Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

11 Nov 2021


Jan, Rain_, Rachael, Rain, julierawe, LisaSeemanKest, kirkwood, julierawe_
Jennie, Chris W, Kris Anne, Albert
kirkwood, Rain, Rain_


Rachael to present on AG Progress review and get COGA feedback - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process

<Rain> scribe: kirkwood

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZZ8hD56XqGS0u3Rn2o1ows6ZrKRAwnAjllkXknp2bR8/edit#slide=id.gfb6a5a59bb_0_131

Rachael: workflow diagram
... figuring out how to refine process before diving in, there have been a lot of debate. want to make sure process supports cognitive disabilites as much as we can
... comments will be read in meeting from surveys as a sub for not being in meeting or not comfortable expressing support
... editors draft will have labels to mark maturity
... label maturing, direction detali is polishing or something like that and sometimes we are done or stable
... want to get public comment without requiring content to be stable
... only top two in editors draft and working draft. with clarifications and filters
... that is summary, but thats where we are
... is that reasonable approch?
... labels you would recommend?

<Rain> Sorry, I'm having trouble unmuting...

Lisa: it was hard to see how play out.
... where’s the link to terms using? buried? depends on

<julierawe> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/AG_process

EA: my quiry was around polishing and maturing

<Rain> And here is the link to the visual representation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZZ8hD56XqGS0u3Rn2o1ows6ZrKRAwnAjllkXknp2bR8/edit#slide=id.gfb6a5a59bb_0_131

EA: find it difficult to find documents

LS: its a bit github related mulit step process with strange names
... asked to respond to survey which in itself is multestep

<EA> +q

<EA> +1 to Lisa comment

LS: make a survey on issue of finding things

Rain: maybe a template for surveys themselves? it varies so much
... adding to process maybe a template would be good

EA: since we get massive github about issues, unless you followed where the issue came from. I don’t know because all I see is a number. Not sure becasue the thread has been lost in mass of other stuff
... talking about heeping up on thread, number section or something.

Rachael: surveys send out with titles are in meeting minutes

EA: yes the survey comes out becuase havent’ linked up with original agenda

Rachael: is sending out survey in separate email need topics though?

EA: might be that all th threads to study subject well enought to be qualified to vote, so much information

<EA> +1 to Rain's comment

Rain: more helpful to have two separte emails? think EA was saying way in agenda email is effective to track. to make topics a little clearer. click on survey question. make sure you know everying you need is in survey question itself.
... having a tag of some kind? maybe in email itself? specific areas of expertise? things most qualified to weigh in from tags.

I think a template for us would be helpful

Lisa: those agendas that need me should stick out, hopefully in subject line
... if the survey find confusing can say I have an opinon on this can we talk about in next call
... if we can vote on survey email back without responding should treat as a suvey comment, and can say something like not sure what is can we discuss it

Rachael: hard part is that we survey on and you meet after on Thursday but would delay final decision a week and a half

Lisa: maybe act premetively could put on coga call so know its coming

Rachael: surveys are indraft thursday by this time of week

<Rain> +1 to the idea of pre-briefing

Rachael: willing to try to prebriefing

EA: agree

Julie: comment on templating surveys exploratory suvey due date to respond to suvey, what stage it is and topic and when respond by

Lisa: topic first please

<Rachael> Email subject: topic of survey, stage of survey, response, expertise needed

<Rachael> it would be both

Rain: personally surveys in all separtie emails i’m fearful of losing them
... some of trhe surveys may have multiple questions, and some are differnt topic, or defunct, some I haven’t, spend a lot of time trying to figure out what trying to answer. to separte them out.
... maybe separte for that week not old questions possibly

Rachael: newest questions are on top, happy to change it

Rain: this is important to capture other comments

LS: shouldn’t have over reliance on surveys, questions should also go to the list

Rain: over reliance on surveys is a challenge

<julierawe> Lisa: What does it mean to "go to the list"?

Rain: bringin it to groups as Rachael is an option

LS: not enough
... we need another way to vote to be included in process

Julie: go to list?

LS: the email list
... send specific email CFC and email back with +1

Julie: as new don’t know as look at diagram so much jargon here, for surevey versus CFC

Rain: survey is lighter CFC is more formal
... surveys are very light weight do we agree to this edit, its a lot of work and not very accessibile we tend to do conversation on calls themselves AG does a combination. send survey and vote on call itself
... sureveys are an opportnity to give opinion before call for consensus
... next step to get back to her

Respond to open Internationalization issues

Rain: open internationization issues
... there are aspects we should consider for version 2, Lisa drafted and sent a suggested response
... take internatinlization issues and close them and reopen new issues tagged fro next version so they are addressed for next version in content usable

<Rain> Lisa's proposed draft of the response: "We apologise for the mixup, our document was in the process of publication when this comment was added. We are opening a new issue in this regard and will start working on it soon."

<Rain> John suggests adding "to ensure that it will be addressed properly in the next version."

<Rain> New revision: "The COGA Task Force would like to apologize for the confusion with this particular issue. Our document was in the process of publication at the time that this comment was added. We are opening a new issue [link to issue] tagged for consideration for the next version of Content Usable. "


<Rain> Revision 2: "The COGA Task Force would like to apologize for the confusion with this particular issue. Our document was in the process of publication at the time that this comment was added. We are opening a new issue [link to issue] tagged so that we can address it better for the next version of Content Usable."

<Rain> https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues/248


Julie: where does it appear?

Rain: github

Julie: wondering if need to be more public

Rain: we can’t change to add note without going through a process of a full change

Lisa: yes we wrote a response, we would like to work with you and this is huge
... we went through process we thought all agreed with, got there process a bit wrong and need to wrtie about issue and close it properly

Rain: will do a quick vote

<Rain> Please vote whether we can use this response to clean up our issues:

<Rain> "The COGA Task Force would like to apologize for the confusion with this particular issue. Our document was in the process of publication at the time that this comment was added. We are opening a new issue [link to issue] tagged so that we can address it better for the next version of Content Usable."


<julierawe> +1

<EA> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Rain> +1

Lisa: +1

RESOLUTION: we will post this and clean up the issue queue.

Review APA documents (due December 10), NAUR - https://www.w3.org/TR/naur - and Accessibility of Remote Meetings - https://www.w3.org/TR/remote-meetings/

Rain: small group so will move to item 5

<Rain> https://www.w3.org/TR/naur

Rain: APA has two documents in need of our review NAUR

<Rain> Document to collect COGA feedback: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6QEmpWwDN_cXeR6I5OX5UnlcZQ9M2NV4bMalaAThuM/edit?usp=sharing

Rain: needs our review put space for collectiong our notes
... has lots of cross over, please read entire document

<julierawe> This part of NAUR is about clear language: https://www.w3.org/TR/naur/#communicating-in-language-that-is-clear-simple-and-appropriate-to-the-audience

Rain: a lot of our needs are missed i felt especialy Julie and EA

Julie: call attention to part of NAUR in particlar clear in comments

EA: some is quite vague will go back rhrough it

LS: be careful not get blind sinded by covering topic of clear language, reduce reliance on memory or easy to find
... might do clear languge well but maybe others should be addressed

Rain: would be good if we could all agree by December 9
... all comment by december 7

LS: think that’s too late
... aim fro dicussion for devember 2nd

Rain: comments by November 9th so we can discuss

<Rain> Link to accessibility of remote meetings: https://www.w3.org/TR/remote-meetings/

Rain: November 29th

<Rain> COGA TF google doc for comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WIcQbQXI9qhfqONFI9kLuFDzVAoMGwPwlY1aAnAnBpQ/edit#

<Rain> Please review and add comments to both docs by November 29th

Rain: need to wrk on this one with same timeline review both by November 29th

<Rain> The COGA TF will disucc and align on December 2

Rain: discuss and align on December 2
... you will see diffent deadlines on documents themselves november 12th and 18th on documents they were extended

EA: whats happening about extra persona about langages?

Rain: response about github that persona yes discussed

Ea: title didn’t link, exactly the issue with keeping up

<Rain> RRSAgent: end meeting

<LisaSeemanKest> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<LisaSeemanKest> Meeting: silver coga clear content

<Rain_> Scribe: Rain

<Rain_> Chair: julierawe_

<Rain_> Scribe: Rain_

Goals: 1. figure out how we will use the new template for the methods

<julierawe_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l8iM8QSfzSkeRwJ6X9iArakrlYRc7oPKVfg1GxvCJ6Y/edit#heading=h.oywgjxshpb0l

2. make sure we have each of the methods

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/WCAG_3_Coordination

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

Lisa has asked that this document is linked from all of our places.

Lisa: want to make sure that we have included all of the user stories in the outcomes

Julie: one outcome per method means that we will have over a dozen outcomes
... want to make sure that this is what Silver is expecting from us
... looking at the other placeholders, they have one outcome for the most part, but some have 2 or 3
... each outcome may have multiple methods, but the outcomes are a small number
... will many outcomes be well received, or are they expecting multiple methods laddering up to each outcome

<julierawe_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CK0_XIauDabBlKyKvN8FmZcn3BDd4w1dXFcSMblAIkE/edit#

<julierawe_> Scribing for Rain: The document that Julie shared is a template for us to use as a reference

<scribe> New link for us to use as the revised method template from Silver (this is a copy, so we can work in here if needed): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sA5vdvcqQuLvJu1YlEZTS1ovp0pIdbwsyb5y2CibpcY/edit#heading=h.yi4gdznca965

Lisa: wants to clarify that we've decided to work from the User Stories, not the patterns. The user stories would be the outcomes.
... rewording of the user story is the outcome. We are seeing a 1:1 mapping
... In the patterns, you have a few pattersn in objective 3 that will map to this outcome.

Rain: asking if our next step is to figure out all of the methods that we need to write, and figure out what that means in terms of user stories and outcomes

Lisa: thinks that are next step is to merge the remaining patterns in so that everyone on this call knows how to pull in a new pattern into the method for clear language
... Let's do another 1 or 2 today, so that someone else can do the third one
... This way everyone will have practical experience
... The mapping of methods to user stories is a 1:1 mapping
... patterns are always confusing, so we may find that bringing them together is more helpful. They are all in one method because they are all part of the same user story
... Priority of which user stories we addressed should be decided by the bigger group.
... clear language is one user story with multiple patterns

Julie: point asking Lisa to clarify. In the table that Lisa shared, it has 3 user stories with multiple patterns.
... I believe what we are trying to write, what we are calling user stories in content usable is what will be our outcomes in what we are drafting.

Lisa: No, one outcome for each of these

Julie: we are in agreement there
... Three outcomes. Each outcome has multiple methods.
... Clear language has its own set of methods,
... Visual presentation has its own set of methods,
... Math has its own set of methods
... We have user stories, which need to map to outcomes with methods.

Lisa: are you mapping the objectives to an outcome?

Julie: looking at the language the WCAG 3 placeholders are using, which don't use objectives, user stories, and patterns. They use outcomes and methods. I think it is very much in line with what you were pointing to.
... The patterns supporting the user story become the methods.
... the method ladders up to the outcome
... Example, text alternatives outcome has five methods that ladder up.

Lisa: I think this is where communication is broken. A method is one thing and has one outcome.

<julierawe_> https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#text-alternatives

Julie: sharing screen with this method in order to help clarify what we need to do.
... This is smaller than what we are doing, but gives us an idea.

Has an guideline, one outcome. The outcome details list out five methods. Each method ladders up to the outcome.

scribe: Section on methods, each of the five methods follow the template that we shared, which has multiple sections.
... Example, informative images, which has a summary, How it solves user need. Then has a detailed description, multiple examples, tests, and resources.
... These look more similar to what we currently have in our patterns.
... In the revised method template, the Outcome section is where it ladders up to the outcomes.

Julie: we have been talking about at least three outcomes for Clear Language
... Thinking about Clear Language, we will have a rating system that covers so many things. Can they all be put into a rating system? Maybe they can.

Rain: propose that we see Lisa's vision of how this works

Lisa: something bothering me is seeing how that mapping works

Clear Language working draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p-FayvZYonpDIlojblFSofi_KzjNdY5SrBOKauvV0u8/edit?usp=chrome_omnibox&ouid=107030174649805411088

The document that Lisa was opening: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J1_ad5wR35m41hgKH-o3Sr_CwWWUUtDFoqBr3CRva7Q/edit#heading=h.qdnlzct1rivr

Lisa: I've merged in the first four, but not the rest
... So the trick will be to see how I'm merging these in. These all map to one user story (an outcome)
... Open making content usable (this section: https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#objective-3-use-clear-and-understandable-content-1)

"What to do" goes into "functional outcome"

Lisa: More details also goes into "functional outcome"
... Then in the code samples, take the "examples" and "use and avoids" will go there

Julie: revised template has a lot of information on what goes into examples: multiple examples, including edge cases, and description of why it passes and why it fails.
... Based on how content usable is written out, they want an example of something that passed, and a very different example of something that failed, and discussion about each. Especially something that came close to passing, but here is why it failed.

Lisa: the point is that this comes later in the process. The first thing we do is put it in. We will put in a whole bunch for all the different patterns, then when we have it all together we can look at it and rework it.

Jan: I think we need to go through this process because the use and avoid can be converted into the examples.

Lisa: How it helps also belongs somewhere and maybe can go under Examples.

Julie: thinking that this exercise we are doing right now, it may be more helpful to put it into sub documents rather than in one enormous working draft.
... Maybe to put it in its own document so that we can more easily navigate it
... Does anyone object to parceling these out so that we can focus on each one?

Lisa: once we've got them all together then we can massage it out into a clearer story.
... Maybe what we should do is that Lisa and Julie each work on one method and then see what works better for Silver.

Julie: share your concern and want us to be efficient. The challenge we are facing right now is that we know that we have one clear piece of guidance from Silver. We would like to ground to this. This is the smallest piece. The different methods ladder up to an outcome, and the outcomes ladder up to a guideline.
... It's a slightly different terminology than what we've been usign.
... Same thing but different labels.
... What you've laid out in content usable is so helpful, and these perfectly map to the outcomes in silver.
... So this is really helpful in how to put this together.
... where we differ is whether we are putting it all into one document or into smaller parts. They will be assessed by Silver as separate documents.

Lisa: This is where we disagree entirely. We were told that the individual methods were too granular and we weren't going to get enough in to make a differnece.

Link to the example: https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#text-alternatives

Rain: I think we have three problems to address in the remainder of our time

1. how to make sure all of the outcomes and user needs are included

2. how to re-adjust our process to the new format

3. how to get our way of collaborating unstuck

Julie: propose that we move to Lisa's list and make a copy of it, and then start to work from there

This document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J1_ad5wR35m41hgKH-o3Sr_CwWWUUtDFoqBr3CRva7Q/edit#heading=h.qdnlzct1rivr

And we use that as basis. This is the guide. It takes content usable and puts it into the silver way of presenting information. Three outcomes, with list of methods for each outcome.

scribe: Already got this, and calling it something else.

Lisa: looking at method decorative images, they've got different categories of content. The three methods, clear language, math concepts, images, each one is still at the user story level in the mapping
... The way this is, you don't have to do all of them, you do the one that works. You do the one that works.
... To split these up to the different patterns, we are changing the structure. Because what we are doing here would be to say that you need to do all of them.
... A method is to say, you do any one of these, and it works.
... For what we are doing, it's an AND not an OR, you have to include all of them.

Jan: yes, these seems different from what suggesting. I would really like to see what Lisa was doing all the way through.
... Don't think we will get back to the new template without going through the thinking.
... Think we need to work through one of these and then try to make the template work.

Lisa: also need to check back with Silver about how they can structurally help us get all of these back together to do all of them.

Jan: I think by going through one of these as proposed will help us filter all of them out.
... this is the most complicated guideline that I think anyone will address in all of silver.
... it doesn't break out clearly like this one does.
... these are distinct ways of approaching alternate text, and clear language won't break out that cleanly.
... Three outcomes that Julie was mentioning are approaches. So get the content into a document and figure out how to make it work and how it maps back out.
... Objective is to legitimize and bring in the years of research and work in content usable and get it into guidelines.
... The challenge before us is a terminology challenge more than anything else.
... if people are frustrated, maybe approach the same concept separately, and come back together and bring them together.
... that might be the better use of our time.
... maybe divide up into two teams? Not sure we will make progress if we get stuck on terminology.

Lisa: think also what is important is that the blue box, what goes into the method.
... I think actually we need to write that box with the different alternatives.
... My box would have Clear language, clear math, clear media. Those would be my three.
... For Julie, this box would have all the patterns.
... And we have to take this back to Silver.

Jan: I think you could use multiple options here. Not necessarily distinct, but not isolated.

Here is our clean document to work from after a break: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oz7rdSjwCWzceEeWbhYQd2Oy5tuS_BcMnLXn2rPPrNc/edit#

Jan: proposes a clean outcome template for us to work with, as well

Julie: sounds like a good idea

10 minute break. Regroup at 45 minutes after the hour.

Returning from break:

Trying to catch the process as scribe

1. Start at the user story level

Example used: 3.3 Objective 3: Use Clear and Understandable Content

This objective is mapped to the outcome (shortname)

2. Summary is skipped at the moment.

But for now, copying "what to do" from the patterns level into the summary

3. How it helps, copy into "how it solves the user need"

4. More details, copy into "Examples"

5. Use goes into "passed" examples

6. Avoid goes into "failure" examples

Pausing: don't have everything we need here.

7. Tests: this is a general tests. May skip addressing this now, since there are different ways we could do the tests.

<julierawe_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sugAtqie_x1XqHDZo1Im7ftDNllWeRV_ty4PULeoTV0/edit

Julie adding the link above to share what Jeanne included for writing testable statements.

Lisa: different approaches we can have to testing.

Under tests, the goal is to do at least one of the use, and do not do any of the avoids.

Additionally: a process should be to look at tests in the github versions, which we need to discuss.

These are things we have in a different version.

Now moving on to adding a second pattern.

Going through the process with 4.4.2 Use a simple tense and voice as a second pattern

As adding new ones in, adding them under separate bullet points for the summary.

When adding into How it solves user needs, now we need to merge the text and concepts together.

When adding into examples, these still go into passed and failure

Moving onto the next pattern: 4.4.3 Avoid double negatives.

Same process again.

Correction for #4 above: More details went into "when to use"

One to think about more carefully: "more details"

Lisa: yes, it is getting long. Agreeing with Julie. Need to have a maximum of 5 items in the summary

Looking at writing the test.

<LisaSeemanKest_> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html

One option is to say to check that none of the "avoids" are happening

If the test fails any of the bullet points, it is not conformant.

Also make sure that we capture everything from the document that Lisa posted: https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/status.html

We also want to make sure user tests are included.

(scribing note for the record: most of what is above was spoken by Lisa in the context of going through the process)

Lisa: need to ask for guidance from silver on user tests and testable statements, and how to indicate who must be included in the tests
... we may need to separate out the language one into a new method.
... such as using language specific techniques
... to help keep it smallish
... what is helpful next?

Julie: maybe now is a good time to pause and have a brief discussion about the concept of "use common words"
... do we want to include guidance on what would count as a common word, or should we wait for someone to ask for that?

Rain: there is a glossary section, and it may be worth adding "common words" in the glossary as a term
... what are our next steps?

Julie: Interim step of showing Shawn what we are pulling together
... if Lisa keeps building out all of the patterns, the document will get longer. So before going too far, does Shawn consider this one method with many parts? Are we approaching this correctly.
... Ask Shawn, don't pay attention to the bullet points. Are we on the right path?

Lisa: I think Julie is right. If I add one or two more bullets, that is about as big as we want it to be anyway.
... what I think we should do: I should add two more (or someone else) -- keep text succinct / use short blocks of text, and explain implied content

Jan: lightweight check in with Shawn would be good, just to get a sense of if we are using the template as intended. Should we continue?

Julie: agree.

Note: Shawn is on vacation, so perhaps start by sending it over to Jeanne for feedback.

Jan: adding that we should double check on if it is okay for us to add in custom headings (like "more details")

Lisa: seconded that we need to ask them

Lisa will put in the remaining pattern we believe should be in here

scribe: then we can discuss on Dec. 2 to make sure they are happy with it,
... then after that we get feedback from Shawn and Jeanne

Julie: would love to get the informal feedback sooner rather than later.
... are we using this the way they intended it?
... or are we trying to put an entire guideline into one template?
... if we are on a good path, great
... if they want us to split it up, happy to help do that, but don't want to create more work

Lisa: okay, let's do that
... let's invite them in
... focus them on the big question: is the granularity right
... and can we add a section?
... and where do we put user testing?

Jan: if we ask them these questions now, that gives them 3 weeks to get back to us.
... with our next meeting on Dec. 2

Julie: will send to both Jeanne and Shawn for preliminary feedback

Lisa: we know this is a really early version, but we want to make sure we understand the template correctly? Is this the right granularity? Or is this really three methods? Can we add additional headlines or sections? How will we add user tests? Will you be adding more structure to the testing sections?
... also one of our challenges is that these things need to be done together in order to achieve the outcome.

Julie: great point. I'll include that explicitly so that they know why we are packaging this together.

Lisa: thank you, Julie, for getting us through the changes. It is different from what we were working with before.


Logistical note: asking for Jeanne and Shawn's feedback by Nov. 24. We are meeting next on Dec. 2.

We will use next next Thursday, Nov. 18, to do this same thing for Access to Help.

RRSAgent: make minutes

zakim: end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. we will post this and clean up the issue queue.
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/11/11 18:49:24 $

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)

WARNING: Replacing list of attendees.
Old list: Roy, Matthew_Atkinson, cweidner, Fazio, kirkwood, julierawe, Rachael, Jennie, Rain, LisaSeemanKest
New list: Jan, Rain_

Default Present: Jan, Rain_
Present: Jan, Rain_, Rachael, Rain, julierawe, LisaSeemanKest, kirkwood, julierawe_
Regrets: Jennie, Chris W, Kris Anne, Albert
Found Scribe: kirkwood
Inferring ScribeNick: kirkwood
Found Scribe: Rain
Found Scribe: Rain_
Inferring ScribeNick: Rain_
Scribes: kirkwood, Rain, Rain_
ScribeNicks: kirkwood, Rain_
Found Date: 11 Nov 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]