Rain: Proposing that we make sure all the content is in here that needs to be in here and then we can return it to EO and ask them to help with the structure.
<lisas> nrain: lets focus on giving them the right info. make sure the content is correct. leave format to them
<lisas> lisa and kris anne agrees
Kris Anne: Agreed. We want to make sure we have the right content and also make sure that there's continuity on the page.
<lisas> julie is fine with this
Julie: During the last meeting of the document, we came up with a good summary - as long as we're keeping the summary short, it's okay to go longer in the other sections.
<lisas> lisa's draft
Lisa: Below the summary, we want to make sure the information is correct and that the information EO may want is in there.
Julie: Please look at the summary and make sure you're okay with it.
<Rain> +1 to invisible
Kris Anne: I think "invisible" is a better word choice than "hidden:
Julie: starts with a definition of Making Content Usable
Rain: The term, "impairment," may not set well with certain types of disabilities. For some people who are neurodiverse don't see their neurodiversity as an impairment - they see the environment as presenting barriers because of the way it's defined.
Julie: What about differences in disabilities?
Lisa: differences in disabilities is fine
Julie: The paragraph below the bullets tries to describe how cognitive disabilities may or may not affect intelligence
John: A legal, societal, and a functional perspective should all be represented here.
Rain: +1 to what John said about legal, societal and functional. There are actual legal classifications that impact people's lives as well as various assistive technologies - this has a lot to do with how national and local laws. An intellectual disability is defined very differently, depending on the country you're in.
John: The way it's currently written, it doesn't effectively represent the legal aspect of cognitive disability. We need to represent what affects a person's ability to live independently. There may be barriers in the environment that prevent them from meeting their goals.
Julie: What if we add a sentence about how their ability to live independently can be affected?
Lisa: I don't think this is going to achieve what we want. I think the problem is that we are trying to move away from the stereotype of someone living in an assisted home or their parents because if they are, they can ask someone to come help them. Everything can affect a person's ability to live independently. Our audience are web authors who have come to read an overview. I think we want to help build empathy and see people in this target audience.
Lisa: Lots of things affect people's ability to live independently. Some people can manage it and some people can't.
Julie: I think it's important for a coder in the UK to understand that what they are calling a learning disability in their country may be called something else somewhere else.
Lisa: What are we trying to achieve? What information do we want in here? I am not sure that everything here is what was in the original summary from Content Usable.
Lisa: We felt that it was important that we talk about some functions are impaired while other cognitive functions are not affected. I think that's an important sentence that isn't in this draft.
Kris Anne: The beginning of this paragraph seems a lot like the introductory paragraph and I am concerned about it being redundant.
Lisa: I copied things over from Content Usable. We need to check it against the introductory paragraph.
Lisa: I wanted to make sure we cover some functions are impaired, while other functions are not affected.
Julie: That is in the summary. I guess the question is whether we think it needs to be repeated.
Kris Anne: These paragraphs will probably be pretty close to each other. The second paragraph seems very similar to the summary. I just don't want people to check out before they finish reading it.
Rain: To reset us - if there's repetition right now, that's okay. We can go back and remove repetition later.
Kris Anne: In EO, we just want to make sure that we're keeping the audience so that they are getting the information we want them to have.
John: My concern is that it's not actually correct because the laws do not define disabilities - they just support the accessibility for them.
Rain: I am going to make a note in the document so that we don't wordsmith this one too much right now. We need to come back to this to rework the wording.
Julie: Moving down - we talk about vulnerable populations. I am not sure what that means.
Lisa: I think EO will know what that means.
Kris Anne: I think the term is often "at risk."
John: Yes, but I like vulnerable.
Julie: This is going to have a longer shelf life, so will the words we use be relevant in 5 years?
Lisa: I changed it to public health. EO can wordsmith from there.
Julie: Now we move into how people with cognitive disabilities can use the web effectively.
Lisa: I think there's been some meaning lost as this has been shortened from Content Usable.
Julie: If we send EO a bulleted list with long paragraphs, they will shorten it and we may not like how they shorten it.
Lisa: I don't think we have any other choice because what we want is for them to have all of the information so that they can shorten it.
Julie: Are we going to send something that is too long and then someone who is less familiar with this area will shorten it?
Kris Anne: You've taken things out of Content Usable to create the summary - why don't we shorten this and then have a link to Content Usable at the bottom so that we can point them to the document for more information.
Kris Anne: We can give them an introduction and then invite them to learn more from the Content Usable document.
Rain: I think that is an excellent use as an entry point. If we can make it clear that this is just the introduction and that Content Usable has all of the details.
Lisa: People with cognitive and learning disabilities rely on clear and easy to understand structure and design - I am going to write that down and hope it works.
Julie: and content
Julie: At the bottom of the introduction, there's a link to Content Usable
Rain: I just put that there. I am getting a link to the specific place in Content Usable that Lisa was referencing
John: There's one concept I would like to see here where we are talking about products that people need - many people look at designs meant for mobile on a large screen because it removes all the extraneous information.
Julie: I think that might make people think that is for intellectual disabilities
Lisa: I don't think that using mobile alone will work because there are often icons people don't understand
John: we often make that recommendation for people to use the mobile design on a larger monitor
Rain: We should use the term responsive. I also feel like we should use the term "assistive technology."
Lisa: I agree with the comment about "assistive technology," but I don't think "responsive" goes here. For some people, it may be "adaptive" - things that are integrated with a person's AAC, for example.
Lisa: What has been put in here is objective 8 from Content Usable, but it doesn't include information about things being adaptive.
Lisa: Now we are saying that designs that are adaptive to screens and external hardware is useful. I don't have data to back this recommendation up, but it's probably out there. We just have to find it.
Lisa: John's useful idea sounds like a pattern suggestion. We have not discussed this yet in COGA and come to consensus on this.
Lisa: We have a document for new pattern suggestions.
Rain: EO has a timeline we need to meet and we are running out of time. Lisa and I have a meeting on Monday - do we want to repurpose our Monday meeting to finish working on this document and then get it over to EO?
Lisa: Yes, that will work. Can Julie make the meeting?
Julie: I think it would be great to get this to EO, so it's not important to wait on me. Whatever we give them will be changed. I think it's important to include Learning Disability and Specific Learning Disability in the definitions.
John: I agree that the learning disability and specific learning disability needs to be defined.
Lisa: If we put in Specific Learning Disability, they are jurisdiction dependent and not following W3C guidance.
Rain: There are designations that differentiate learning disability and specific learning disability in US laws as well. When we meet next week, we can look at how to make definitions that are more international.
Lisa: We can't write definitions for learning disability and specific learning disability.
Rain: I think we need to clarify that these terms are relevant and that we have ways to point to resources.
Lisa: I think this is a real rabbit hole we've been down - which is why we landed on cognitive and learning disability - we would have to get people like Michael to sign off on it - if we define it in a way that might limit the jurisdictions, we need to make sure we are not violating any W3C guidance.
Rain: I have sent an invite to everyone for next Monday to continue this meeting.