Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

29 Jul 2021


Albert, Jennie, johnkirkwood, Fazio, krisannekinney_, cweidner, JohnRochford, Rain, stevelee, LisaSeemanKest, Rachael
E.A., Kris Anne, Albert, Justine


<Rain> Scribe: cweidner

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

Rain: To John- Update on Clear Language?

John R: Group spent some time revising the document and adding comments. Scheduled two weeks of meetings with Lisa for collaboration. Will reconvene after.

Rain: Updates on Accessible Authentication?

John R: Alastair responded to commentary. Now there is a new round occurring.

Rain: Will review today and add to another agenda. Any other updates?

John R: No.

Rain to Jenny: Any updates on your side?

Jenny: Working on TPAC Outline discussion. Email dialogue ongoing. Outlining concepts for conveying to the group. Re: Silver subgroup- Reviewing Getting Help doc.

Jenny to Michael: Can you review the email I sent? There are some specifications from the designer and if you can respond in email that would be great?

<johnkirkwood> sorry lost audio

Michael: Will review and follow up.

Rain: Steve could you reply to the email thread as well?

<Jennie> For Steve and Michael: please review thread "two-examples of how our images might be integrated into the document" sent 7/22/2021

Steve: Will do.

Rain: John K: Do you have any updates? I know you're struggling with audio.

<johnkirkwood> I do not

Rain to cweidner: Any updates on your end?

cweidner: John R's Clear Language update covered my end.

Rain to Steve: Any progress on the website? When would be the best time for an update?

Steve: Next week should work -- Aug 5th.

Rain to Lisa: Any update?

Lisa: Taken down a few action items -- Clear Language, Literary Review, Changing Language draft for the community group. Will pass that back to you since you voiced a desire to edit a bit.

Rain: Great. I have already reviewed and we can take it up in the next agenda item. Any other updates?

Lisa: Worked a bit more on the requests for agenda with working with other groups. Personalization requests have been made and are on the schedule, other requests need to be circulated to the right people and put on their schedule.

Rain: TPAC discussion- Michael any other next steps?

Michael: WIll be bringing up in the next AG Chair Meeting. There will be a wiki page to add breakout sessions and group meetings to. Would like Group Meetings to go through the Working Groups. Break out sessions more of an FYI. Be aware of risks around planning too many things.

Rain: About to go over TPAC plannings. Agendas have been sent to AG Chairs. Images have been sent to Graphic Designer who is working on this. SHe is working on a style guide before creating visuals. Hopefully something to have back soon.

Rain Re: Community Group - Editing documents today. Hoping to get started soon

Rain: Lisa and I have a facilitation meeting every week. Thought it might be helpful to invite subgroup leads to come to the beginning of this meeting. Will have some time to work with and update us on the facilitation meeting and engage on topics that arent as effective in larger groups.
... After looking in depth at EOWG User Studies. Looks like they aren't yet ready for our review.

Lisa: If anyone would like to fill out the survey, they are welcome to.
... But not yet ready for a more in-depth review.

[20 mins] TPAC planning - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/TPAC_2021_initial_planning

TPAC - Rain: Please feel free to review the planning and if you have any ideas for what we can do to collaborate with other groups please feel free to add.

<Jennie> Outline document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sg9Q0QbQHmRhoqA5UfNq908ffSpeV7vEaRUqiw9cTQI/edit#

Rain to Jenny: You've got an outline -- Are you open with me sharing with the rest of the group?

Jenny: Sure.

Rain: Should this session be live, or should it be pre-recorded and available in perpetuity as a resource?

<JohnRochford> I just reviewed the recent feedback/discussion about Accessible Authentication. Based on that review, I see no need for the COGA TF to review and/or respond.

<Rain> (Thank you, JohnRochford)

Jennie: I've been noticing some reasons for COGA members having difficulty participating in the AGWG. I have concerns that if we don't engage other WG members in active discussion, we are missing a real opportunity.

<johnkirkwood> I agree as well

Rochelle: I agree the value of discussion is really high. We want COGA to be more involved in other working groups. There is demand for COGA's expertise. Holding a broader conversation to come up with strategies to do that is really valuable.

John K: Having done this a few times before, I agree. I would recommend a script for us on talking points.

John K: Ours is a complex issue, and keeping to key points would be a useful tactic for success. People want the help and want to incorporate accessibility. They have difficulty getting to us and getting the answers they need.

Rain: I am hearing a strong argument for a live session.

Jennie: Another option is a 2 part approach -- with a portion being pre-recorderd and a portion being live. Might help with distributing to as wide an audience.

John K: I agree, but I sense that there may be logistical challenges.

Rain: I propose recording a live session. Edit it and turn it into a resource that could be distributed later.

Lisa: What could be more powerful -- Taking some of what Jennie and I have done and put a "Working with COGA" draft on Github.
... These all sound great. Jennie do to you feel comfortable reviewing these ideas into a plan that we could review?

Jennie: It's important that we need to settle on a minimum of what needs to be done. Once we have that outlined, I can prioritize the items and we can decide what goes into the live presentation and what goes into other more evergreen resources.
... We can then have the group review.

<johnkirkwood> Jennie, willing to work with you on that.

Jennie: WHat is the current expected length of time expected for breakouts?

<Jennie> You are on the list my friend, but I will continue to reach out by email John Kirkwood!

Michael: Breakouts are typically an hour.

Jennie: The group would really need to have input on how to pare down concepts.

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to recommend prioritizing discussion over info

Michael: Function of breakouts is to enable interaction we don't typically have. Would prioritize live.

Rain to Jenny: Take a look at what you've already put together and determine if 30-40 mins is sufficient. If not, the larger group can review.

Jenny: Need clarity on specific deadlines?

Michael: We don't have clarity yet, but expect it soon.

Rain: TPAC - Panel discussion on Content Usable and Panel Discussion on User Needs in relation to Content Usable.
... We need someone to own these sessions.

Lisa: We also had an idea to merge these into a single session.
... Might make the case stronger to make half the session around user needs, and half on working with COGA.

Jennie: It's helpful to focus on a specific topic when we're working with limited time. Agree that Content Usable is the driver of our key concepts, but might be helpful to keep them broken up into separate sections.
... My vote would be not to combine them.

Lisa: I see Jennie's point. We could point them to a pre-recorded session on working with COGA and offer a separate live convo.

Rain: What I am hearing is that we shouldn't combine. But that whoever is responsible for owning should ensure that both of these should be optimized to ensure we maximize impact.
... Returning to the issue of someone taking the lead on the Content Usable panel.

Lisa: I can volunteer for that one.

Rain: Next item: Breakout Session: COGA Use Cases for Different Technologies. We need someone to own this one as well.

Lisa: I was thinking this would be pretty much the same.

Rain: That's likely a better plan since it gives us only 2 sessions rather than 3.

John K: What is the envisioned flow? What is the difference between the two?

Rain: The panel would focus more on the content of Content Usable, where the breakout session would be more of a convo between folks working on different technologies would be thinking about what that means in the context of their work.

John K: That seems like a very powerful session for a general audience, and could generate a lot of interest.

Lisa: In which case we might want to schedule this before Jennie's panel.

<Jennie> +1 to things that build momentum

Rain: That makes sense.
... I will work with you on the Content Usable panel, and I am working on specifications and we can collaborate to align on how that is merged.

Lisa: It's important to nail how to incorporate the use case.

Community Group proposal - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Mk1ygGNCpkH7UA5fW1aVtgk-Z7MWDY6Zr95nnlDjnM/edit

Rain: Community Group Discussion - We've further refined from our discussion from last week. Added clarity, etc. Want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to review and add comments.
... If everyone can do this this week, we can get this document up and start recruiting for it.

Lisa: Can we actually move a little faster and have this done by Tuesday?

Rain: Can we actually look over in the next day or two?

John K: I would be careful if we're trying to reach out to people in the neurodiversity and cognitive community, that we should be as positive as we can around the language, and I have some concerns that some of the language in the document might be off-putting to some.

Jennie: I also spent some time doing some work into the guradianship piece and had some conversations. May work easier to work with groups that work with those individuals in order to get direct feedback from them.

<Jennie> Stepping away - will join the next meeting in a few minutes.

Rain: At the moment we're using the word "impairment". Would appreciate folks to review with keeping our language positive and inofffensive.

Lisa: I like the word "challenges". WHat do you think John?

John K: It's certainly used in the medical field. I have some concerns around that too though since its the environment not the individual that is "challenged."

<LisaSeemanKest> divercity?

<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: 2021/07/29 15:05:34 $

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: Albert, Jennie, johnkirkwood, Fazio, krisannekinney_, cweidner, JohnRochford, Rain, stevelee, LisaSeemanKest, Rachael
Present: Albert, Jennie, johnkirkwood, Fazio, krisannekinney_, cweidner, JohnRochford, Rain, stevelee, LisaSeemanKest, Rachael
Regrets: E.A., Kris Anne, Albert, Justine
Found Scribe: cweidner
Inferring ScribeNick: cweidner
Found Date: 29 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]