Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

09 Dec 2021


cweidner, ShawnT, Jennie, Rain, present, Rachael, julierawe, LisaSeemanKest, Roy, kirkwood
EA_, Rain


<Rain> RRSagent: make logs public

<Rain> scribe: EA_

Welcome to Chris Weidner

<julierawe> +present

<cweidner> Thanks EA! :)

Rain welcomed Shawn Thompson

Shawn described how important coga issues were to him and is lead on the open accessibility toolkit for the Government of Canada - eager to help out

+1 thank you Shawn re: Github!

Shawn confirmed he was good at publishing content on Github!

<Jennie> Welcome Shawn!

Lisa offered one on one call for new comers

newcomers - Shawn felt this would help

[Rachael] Update from AG and what’s coming up in surveys

Rain suggested we introduce ourselves as we talk

Lisa introduced herself as co-host and mentioned that more newcomers will be arriving in the next month

Rain Agenda item 1 Rachel to update

Rachael mentioned minor edits for CFC - another meeting AG - invited others if passing. Merge of silver and AG - process discussion - no meeting 28th Dec

AG meeting times and email will be sent with informaiton

Tuesday with separate facilitator for AG next week

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

Checking subgroups on planning page

<Rachael> Chairs email if you have questions or need assistance: group-ag-chairs@w3.org

Julie - clear language update - right number of outcomes and methods that ladded up to outcomes - need to align on the new plan mapping to 3 user needs and content usable.

Need to look at the structure before sending on to Jean and Shawn

Lisa has suggested that the documents have got to the point where there may be a need to work with the silver task force - subgroup meeting after this call. Need to make sure everyone is fully aware where we are now.

Lisa pointed out that the granularity of the method is more like patterns rather than user stories now and need to make sure Silver are on the same page as us - Needs to go to the whole task force

The content may change so ask for a joint meeting to show the two granularities that have been found - they may want a bit more which can be done but lets move it on sooner rather than later.

Jenny - images subgroup meeting rescheduled - then an update - existing notes will be put into a google doc. Re: guardianship information will also be added to a Google doc with John K's support so everyone will see it later.

John Kirkwood said he did not have any updates on the recruiting for mental health - but is working with Jennie on the mental health subject

Chris W did not have any updates and admitted that this was the first time he has come back to the group and David F was not able to join the meeting today.

<Rain> EA's update: message about personalization. Really exciting to see that left to right and right to left representation in code has worked. Thank you!

<Jennie> *Jennie and John K are working together on guardianship and images, not mental health - just to clarify for the minutes.

Roy has no more updates and Lisa was asked if she had any other updates

<Rain> For new members: more on the Mental Health subgroup: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/Mental_Health

Lisa said that it has been hard to find time that suits the mental health group but intend to put up information onto the form - want to do it as a working meeting doing it together as some have found the form difficult to summarise items to fit the form layout for the database. This will be followed by a review - find what needs to be focussed on and the outcomes. Need more help.

<Rain> ack "pl

<Rain> ack

<Rain> ack "

John K attened a presentation by US gov. on plain language - interesting how they are addressing the issues and the regulations - it might be helpful to be aware of this.

John K will resend the information if people did not receive information about plain language.

Review responses to APA: NAUR - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lVkQv4_lKcuEyane3o2oDtC3Hzu_-YZRJKe8pSk7Qd4/edit

<kirkwood> let me know if anyone else wants the presentation too

Rain moved on to item 4 - Responses to APA document, natural language. Julie summarised the two documents - can take more time - turn note into high level issues.

Julie felt that with NAUR there are some remaining specifics - global concern section - key documents need to be checked - Julie asked who is doing the checking?

Lisa said they should be checking against the documents - we do not have time to add three sections to each one of their documents - it would be at least 20% They need to incorporate the research we have already done and add comments. One is a mature draft and the other already published

Lisa suggested that we are giving the information but they need to do the work - if we want to work with Silver, EO and APA it will be too much.

Julie felt this was really helpful - sharing screen - went through sections of the document.

Julie and Lisa discussed how we could advise them to look at our documents by telling them where they can see examples of strategies for coga

Julie mentioned that perhaps changes should be made so that APA check the documents available - once the checking has been made and content added then we can then make more comments

<Jennie> *Contact the chairs when ready?

Rain agreed that clarity was needed that they will be doing the work and Coga will help with the review.

<julierawe> Jennie: How does this sound? "Let us know if you’d like more input from COGA before you develop these new sections and then contact the COGA chairs when the next version is ready to review."

Lisa mentioned that in the issue papers we have well documented advice about the way to write phrases - we have comments but not the comments that are mentioned as best practices. Lisa is concerned that the specific comments are incomplete because it is such a big job.

<kirkwood> are we aware of the “voice assistant community group”, thats all i wanted to bring up on that subject

Jennie - felt that the text that Julie has added to the document is good and just need to add links to the chairs

<kirkwood> https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/voice-assistant/participants

<Jennie> *John K - on the cable? On your ear piece? On your keyboard? On your display? LOL where is that mute button! Or the 2nd mute button??

John K. Are we aware of the voice assistance standards group? Would that be useful

Lisa mentioned Debbie Dall? group

<Jennie> * Actually meant the email address specifically to reach the chairs - I believe there is a single email address.

Julie wants to share both sections that are causing concern.

Lisa feels that may be saying main concerns... rather than global concerns? Worried that the three small bullet points are the important issue

The amount of work in the field appears to have been left out and this is a problem

Julie wondered if it helped to make it the first section

Lisa pointed out how important the issue papers were due to the time they had taken

Jennie - needs to be the chair email

emails should not be easily accessible so not personalised but with a chair email address

Rain suggested that the document will be sent over to APA tomorrow - invite APA to come to a meeting - probably in January to discuss

<Rain> Proposal for next step: 1. Rain sends this document to APA, and creates three github issues for our main concerns, then we invite APA to a joint meeting to discuss live in January

<julierawe> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1

<ShawnT> 0

<cweidner> +1

+1 but please also send reminder where on GitHub the issues will appear

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to having the 3 main issues and linking to the document

Review responses to APA: Remote meetings - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SmQFRTb24YDMkVpb9Bb-NJ_QD-YJ_zfVpqGL50lr9j4/edit?usp=sharing

Julie for Jennie - Adding use case of those who use AAC devices

+1 to helping with this if necessary

<Jennie> +1 to cross-over, especially in employment situations (learning + online meeting spaces_

Lisa mentioned we do not have issue papers on AAC - need more work to be done... if they follow the recommendations it is good but we may need more - so once we see the content we can see what is missing. Remote meetings have a crossover with accessibility - may be relevant in a meeting compared to just a web page etc.

Look at the research for the knowledge sharing - educational side as well

<Jennie> +1 to EA's suggestion

Julie suggested a stronger sentence at the top is needed - recommending new sections etc - reaching out to co-chairs

<kirkwood> like to see recommendations in topic 3 major areas/categories. “ structure, pacing, interruptions”

<Rain> Proposal: Rain will send this document over to APA marked as a preliminary draft review, and invite them to a joint meeting specific to this document

Julie suggested we need a timeline that is realistic.

John K. The area of 'structure, pacing and interruptions' need to highlighted when it comes to meetings to aid coga processing.

<julierawe> Jennie: Can you reword the doc as you suggested? I did not catch all of the specifics you recommended.

<Rain> Proposal: Rain will let APA know that we need more time with Remote Meetings

<Jennie> @Julierawe: I can but not right now (smile). If you want me to look at this at the end of the other meeting, we can do that?

Lisa has added another sentence to the document - make it then an initial review.

<Rain> Update to proposal: send this as an initial review, and ask for a joint meeting in January

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Jennie> +1

<cweidner> +1

<kirkwood> +1


<julierawe> +1

EOWG: “How People with Disabilities Use the Web” survey - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/How-People-Use-Web_2021-Dec/

Deadline in the survey Dec 14th - not enough time as quite a lot is involved with filling in

<Jennie> Deadline?

<Jennie> OK thank you

Feedback for mobile - review documents if possible - will pay attention in January 2022

Coming up: APA will be looking for feedback on Personalization in January

January 2022 - APA will ask for feedback

Reminder: no meetings December 23 and 30th due to holidays

<Jennie> Nice work on docs Julie!

<Rain> We will regroup for the subgroup meeting at 13 minutes after the hour

<Rain> scribe: Rain

Silver COGA subgroup meeting

One document that can get you to all the others for our meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CJ5QgJ1VA_k1xliois5pl5LGJ1GMYidUynt-6xpCKb4/edit

<Jennie> *I'm here

Lisa: want to explain the thinking since there are new individuals. We can get burnt out.
... With WCAG 2.1 we ended up redoing every recommendation ~5 times. Concerned that if we put in a ton of work into what we think is the new format, and then in 3 months they change again,
... we are going to run out of energy.
... My thinking is that we have 2 granularities. We have the one they told us they wanted originally,


scribe: and then the new granularity ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CJ5QgJ1VA_k1xliois5pl5LGJ1GMYidUynt-6xpCKb4/edit#heading=h.8ltdu32fjry2)
... and then we work with them to make sure we are right.

Jennie: thank you for work on the document. This echos similar conversations happening in the AG working group.
... Having heard conversations where what they are struggling with is how to take all the concepts the subgroups are working on and figure out what is going to be something that will work across the need areas, my suggestion is...
... Because so much of this is new, they need examples. Suggest to do some of the work in the structural level, and then some work on details for one of the items.
... That way we haven't put a ton of work in that won't potentially have to be thrown out or redone.

Lisa: confirming, have we done enough work to go to Silver?

Jennie: as we started to talk about the new levels, and the concept of a guideline, I think Silver might need more content to understand the through it process

Lisa: can I take this document and compare it to the one that I had?
... adding at the bottom of the document, "what granularity should methods be at?"

Julie: when Jeanne looked at the option 1 version (one method for everything), she said that it should be multiple outcomes.
... We could ask the whole Silver task force. We were feeling that it was becoming unweildly to get this into one document. So just want to point out that we have gotten some feedback from a few folks that unbundling is easier from a user perspective.

<Jennie> +1 and for teaching others to understand it!

Lisa: so that is the discussion. Jan thinks the opposite. We didn't do the first version ourselves. The disadvantage is that you need all five methods to achieve clear language.

Julie: suggests that we expand one method from the granular approach, and then send over the structure and that filled out method to send over for feedback

Next steps:

1. clean up method 2 from outcome 1 -- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uep5G4jzTw17-RmKC8aCW699nKTpZK1QVvOkUxzHG_Q/edit#

2. send this granularity and example, plus the original granularity to silver

3. set up joint meeting with silver and stop until that meeting

Choosing method 2 instead of method so that people don't focus too much on what is clear and what is common

Jennie: good idea, like concept, my one concern is that when written from the voice of one person, people could be distracted by the way it is written rather than focus on the concepts
... Willing to go ahead with this idea so we can move forward.

Lisa: I'll work on it, and then we can all edit?

<Jennie> +1 that works for me

Proposed next steps:

1. we work together on outcome 1 method 2 today

2. Lisa continues to work on it over the holidays

3. We come back together to make sure this represents our thinking well in early January

4. We then have a joint meeting with Silver with that one method and our overview of the plan

Julie: acknowledging that we can only achieve the outcome if you meet all 5 methods
... so that question needs to go to them

Jennie: reframe to "all the methods work together to achieve the outcome"

Julie: how much time would they like to review?

Lisa: ask them

Rain off from Dec 18-Jan 9, Julie off Dec. 20 - New Year

Julie: polish draft by Jan 7, then propose around the 20th of January for the meeting?

<Jennie> +1 those work for me with notice

<julierawe> +1

<Jennie> A doc that contains accessibility support: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head

<Jennie> Love the breadcrumb!

No longer taking notes while we work on the document.

Resolution for next steps: We will continue working on Method 2 from Outcome 1 (Tense and Voice), then send them to silver, and set up a subgroup meeting with silver for late January

Just to make sure everyone is in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uep5G4jzTw17-RmKC8aCW699nKTpZK1QVvOkUxzHG_Q/edit#

<Jennie> I have to drop. Have a good week. Thanks for all the work being done on this!

Thank you, Jennie!

ShawnT shared this link to be helpful as well: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/government-communications/canada-content-style-guide.html

From JohnK, plain language report card: https://centerforplainlanguage.org/2021-federal-plain-language-report-card/

<kirkwood> I can talk about the report card and go throught to just give some quick context (and my learnings)

<kirkwood> s/thught/through it

As a group, we took some time to review https://centerforplainlanguage.org/2021-federal-plain-language-report-card/

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: 2021/12/09 17:59:33 $

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)

FAILED: s/thught/through it/
Succeeded: s/thought/through it/
Default Present: cweidner, ShawnT, Jennie, Rain, present, Rachael, julierawe, LisaSeemanKest, Roy, kirkwood
Present: cweidner, ShawnT, Jennie, Rain, present, Rachael, julierawe, LisaSeemanKest, Roy, kirkwood
Found Scribe: EA_
Inferring ScribeNick: EA_
Found Scribe: Rain
Inferring ScribeNick: Rain
Scribes: EA_, Rain
ScribeNicks: EA_, Rain
Found Date: 09 Dec 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]