people, will be a bit of challenge to make understandable, does anyone want to suggest text

Roy: if you want this community group give task force input, maybe we could add link think it’s ok to add

Roy: mailing list and github reposity for this community group?

LS: no

LS: very provisional, add two sentences and guardianship

Jennie: if list an email list need to think about that from an anonmous perspective

<Jennie> Like "Town Halls" - great idea - could be smaller Town Hall style conversations

suggested ptotential of zoom call

LS: zoom sounds like a potential good idea

LS: do we want do a poll that happy in direction

LS: we can finalize wording on list

Jennie: would it be possible to have a couple of days to review, to see if key pieces to discuss on call rather than list?

LS: yes will leave it in so can review

<Jennie> *thank you

<Jennie> +1 1 week sounds reasonable

LS: we can start reviewing for the week no straw poll

EO servey https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K87FbKnCj67DcCjnvbf0oheMRTRypdFinIVDtF-xr8I/edit#

LS: really want to get to survey, they want us to review their user stories

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K87FbKnCj67DcCjnvbf0oheMRTRypdFinIVDtF-xr8I/edit#

Kris Anne: think all are ready and four might specifiically need our feedback
… how the user stories now being presented, biographies, barriers, and favorite part resources available
… wanted to know if something to support or make changes
… see that someone needs to know a bit more on the ‘why’
… a comment said: doesn’t explain accessibilty for memory loss
… EO wants to make sure COGA has given input

LS: better to do review together?

Kriss Anne: initial though if easier to do review as a group sometimes confersation is helpful
… if we had time could dedicate time next week, if can as a group, if anyone wants to look at it, if want to split it up

LS: this is very important, either next week or week after we can donate half call to do it

LS: they have given us to the 26th

KrisAnne: can get more time think another 2 weeks will be ok

LS: this will be more useful feedback, probaly could get more constuctive feedback and that takes longer

KrisAnne: more detall and strike a balance, not trying to be too specific only have 9 and trying to keep the number low, could end up with so many stories. want to give good feedback and more globally accessible

LS: another thing is TPAC agendas

LS: give us two or three weeks

KrisAnne: if people have chance to look at before meeting next week it would be helpful

Jennie: just question about TPAC

LS: community group discussion was good

LS: is question about TPAC about agendas

Jennie: like to put in draft document for review, will do today

<LisaSeemanKest> eo work : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K87FbKnCj67DcCjnvbf0oheMRTRypdFinIVDtF-xr8I/edit#

LS: one start collecting comments on EO goup here is our page in google doc

LS: people please add comments to that document

LS: might need subgroup meeting

<LisaSeemanKest> tpac : https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/TPAC_2021_initial_planning#APA

LS: started drafting agendas

LS: my proposed is in google doc

LS: proposed feedback on accessibile authetication

<LisaSeemanKest> accessible authification thread: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Jul/0033.html

LS: this is the thread

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/2021/07/08-coga-minutes.html#t04

LS: make sure people are comfortable with that

summary of accessible authetication

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K87FbKnCj67DcCjnvbf0oheMRTRypdFinIVDtF-xr8I/edit#

LS: disussion with JR and Abby above

LS: regarding EO, and what trying to achieve

LS: empathisize and understand is an important goal

LS: let people understanding that COGA users are relevent here

LS: try an undue a bit of feeling or stereo types

LS: are there other important things that we want to get accross?

LS: main aims for personas to help empathisize and that coga are key audience are tazrget market group

KrisAnne: agree, bring awareness, including those groups, all of personas existed before, trying to make connection for designer and develops making it better
… they are looking for feedback for description of person
… will let know need a couple of more weeks

LS: to make more constructive suggestions