<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: chriss

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: julieawe

<julierawe> Julie will scribe

<LisaSeemanKest> next item,

actions https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#heading=h.ka7r1m4q5vkc

<julierawe> Lisa sent email to COGA and APA leaders with thoughts on CSS scroll

<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: chris

<Jennie> *Chris - not sure if that scribe command will take your name because it does not use the username in IRC. Maybe try it with the username just in case?

<cweidner> scribe: cweidner

Update with EO - How ppl with disabilities use the web

follow up discussion to be had after this meeting

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

Rain: "Not sure if Clear Language group is ready since we had communicated they had another week"

<Rain> Mobile TF review link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lq0OZ4qwyLppH4qOcr1o8IaREg_HX276uye4lFq4Df4/edit#heading=h.nqqrx1yu1uw7

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

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

Lisa: Does anyone want to take review of the Mobile TF review doc?

Rain will take on

Julie: Do we want to add Cognitive as a category? Might need someone more technical to review.

Lisa: We will put on agenda for next week or the week after
... We had planned to thave MH subgroup meeting after this meeting, we had some cancellations. Do we want to have EL take this spot?

<ShawnT> +1 to that

Reminder: Mental health subgroup is in literary review. If anyone else wants to participate we could use the extra hands.

We will work on the EL doc in a working meeting after this call.

Subgroup updates: Work continuing. Further updates to come

Welcome to new COGA member, Le!

Julie: Let me know if you need any assistance for IRC use and the like.

Le: "Thanks for the welcome. I come to COGA as an Accessibility engineer at TCI. Identify as neuro-divergent. Both a learning and advocacy journey for me."

Lisa: 1 more week for MH literary review. Another call for extra hands.

scribes please! https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list

<LisaSeemanKest> close item 2

work statment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m7-BSm9IFWN9tszIf24oVnFRpq-4n27CKCiXXxMqaYs/edit?pli=1#

Looking for more scribe volunteers.

<julierawe> Here is link to the work statement: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m7-BSm9IFWN9tszIf24oVnFRpq-4n27CKCiXXxMqaYs/edit?pli=1

COGA drafted work statement and received comments from others. Rain and Lisa have made some changes that they would like some feedback from the group on.

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> I am comfortable with either

We've specifically changed some language that were proposed by Rochelle to "mental health conditions related to cognitive accessibility" in order to cast a fairly wide net, without claiming everything.

<julierawe> Would "mental health conditions that often affect cognition"?

<julierawe> Or maybe "Common mental health conditions known to affect cognition"?

<Jennie> Affecting or impacting cognitive function?

<julierawe> "Mental health conditions that often affect focus and other cognitive skills"?

<kirkwood> rather see change “related to”affecting” cognitive accessibility

<Le_> It seems like what your getting at is "the intersection of mental health conditions and cognitive function"

<Jennie> Affect or impact?

John and Julie: Would like to see a tweak to the language of 'related to' or 'affect'

<kirkwood> +1

edit: John K

John R: Would like to place emphasis around focus.

<Le_> It feels a bit confusing to me that this bullet is so much longer and offers examples when none of the others do.

Rain: Chairs of APA and AG had concerns about broad scope around MH conditions. Would suggest focusing our interest in MH conditions is how they affect cognition and cognitive accessibility

<julierawe> +1 to Jennie's comment!

Jennie: would like to replace "cognitive accessibility" with a different phrase related to the person

<ShawnT> what about making the subset into a sublist

<Rachael> Rachael: chairs wanted to acknowledge everything but not necessarily restrict which are addressed

Le: perhaps "intersect"?

Lisa: We added a timeline to the working document for creating a standard for testing 'Making Content Usable'
... We think this is important to have included and be published. We don't currently have a formalized standard for how you test it. Do we want to make a commitment to create this?

Julie: Would this be done in tandem with the work we're doing with the Silver group?

Lisa: yes.

<Le_> I find this bullet exciting. :D

<Jennie> +1 to creating working draft of a standard for testing making content usable - at least to a process

Rachael: For awareness for Silver, there is work ongoing that this would need to intersect with.

Jennie: There are things that could be automated tests, and there are things that are newer testing process that we're unsure if they address the need fully. If we can identify a process for looking at these tests, that could be really helpful.

<LisaSeemanKest> do we want to add Create a working draft of a standard for testing making content useable

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<julierawe> +1

+1

<Jennie> +1

<kirkwood> “a standard process”

<Rain> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Rachael> +1 in coordination with Silver and with input from ACT

<ShawnT> +!

<ShawnT> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

<Le_> +1

<julierawe> Rachael, what does ACT stand for?

<Rachael> ACT is the testing centered taskforce under AG. It standards for Accessibility Conformance Testing. https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/

Lisa: Exploring opportunity to have a section of Making Content Usable published as a W3C Statement.

<LisaSeemanKest> Publish a section as a W3C statement

<LisaSeemanKest> do think is want to Publish a section as a W3C statement

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<julierawe> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<kirkwood> more explaination pls

<Rain> +1

<Jennie> Not sure I understand

W3C used to publish 'notes' and 'specification'. MCU is currently a note. Making it a specification would be difficult. This would be an opportunity to do something a little closer to a specification-- Would need to go through the AC of the W3C and receive a vote to be adoped.

<kirkwood> +1 to W3C Statement

Jennie: What would the timeline be? Its likely additional research would be required.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest "Publish key parts of Making Content Usable as a W3C Statement"

<Jennie> +1

<Jennie> +1000

Lisa: Looking at the end of 2024.

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<krisannekinney> +1

+1

<Rain> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Le_> +1

<julierawe> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> A subset of mental health conditions ( focusing on thows affect cognitive function, such as memory and focus).

<Jennie> Suggestion: focusing on affects on cognitive function, such as memory and focus

<Rachael> I think Le's suggestion should be considered. Something like: "A subset of mental health conditions that intersect with cognitive and learning disabilities"

<Jennie> +1 to Le + Rachael's suggestion

Jennie: Plain language concern around "intersect"

<kirkwood> “I’d change intersect” to “directly affect”

<LisaSeemanKest> vote on A subset of mental health conditions that intersect with cognitive and learning disabilities

<julierawe> -1

<Le_> +1

<Rachael> 0

<Jennie> focusing on where there is overlap with cognitive function, such as memory and focus

<Jennie> aack Jennie

<LisaSeemanKest> A subset of mental health conditions ( focusing on where there is overlap with cognitive function, such as memory and focus).

<Rachael> Please take out the ( )

<Jennie> ackJennie

JohnK: Echoing issue with "intersect" suggest "affect"

<Le_> A subset of mental health conditions that directly affect cognitive and learning outcomes. ?

<krisannekinney> +1 to Rain

<kirkwood> +1

<LisaSeemanKest> A subset of mental health

<Le_> +1

Rain: I think we are overcomplicating. Would suggest returning to Chair recommendations. Meant to be high-level.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<Jennie> +1

<julierawe> +1

<Rachael> +

+1

<LisaSeemanKest> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2022Jan/0033.html

<LisaSeemanKest> SPEC: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-scrollbars-1/#scrollbar-width

Lisa: Making CSS scroll bar smaller or reducing contrast would hurt usability--suggested adding a warning for reduced accessibility

<LisaSeemanKest> ask for warning about reduced accessibilty

We could also object, but might be a little much.

<julierawe> The section about 'thin' scrollbar says "The scrollbar must nonetheless remain wide enough to be usable." Not sure what to make of this wording?

Jennie: Also mentioned before double scroll bars being an issue. Is this the time to elevate that as well?

Lisa: Yes!

<Jennie> Include a recommended target size?

Julie: Concern about the wording in the doc about scroll bar width. Not sure what it means.

Jennie: We could also request a similar process for looking at target size and visual affordances.

Lisa: I think we would want to write a new draft and get some comments and feedback before submitting.

<julierawe> +1

Lisa: Does anyone want to take a crack at drafting? If not, I'll take it and send it out soon.

Subgroup meeting, Clear Language

<Rain> 5 minute break. We will start item 6 at 5 minutes after the hour

clear language

<Rain> scribe: Rain

<Le_> query

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yOUZtzLlFwWQqM_OPpELK5fvFYqhuIV_hWTVBaSCK5M/edit#

<Le_> i dont mind if others have this email so if this is still in the main chat no worries. LM61613@gmail.com

Julie: clarifying that we are looking for examples of how clear language is successful, how it fails, and also the edge cases that look like they may pass but actually don't

<LisaSeemanKest> the muinits have not worked

Lisa: concerned that we are adding different language from content usable

For record as scribe, I'm not documenting all of the conversation, just the high level decisions, at the moment, since we are working in a Google Doc

Lisa: we are trying to do Clear Langauge as an outcome, or Clear Language as a method

<kirkwood> sounds good work on 1-6

Lisa: suggest that we add a table with each example that shows which ones it breaks and why
... since pattern by pattern is limited, and if an example breaks one it probably breaks many

Julie: a really good question. In real world, things are messy, but it may be easier for people using the document to see the examples isolated
... with each example showing very clearly how something passes or fails for a particular method

Lisa: interested in also making sure that we pull in examples from other langauges so that we can be sure to have examples of where there may be problems asking if this is widely applicable for all languages?

<ShawnT> I speak French but don't write it. I can see if my works would like to get involved in translating into French.

<Le_> I've got to head out for another meeting in 5 minutes.

Julie: confirming that Lisa is advocating that from the very beginning we include examples in other langauges

<LisaSeemanKest> Confusion regarding sklearn MDS 'init' argument for fit_transform

<kirkwood> agreed

Jan: struggling because there will be sites that are specific to skillset. If there are automated tools, great, but the likelihood of getting people to agree is nill. We need to consider skillset specificity as an option for passing.

Julie: for next meeting, please focus on the first six methods and try to research how those methods do or don't apply to other languages, and we will continue the debates next week

Subgroup meeting with EOWG

We will be starting at the hour

EOWG and COGA joint meeting regarding how people with disabilities use the web document

Link to join: https://mit.zoom.us/j/676992029?pwd=Y21saTN6V1lla2R1NC9xOG9Ub2VDZz09

We are doing introductions (not scribed) -- attendees include Brent, Sharron, Kevin from EO, and JohnK, Julie, Lisa, Rain from COGA

Adding attendees: Kris Anne from EO and COGA, and Rachael from COGA

Sharron: this document has been on our charter for quite a while, and only when Kevin took editorship did we start making forward progress.
... as with so many documents, we feel we are behind
... our hope at the beginning of 2021 is that we would publish by the end of the year. Clearly we didn't. Not just because of COGA. EO also had lots of comments.
... Kevin and small team of editors have their day jobs to do. Not a surprise to anyone, never does meet expectations.
... But now our current goal for publication is the end of February
... We would like it to go through the next couple of iterations of comments and publish by the end of the month

Brent: this is also contingent upon creating some videos that will support and be complimentary to the user stories, as well
... we were going to do some videos about WCAG success criteria. With changing resources of people involved, we've had to make a transition.
... We'd like to prioritize supporting these user stories. Don't want to wait too long to stabilize the stories because our video creation is dependent on that

Sharron: user stories and perspective videos make sense to people and help illustrate the needs
... comments got from Julie were terrific. Clear, helpful, just the type of feedback like to get.

Julie: asking about importance of nailing down user stories so that EO can start the video production. Is that sooner than end of February?

Sharron: no, publishing the text version will be previous to video production, and are not contingent

Kevin: when we get to video production, we want to make sure we find someone who truly represents the stories we told. This may mean that when we find the people, the stories may need to be adjusted, as well

Brent: in the videos, we don't want to use actors portraying, but rather find real people
... want to be as authentic as we can

Moving on to having Julie lead us through our discussion of our feedback

Julie: three big things we want to bring forward
... First thing, the cognitive, learning, and neurological page uses different terminology and wanted to get a better understanding of why this grouping was chosen
... User stories, there were a couple of concerns. We were confused as to why there were such similar personas as in content usable, but different? Why not just pull ours in and adjust as needed.
... Also had some questions about the template for the user stories. Different documents seem to use different formats. Is there a way we can bring some coherence to how the stories are presented
... Third issue was that there were references to changes in the previous version to make long sections easier to navigate. We found the structure in the current version to be confusing. Weren't sure if we were supposed to scroll over things, or where to go next.
... Those are our three big buckets.

Lisa: the page for cognitive and learning disabilities (https://deploy-preview-113--wai-people-use-web.netlify.app/people-use-web/abilities-barriers-cognitive/), we found adding neurological confusing
... We also found that the content on this page could use a re-write
... If easier, we (COGA) could take a stab at writing it, but we need to understand the groupings because the groupings seem to be different from those in our guide and glossary.

Kevin: the way the resource breaks down -- this is an early resource, been around for a long time
... Has gone through many revisions as awareness, times, and advances in AT have changed
... big driver in this edit was to look at the stories of web users and align how they were written and what they are talking about, and improve the consistency across them
... and also provide specific small nuggets of use cases
... this is why we've broken down barrier examples to show what is good and bad
... section with diverse abilities and barriers, which includes cognitive learning and neurological, has not undergone any edits
... so not unreasonable that it could do with an update
... I certainly won't say no if you want to take the task of editing and updating this
... would be more than happy to receive something along those lines. We haven't gone through that because it wasn't the primary focus. We only looked at it in terms of the structure to make them less big wall of text.

Lisa: so you would want us to keep the same structure?

Kevin: yeah, because if we look across that resource, what is it trying to do is given an introduction to the range of abilities, disabilities and barriers.
... Not about being comprehensive. Just an introduction to get people into it, and then link through.
... Each of those pages links through to a related user story, so that you are getting a broad overview of the disability area.

Lisa: we will take the action item of going over this document and make a draft to send you.
... we'd also like for our user stories to be as similar as possible so that they can be merged, like what we are doing with techniques for the AG group
... we had scenarios that linked to specific challenges and needs
... as a structural question, moving forward, we could put in some of the things you are doing, but do you see a value in getting the personas to be more similar?

Kevin: stories we've got have been built up over the years and haven't changed them yet. We did a bit of analysis to look over the broad range of persona sets, including COGA document. What we tried to do was look at all the needs being expressed and identified, and look at gaps.
... to try and ensure that we will not get 100% coverage
... quite useful that we have multiple different stories and talk about someone with Down syndrome in two different places in two different ways
... show that there are different experiences

Lisa: talking more about the template
... it would be a lot of work

Julie: sounds like if we were to take the cognitive page and create a new draft, but to follow your structure, that makes sense
... would like more clarity on if it is essential to keep neurological on the page? Or could we remove or replace that?
... part of our issue with that page is that including neurological becomes very messy because at the intersection of so many things, and a departure from how COGA is doing its work

Kevin: absolutely, resource has been around for a while. Only makes sense that now that the language is changing and moved on, makes sense to revisit that.
... Maybe one part to think about, which is the URL and how we change that URL (not sure if that matters)

Actual URL: https://deploy-preview-113--wai-people-use-web.netlify.app/people-use-web/abilities-barriers-cognitive/

Kevin: coming back to Lisa's comment on the structure of the persona
... purpose I try to bring to personas, is to tell a story of as real a person as we can
... we know that these are hypothetical people that are aggregates of research, etc.,
... but we want to create empathy with a person who is as real as we can possibly make them
... part of this is creating that story, try to connect as much as possible people with the real life experience (with air quotes)
... this is why the story element is different from the content usable document, because that is more deeply focused on the scenarios
... it's not just about the person having a challenge with captcha and font size, but rather who they are, their hobbies, etc., then start to weave in where problems start because of your design, to bring that alive
... that is the difference I'm trying to bring to that

Lisa: nothing contradictory with what we are doing, to build empathy and manage expectation
... there is so much education that is needed, so this helps start to make sense of what we are suggesting we do
... not just about pulling heart strings and making them into real people, but also building understanding of the specifics of what people are trying to do and how the barrier interfere
... so think the motivation is very much inline
... we probably have a bigger burden to make the people part of the group of the audience, who you care about, because there is so much prejudice in the area we are working
... so making people someone you know and care about, and why they have problems with accessibility
... think we are on the same page on what trying to achieve
... our comment is whether there is a way we can work on consistent presentation of deliverables to make it easier for people working across W3C resources to recognize a consistent persona
... maybe our challenge here is on the emphasis of education of people who have no idea

Kevin: I think the other thing found is that these documents are in different spaces, with different formats.
... do have slightly different purposes. Scenarios are brilliant because they go into detail. Our snippets serve different purposes.
... bigger discussion to ask what we do want to do with them, and how we get them aligned.
... WAI is about opening up to in depth stuff

Sharron: wanted to also add regarding personas, conversely we also had the same question about why COGA didn't use existing personas when COGA was written, so this conversation on what is already there and how we can bring things into closer alignment is exactly the kind of conversation we should be having.
... Continue to be astounded by how many people don't know these resources are there.
... Great to start these conversations!

Lisa: wanted to know a bit about timetable and what we can zoom in on

(Transitioning to what is next)

scribe: and what our timetable needs to be so that we can do this in a thorough and useful way

Sharron: will need to take this back to the group because we have four or five projects moving forward right now
... have them lined with this one wrapping up at the end of February
... suggest that COGA takes a look and lets EO know how much time we are going to need.
... then the EOWG can work from there.

Kevin: I still have to go through all the feedback we've received so far and figure out what is quick response and what needs more discussion.
... its not as straightforward as just working on one section.

Kriss Anne: quick quesiton for clarity: the diverse abilities and barriers page isn't really undergoing changes right now, so there isn't really a timeline for those?

Kevin: less likely going to be feedback on those pages, but we'd like to keep it together as a set

Rain: next step regarding the Cognitive and learning page is that our group figures out how much time we think we need to draft this page, and get back to EOWG. EOWG will then figure out how that fits into their timeline, and we will go from there.

Lisa: also need to figure out how we are approaching the consideration of the personas.
... maybe we should do a staggered approach. Maybe an in depth together of one of the personas, and we do a screenshare so that people know what we should be looking at, and then we send the comment son one

Julie: one thing that added to the confusion was that at least one of our members was looking at the existing publication. So it would be great if we could have time to look together at the version we are working on.

Lisa: we are really bad with surveys
... which is also what makes us good. You are testing it with a neurodiverse crowd

Next steps: 1. COGA figure out timeline for the cognitive barriers document, 2. Rain to work with Kevin to get him on our COGA call for persona review, 3. work with Rachael regarding template, 4. Rachael to arrange to demo WAI work to COGA

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: ShawnT, Jennie, Rain, julierawe, kirkwood, JohnRochford, Le_, Rachael, krisannekinney, !, brent, LisaSeemanKest
Present: ShawnT, Jennie, Rain, julierawe, kirkwood, JohnRochford, Le_, Rachael, krisannekinney, !, brent, LisaSeemanKest, cweidner
Found Scribe: chriss
Found Scribe: julieawe
Found Scribe: chris
Found Scribe: cweidner
Inferring ScribeNick: cweidner
Found Scribe: Rain
Inferring ScribeNick: Rain
Scribes: chriss, julieawe, chris, cweidner, Rain
ScribeNicks: cweidner, Rain

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 20 Jan 2022
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.)