Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

06 January 2022


Albert, cweidner, Fazio, JohnRochford, julierawe, kirkwood, LisaSeemanKest, Rachael, ShawnT

Meeting minutes

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe|: EA

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

Lisa requesting more scribes

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Actions moved to Google document. Lisa requested thoughts on layout of action items - need to be on the page as other groups as keep losing them.

EA present +

<Fazio> I can help

<Fazio> email me

Scrolling problematic - needs reviewing - draft by CSS on how to embed scrolling - comments needed in the next week. David F to help out.

<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6351 is for scrolling on a part of a page!

Issues for scrolling needed in Github,

David F to reach out to the group

EO feedback - checking if anyone on EO

Mobile taskforce requesting feedback followed by member action item - Albert feedback almost finished

Albert reckons it will be done by 13th Jan

After main call - mental health group meeting

<ShawnT> Is there a memory sub-group?

John Kirkwood working with Jennie on guardianship

Julie asked to update on Clear Language. - Feedback

<JohnRochford> Yes, I am here and have audio.

Julie mentioned that John was not getting links to subgroup. So many different methods that the group explained the difficulties to the Silver subgroup - testable outcomes were an issue discussed.

Lisa mentioned that they wanted to hear from Wilco about his views and in the meantime items that might pass or might not pass will be clarified.

John R felt there were several individuals who felt that making things testable was something that needs to be sorted out.

John felt that commentary will be re-opened if necessary and also working on accessibility of caption documents.

Lisa asked if someone from the Clear Language group wants to make the document open so people can add commentary.

<JohnRochford> John R. says he can join the clear language subgroup weekly meetings for the first hour, that the EOWG will reopen its doc if we have commentary, and that he is now working with Janina, Jason, and Alastair on the Inaccessibility of CAPTCHA doc.

Julia added that she was happy to help out with the structure for the document with ways to organise the examples. The silver group wants to provide guidance but wants examples of things that might fail etc to hone testing

Julie will set up the google document and add it to the page.

David mentioned that in APA there was a lot of discussion about the caption document - capture acronym needs to be looked at in terms the automated aspect - for content producers or users? etc

Caption or capture?

<JohnRochford> CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart)

Lisa round up of subgroups. Mental health - different aspects of 1st round of literary reviews to be finished off. Silver group - clear language examples. Image subgroup working on examples as well (Jennie, Raine and John K)

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

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

Thank you John R - please make a note - where capture and caption are seen it should be CAPTCHA.

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

<Rachael> Level 3: AG has high confidence in the direction and some confidence in the details

Rachael said that the labels need to be added to the actual document and the present labels are not ideal and need changing. Place holder at a basic level is accepted, Exploratory is acceptable but level 3 AG has high confidence and some confidence in detail 4

<Rachael> Level 4: AG has high confidence in the direction and moderate confidence in the details

<Rachael> Level 5: Content is believed to be ready to become a W3C Recommendation

Question is which of those in Level 3/4/5 make sense

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

Julie asked about the EO document about how people use the web - trying to understand the differences between level 4 or 5 -

Julie said comments can happen at each level and all are available - just at different phases in the development.

Comments are needed at all stages

Julie felt that this was clear from the levels in particular at level 5 where it is not that it is 'done'

<LisaSeemanKest> Developing, Refining, Mature

So level 5 can still be corrected and always have recommendations.

It is not finalised until it is actually published

<Rachael> initial draft (still needs work): https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/status-proposal/guidelines/index.html#normative-requirements

<julierawe> +1 to Lisa's comments!

Lisa felt personally that 'developing for stage 3, refining stage 4 and maturing for stage 5

Lisa from past experienced has learnt that mature does not commit to no changes

<Rachael> So: 1) Placeholder 2) Exploratory 3) Developing 4) Refining 5) Mature

Julie mentioned that this sounds good

John K agreed with Lisa's wording


<ShawnT> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> do peope like it

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<julierawe> +1

<Albert> +1

<Rachael> +1

<cweidner> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

Agreement overall with Lisa's wording for the various levels

<LisaSeemanKest> next item

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2022Jan/0005.html

Kris Anne Kinney sent an email in about EO

<LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1swkJVhcw60QuLJEOFgRtNHh5SVhJYlPPH8N4XBEG3Bc/edit#heading=h.nqqrx1yu1uw7

Lisa mentioned that there was disquiet about the origninal document so Julie put together a google document that summarised the thoughts about it all.

Lisa prposed that coga would spend the next 2 weeks reviewing the summnary of 'COGA review of “How People With Disabilities Use the Web”

It is a public document at present and will remain open whilst the review happens. EO wanted to close the survey feedback as they had quite a lot of feedback and wanted to work on what they had and then would allow for more feedback.

Julie felt that the minor fixes were easy - based on some lack of clear language and structure but the main issue was around the topic of neurological issues and coga

Modified proposal is that the group spend 20 mins on the page about cognitive issues this week and next week

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe! https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list [from LisaSeemanKest]

<kirkwood> yes very confusing experience

<julierawe> Here is the page on cognitive, learning, and neurological disabilities: https://deploy-preview-113--wai-people-use-web.netlify.app/people-use-web/abilities-barriers-cognitive/

Lisa is going to share the screen and open the document about “How People With Disabilities Use the Web”

<LisaSeemanKest> https://deploy-preview-113--wai-people-use-web.netlify.app/people-use-web/abilities-barriers-cognitive/

<kirkwood> very good point!

Lisa mentioned that she felt that Cognitive learning and neurological needs rewriting - summary not helpful

Julia agreed


Julie mentioned nervous system as being inexact - overly broad. Very complex needs to have clearer wording in particular the first paragraph

<kirkwood> +1

<Fazio_> technically I think its all neuro but it might be too confusing

Julie mentioned overall title not helpful - can neurological disorders be removed as very confusing.

<kirkwood> +1 neurological is problematic


<ShawnT> +1

<Fazio_> +1Lisa

Yes very broad and need to define it more

<kirkwood> unhelpful, confusing, doesn’t relate

Lisa confirmed that she felt it was unhelpful and the bullet points did not support it - can we ask if it can be redone.

John R said that perhaps they should have looked at Content Usable.

Julie said can we start with a blank slate.

John R said that they do not really feel content usable is suitable and maybe we need to understand this

Lisa mentioned other documents may be used

<Rachael> +1

Julie suggested we rewrite content to fit what is needed as one page and then present it to EO

<kirkwood> +1

<ShawnT> +1 to Julie

<kirkwood> +1 to Rachael suggestion

Rachael has mentioned that EO have a set of documents that they want to use - need to havea meeting with the Chair to discuss how best to move forward

<cweidner> +1

<JohnRochford> +1

John R said they would be open to the idea of a meeting with the chairs

Lisa said can we meet and work on this and has provided more links

<Rachael> Chairs are Kris, Brent and Sharron

<Rachael> www.w3.org/groups/wg/eowg/participants

Julie asked if we could return to the list of examples on the EO document - may be helpful to understand the broader territory or what is covered - including MS, perceptual difficulties etc.

Lisa pointed out the different definitions used in the document for a series of disabilities and difficulties.

Lisa moved on to the case study of Luis on the EO document. Not enough time

Julie mentioned structure issues - flow could be improved. Barriers before how to help

+1 to Julie's comments - problem with differences in layouts across W3C

<kirkwood> the structure is very different than others, several versions are an issue, laid out differently than other W3C materials. esp user stories format

<kirkwood> agree with EA comments

<kirkwood> will be back in a few

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).