Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 16 Dec 2021

<LisaSeemanKest> Agenda: over the hols, look at https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki module 2 and 3. WHat should come next? what should be included?

<Jennie> scribe: Jennie

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.sonoviastore.co.il/

(Group discussed an orientation call)

*Note: storm continues to blow. If scribing stops for more than 2 minutes, can someone jump in? Just in case I lose power.

* thank you Rain!

Lisa: New actions page - draft
... Starting with introductions

Le: I am Le. I work for TPGI. I live in Texas, US
... I am excited about this group
... I am an accessibility engineer

Lisa: Next Rachael will give us a summary of Accessibility Guidelines (once she rejoins)
... As members speak, please give a brief introduction of yourself

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

*she is rejoining now

Rachael: Accessibility Guidelines (AG) had a meeting this week to talk about processes
... and how they could be improved
... COGA appreciated
... We will have a follow up meeting in January to finish talking about it
... If people are available to participate it would be much appreciated
... You can also email the moderator

Lisa: I think this is a very important conversation

Jennie: +1000

Lisa: Thank you John for being on the call
... and Jennie

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Lisa: Rain and I have tried a new actions page
... We normally have one in the Wiki

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#

Lisa: a lot of people could not edit freely in the wiki
... Nobody had used the action request page
... We have one page that is a Google Doc
... People can mark things as done without editing markup
... You may want to change your bookmarks
... Left side of document: actions, requests
... Links to current documents has the key documents
... Also have links to useful for current tasks
... Even if scratch pad stuff
... How do people feel about this as opposed to using the wiki?

<Rain> Lisa: asked Jennie if this works based on her prior insightful feedbac

<Rain> Jennie: spoke to say that this is fine, currently curious how this works for others

John K: Potentially going forward this will be good for easily being able to add information

scribe: I think it will be a good way to go

Shawn: I have a barrier with Google Docs. I use text to speech sometimes. Big docs I have to copy into another format
... Simple sentences and tasks are fine

Lisa: Many of us do not prefer the other methods available
... I think we will have to have a meeting on tooling

John K: Keeping it concise sounds like it works for Shawn

scribe: and if it is structured well
... I think that - in the style of how we put information
... And I fully agree with him
... I think that is an important take away

Lisa: I think we will have to revisit the tooling
... We can discuss it in the new year
... We have been relying on Github for editing documents, and that is going to be a problem

Julie: I want to suggest moving up higher in the document the requests from other groups
... The member action items - that doesn't change as much

<kirkwood> +1

Julie: More time sensitive requests up high might be helpful
... The subgroups and tasks - which gives an overview, that might be helpful to have higher up too

<kirkwood> to requests from other groups put higher up.

Lisa: I am doing that now. We may have to change this
... What do people think about it?
... You are going to have to scroll down to find your name and what you need

John K: that is a good point

scribe: I do like that idea of us having that priority of feedback in a certain amount of time high up
... But I see the issue if action items drop down below the fold.

Lisa: We can move it back and forth

Shawn: I would rather not go back to the wiki
... The Google Doc is not that bad

<Rain> a?

Shawn: Even the wiki I need to get used to going to it, finding it
... I can find a way around it

Julie: Would it help to use jump links?

Rain: If we simply make everyone names a header/heading
... Then it will show up in the left sidebar, and be a link
... Then people will not have to scroll as much

Jennie: We could add the shortcut for find, and some reminders about where to find names in the left panel

Lisa: We could also order the names alphabetically

John K: +1

Lisa: This is easy to redo and change
... Please let us know if you want us to change anything

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Rain: Thank you for doing this work
... This was great that you did this

Lisa: The mobile devices

<LisaSeemanKest> comments for mobile :https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lq0OZ4qwyLppH4qOcr1o8IaREg_HX276uye4lFq4Df4/edit#heading=h.yzlqnfeuwzw4

Lisa: They have a bunch of documents
... that they have been collecting
... We would like to get it done over January
... It is also in the actions - from other groups

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Lisa: Another reminder: please sign up for when you would like to scribe

<LisaSeemanKest> close item 4

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Julierawe: You are sharing with us the request for mobile feedback
... What is a good strategy for when COGA should submit internally on the document so we have time to share it outside of COGA
... Working backwards from their deadline

Lisa: It will have to be the 1st or 2nd meeting in January
... If people can review before this, that would be great
... If not, we can send out a reminder for the week after

Julierawe: Is there a deadline from the Mobile Task Force?

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Rain: No. They are a small task force. We are helping them by moving forward with this, but no firm deadline just yet.

Julierawe: I request we do not ask for too many requests the first week of January since many of us are taking time off the week before

Lisa: But some of us are not
... If anyone has time they can
... Understood that people are taking breaks. That is fine
... Nobody is expected to work over the next two weeks

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

<LisaSeemanKest> ackj

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Lisa: They gave us an extension for the 5th of January but this is difficult
... This is about how people with disabilities use the web
... They have a survey
... It won't take long
... The links are all web pages that have been divided separately
... They have asked for comments on one page
... One page is an overview page
... Each page isn't really long
... The personas are not big
... There are only a few that I have reviewed: Blair, Luis, Preety, Yun
... For those with time to review: what would be a good way to collect the feedback?
... Survey?
... If people find it complicated would it be easier if I copied the personas into a Google Doc for people to comment on?
... Or are people comfortable with this survey?

Julierawe: I actually found this to be a really complicated document.
... I agree there are not that many pages, but I spent about a full day looking over all these pages
... These do not follow the COGA best practices ...Example: structure on pages is not clear
... You see a summary, then section contents
... Are you supposed to skip over the section contents?
... To me there is disjointed structuring
... The same happens on some other pages
... There is a lot of non-literal language
... They also have lengthy paragraphs that are hard to track the logic
... Most concerning to me is the cognitive page
... They have a definition for learning disabilities, one for developmental disabilities - these are pretty good
... Then they have perceptual disabilities - what Lisa sometimes refers to as specific learning disabilities
... They are giving it a lot of prominance here
... It is not in Content Usable, or in the DSM

<JohnRochford> +1 to Julie's commentary ...Example: (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)
... To me this is really tricky

<kirkwood> +1 ...Example: I feel like there is a lot of attention that as a group we could help make this more helpful

Lisa: I am looking at the survey - I don't see that page on the list of pages we were asked to review
... Maybe it is an old page?
... Maybe it is an early draft?
... It could be a placeholder page

kirkwood: Can we have exact links to what we are to review?

Lisa: yes

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/How-People-Use-Web_2021-Dec/

Lisa: This is the survey
... They have links to specific pages
... Then they have a question on each one
... Question 3: How People with Disabilities Use the Web
... Has a link
... After reviewing, try to go back to the tab with the survey to answer the question
... I opened the survey in a new window
... I opened the tabs in that window, and closed the tab when I had done the response
... Because they want feedback before our next meeting, we have asked for a bit longer
... How do people feel about using this survey?
... Ideally I would like us to go over it together but we only have 20 minutes left
... I think we should make sure people are comfortable filling this out themselves

julierawe: Can we review box 14?
... We need clarity
... I don't know based on your comment - your understanding is different than mine
... I thought we were to look at all the sections, including the cognitive section

Le: It looks the same to me

Lisa: Then mine was incomplete

julierawe: In my feedback I made specific recommendations, but I tried to emphasize that as a member of the task force I have concerns
... And I would like the whole task force to review

<LisaSeemanKest> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/How-People-Use-Web_2021-Dec/

Lisa: You could comment that you are finding the survey difficult, and want the information reviewed on a COGA call
... If that is the only comment you enter, that's fine

ShawnT: I see a note that there has been no editorial changes - that they are just asking about the structure of the page, not what they say

John K: I understand why you are saying that - I am confused by that too

julierawe: High up on the survey page, they say "please complete a thorough review. This is supposed to be a last call"
... To me, box 14 says we have already finalized the wording. In this go round we just have changed the structure
... I interpret this the opposite of ShawnT
... They are just tinkering with the structure thinking they have all the words worked out

ShawnT: I agree with that

<JohnRochford> +1 to Rain's commentary

ShawnT: Having the disconnect between having "this is the final" and every single one of them
... The survey should repeat that
... By the time I get to 14 I might have forgotten that part

Rain: I have a question for the group regarding timeline
... They are expecting this is a final round
... When we asked for an extension, they said January 4th
... When Lisa asked for an even further extension they said no
... Because the group is saying we don't feel comfortable as is

<JohnRochford> Sorry, that was not Rain. I am not recognizing voices. Would you please say your name before talking?

Rain: The next step could be to ask them to come to the 2nd meeting in January as a joint meeting

I think the next meeting is the 13th of January

scribe: Lisa I am happy to reach out and ask if we think that is a good next step

Lisa: I am not sure of the agenda
... I thought I had filled in the survey, but then Julie points out things I have missed
... The idea of doing full reviews of each one
... Some of us will get parts, others will get other parts
... I think we need a dedicated meeting where we collect all the comments
... In a 2 hour meeting, or something like that, then we can send it to them

John K: I fully agree

Lisa: Thank you Julie for paying so much attention to it

Rain: I guess I am trying to find out how to respond to them since they have a firm deadline
... I want to make sure I respond to that request
... To make it clear we are not happy with the document
... How about we write to them stating we need a multihour meeting where we take members through the drafts
... Because we are finding their structure so complicated
... We need to do this together
... How do people feel about that?
... We can do it together for those that want that, and others can do it on their own

John K: I agree with that. We are also concerned about the content. It has some striking concerns.

julierawe: As an immediate next step maybe Rain and Lisa could ask for clarification - is this the final look of this cognitive page
... Was COGA every shown a previous version
... I find it really surprising that COGA was not involved earlier
... If they are looking for review of both the wording and the structure
... I think everything else could be done by January 5th, but corrections to the cognitive page
... maybe that would meet their needs
... Also the tone of their cognitive discussion
... I would be happy to share the beginnings of a Google doc that people can contribute to
... Maybe having initial comments might help the rest of the team

Lisa: That would be great
... But I do not think we can get comments from everyone by the 5th

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 jenny

<kirkwood> +1

<Rain> +1

<ShawnT> +1

Jennie: proposal: review the survey if you can, then group call to review, schedule a joint call and forward an agenda after the group meets again

Rain: I have drafted an email

(reads from her draft)

<kirkwood> best possible document is too strong?

<julierawe> Rain: one suggested change to your email: make it "cognitive page" singular, not "cognitive pages" plural

Lisa: Thank you that sounds really good
... Julie please do share that Google Doc
... Do people want that if we are going to have a meeting to talk through it?

Rain: I think it is good to have Julie send that document to the group for those that are more comfortable working asynchronously

<Zakim> Rain, you wanted to address the note that I've drafted in response to EO

Lisa: OK
... The next meeting today on the Silver templates
... This meeting of COGA is completed
... We will meet again in 3 weeks
... Enjoy your break

*wrap up the minutes? Not?

<LisaSeemanKest> rssagent, make minutes

<Rain> Scribe: Rain

COGA Silver Subgroup meeting

Our clear language documents:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/WCAG_3_Coordination#Clear_Language

Structure document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CJ5QgJ1VA_k1xliois5pl5LGJ1GMYidUynt-6xpCKb4/edit

Lisa: purpose of this meeting is to make sure we are doing the right granularity because we really aren't sure
... we took the same thing and did it two ways:
... 1 is everything that has to do with clear langauge with one method and one outcome
... 2 is one outcome with five different methods
... we did one of these more filled out (not fully done)

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J1_ad5wR35m41hgKH-o3Sr_CwWWUUtDFoqBr3CRva7Q/edit#

Lisa: One big method makes it longer, which is harder to understand, but these are all things that have to be checked against in order to be successful

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uep5G4jzTw17-RmKC8aCW699nKTpZK1QVvOkUxzHG_Q/edit#heading=h.1et5sb74qcgm

Lisa: In the other case, they are split up
... Five methods to reach the same outcome, but all five have to pass to be successful with the outcome

Jeanne: huge amount of work, and thank you
... I'm sorry that we keep changing things. The truth is haven't worked it all out yet
... this particular example is really important because whatever we set up for WCAG 3 has to include Clear Language
... we've been experimenting with different approaches and that is why things keep changing.
... what you've done already is great. I'd like to have a discussion about the different ways we could approach it, and then we can start to see how well that fits with the ideas that AG has of how we can approach this.
... One of the things we could do. The methods we've set up are as described, pick and choose the ones that are approached.
... Maybe the way to approach is to actually split into five outcomes, each with an individual method.
... the Method would be attached to the outcome.

Rachael: question on the silver side. There is so much detail. Maybe rather than splitting into outcomes at this point, is use this as a talking point as we move forward through these discussions that we may have.

<Lauriat> +1, I like that approach

Rachael: Maybe get some complimentary items written like this. Then rather than ask COGA to break it apart, we do so and talk about it and figure out what to do now that we have this.
... Very sensitive to the fact that COGA has a lot on their plate.
... Don't want them spinning, think the information is here.

<kirkwood> +1

Jeanne: I like that idea

Lisa: what I'm understanding is that you actually don't know what you prefer, but this will be useful for you in determining it, and looking at this example where you actually have to do all of these things to make a clear paragraph.

Jeanne: we are very clear that you have to do all five and cannot just pick one.

Julie: I think we are talking about a total of 11 methods, each which may be grouped under other outcomes.
... We have "clear and understandable language," as a guideline with three outcomes, one is understandable language, one is chunked information and visual presentation, and one is math concepts.

<jeanne> I realize there are more methods that haven't been written yet. I remember from doing the User Needs that there are more

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CJ5QgJ1VA_k1xliois5pl5LGJ1GMYidUynt-6xpCKb4/edit#

Wilco: first time seeing this document, so fresh reactions
... the biggest challenge it seems to me on any of this is to figure out firstly how do you measure this?
... How do you measure this well?
... Can you define it in a way that works for all languages universally?
... How applicable is this? Does this work for every document on the web? Or are there constraints and how do you identify them?
... Wondering to what extent that has been worked on.
... Also tend to agree that this will probably lead to multiple outcomes, so that seems good to me.

Lisa: we are thinking of those things as well. We are wording it to try to make it language neutral.
... we may need to point to some of the information on language specific needs in a living document, since there is so much information that may be language specific that we will learn over time
... that may be a better way of doing it, is having a reference page of the information as we collect it.
... We've tried to include other specifics (Lisa shared some of those specifics, didn't note them all as scribe!)

<jeanne> +1 to the Hemingway and Grammarly tools

<jeanne> +1 to proposing multiple ways to validate. I remember a discussion a year or so ago to also allow an editor review or an organizational style guide

Lisa: would like us to have a joint meeting at some point on testability

Julie: calling attention to a section we started drafting.
... Asking, what is the first thing you should do. Started thinking from the old rating style, and different ways we can approach a method like this. We think the most important thing you can do is make sure the user has the most important information they need to complete a task.
... the next level up is about any information the user may need to know regarding safety, risks, privacy, health.
... then the third level is if everything is written in this simple tense and voice. We are already trying to think about, within a method, how to look at this complexity.

<jeanne> +1 to a good idea of breaking up the scoring -- but we aren't ready for scoring yet.

<Zakim> Rain, you wanted to take stock of what we want to get out of this meeting

<Zakim> Wilco_, you wanted to talk about next steps

Wilco: follow up with conversation from test reliability group.
... Suggest working on examples, as that helps drive these conversations.
... Finding the edge cases and showing examples of when it is over the edge, when isn't it?
... Would help to have examples of those types of things in different languages. The more diverse the set of examples, the better.

Jeanne: I like the idea of doing examples, hesitant about COGA putting more time into this. If there are a couple of people that want to work on examples, that would be helpful to us. We've done a new document on how to write good testable outcomes.
... The examples are part of that.

Lisa: it will help to know the granularity when we make examples.

Jeanne: yeah, that's why I don't think we should ask COGA to do any more right now. We should start playing around with this ourselves. We have the basic information.

<Rachael> +1 to playing with it ourselves. If we (Silver side) try out what is written with an example or two we will 1) have feedback and 2) be able to use this better within our decisions

Jeanne: I hear very much what Lisa is saying about spinning. Do you think, Wilco, that we have enough to work with?

Wilco: I don't know. I haven't read the document in detail.
... We can take it to Silver or AG and have a conversation about what the group thinks about the direction.

Jeanne: that is definitely an option.
... I'm almost thinking we should put this on hold for a little bit until we get a little further with conformance.
... We know there are people in AG who feel that this can't be done and therefore we shouldn't try. I don't want to turn this over to them.

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to suggest bringing to Silver to share and recruit others to help work on examples from here

Lauriat: want to plus one the things I'm hearing. Next steps would be to bring this work to the silver group.
... bring it to the Silver task force, not the full working group, to help build the examples.

Rachael: clarifying statement of "this can't be done" -- there are people who are concerned about this. That's okay, becuase part of teh conversation is figuring out how to make it work.
... We have to figure out how it can be done

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to clarify "this can't be done"

Rachael: this is hard. This is why we have WCAG 3. It's a lot of work. Do think that what you have created here gets us on the path.

Wilco: I agree. I'm one of the people who is in the "I'm not so sure this can be done" camp, but what is key here is that we are still trying to figure a lot of this out.
... Even if we have a solid proposal tomorrow, we still have a fairly unproven solution. The development of these kinds of things takes a lot of time.
... Getting this mature and proving that it works and building up broad agreement.
... We are inventing new technology here.

Lisa: what new technology are we inventing?

Wilco: a way to determine a universal reading level

Lisa: I think we are following plain language guidance that is widely available and has been around for decades. There is nothing here that seems particularly new.

Jeanne: and it isn't reading level, either. That is an important distinction.

Rachael: what I do think is new and we should all recognize is hard is that clear language has a few aspects that are different from what we right now.
... it is harder to measure, and looking at a more holistic point of view.

<kirkwood> for example, ‘reading level’ is mechanically tested, and plain language is in US law

Rachael: If we can figure out technology to do that, that is a beautiful thing, but there is a lot that we have to figure out. This is why these COGA examples are helfpul.

Wilco: the challenge to me is the universality.
... How to make it work for every language.

As scribe, Rain missed a bit of feedback from Lisa regarding policy and having to giving guidance to reach maximum number of people.

Lisa: we need the way to be able to allow people to look at it with different lenses.

Michael: new thought haven't mentioned to anyone. Wondering if we might tag things like methods and tests, potentially even outcomes, with languages that they apply to, and not necessarily individual languages but language families.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> fantastic idea

Michael: Already planning on having the guidelines structured with filterability.

<Wilco_> +1 Definitely worth exploring

Michael: Methods may look different in other languages.
... Principle might apply to other domains of diversity.

<Rachael> really interesting idea

Lisa: supporting this idea
... more robust

Michael: and if people are doing a translation, then they can work with us on guidance

Lisa: suspect something very helpful would be that if we look at all the plain language things and start thinking about examples.
... Not working more on the template until we get more feedback from Silver.
... Does that sound like a good way to continue to make some progress?
... that might help with what Wilco is raising, and with us not doing work that isn't helpful because w'ell use these examples, anyway?

<kirkwood> There are ways to handle both languages, translation and interpretation (legally address handled 37+ languages): feel free to look at https://www.schools.nyc.gov/ through hybrid of technology and trained staff

Jeanne: I can come to a meeting (and maybe Wilco, too) to start working on these examples

Wilco: I'd be happy to
... would like clarification on granularity of exmaples.

Lisa: question is whether the outcome should have all five separate methods where you have to do all of them to reach the outcome.
... next steps, start working on the examples

Wilco: yes examples are never a waste of time

Rain: another next step is Jeanne to take the work we've done to Silver to inform their work, and they'll get back to us on granularity

Lisa: third next step is to have a conversation about testability, and the concerns about testability.
... I think we need to understand more on what the concerns are about testing.

<Wilco_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sugAtqie_x1XqHDZo1Im7ftDNllWeRV_ty4PULeoTV0/edit?usp=sharing

Jeanne: adding acknowledgement that heard what Lisa said in the AGWG meeting about testability vs. user needs.
... believe this is possible. I think we can do testability and include the COGA user needs.

<Lauriat> +1

<julierawe> Thanks!

- DRAFT -

Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

16 Dec 2021

Attendees

Contents

COGA Silver Subgroup meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output