<lisa> zakem, next item
<Le> David, could you please drop the the link for that study you were talking about? I'd love to take a look.
<lisa> zakem, next item
Updates and Actions. See https://
docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/ edit#
Lisa: EO document
… It is looking good. We still have to work on it a bit more.
… Julie - do you want to organize a meeting for next week?
Julie: Yes, I will send around another survey. I will send a calendar invite once we agree on a time.
Rain: We have an issue now around the personas
<Rain> Issue regarding EO personas: https://
Rain: They had asked that we publish it as a formal issue on github so they can track it
… Lisa, I tagged you on it
… It is also on our timeline document as well
… Please feel free to add to the issue if you would like to
Lisa: We still have the document that Julie's taking the lead with
… and we have these other comments. That's fantastic.
… The other 2 items are at good places.
… David F has been doing work on the mental health - it would be great if you could put it somewhere
David F: Can someone email me the link?
Lisa: I will put it on my to-do list.
… Jennie will give a review later.
Julie: The Google form was shared last week with the COGA team.
<Fazio> Schizophrenia and internet use paper: https://
Julie: There are now 2 ways to submit examples: use the Google form, or use the Google doc
… Any example submitted will be debated by the team
… Clear language examples
… Anywhere you submit an example is locked down (non-public) so you can submit live examples
… If we decide to include any example in a draft we share with the public we will anonymize it
Lisa: Link for the Google form for Clear Language?
Lisa: They don't have headings indicating which are for the community group or the task force
… We have also asked if everyone can submit 2 examples - that is really helpful for us
… They can be good examples, bad examples, or those that need discussion
Julie: Thank you for pointing out that the Google form - I adjusted the title so it is clearer. The one above is the task force one
Le: Everything is fine with my tasks
Lisa: There was another item sent to the list - our work statement
… We reviewed the work statement, it went both to APA and to the AG working group
… They both approved it
… It is now online as the new work statement of what we are doing
… Thank you Roy for putting that up!
… Now we want to work on it, achieve it
… Well done everyone!
Rashmi: I have made some changes in the Clear document example - should I share that form?
Lisa: We have a task force meeting afterwards, so I have not put it on the agenda today
… If we have time at the end of the meeting, we can review it then
Update on WCAG 3 and testing
Lisa: I am using it
Lisa: We will move to the next item until Rachael joins
Gaudenship draft https://
docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 1oNrl_kghy8J1Pab-L1a_XNZr4YsIMrbEgYuttOCvtFo/ edit#
Jennie: sharing guardianship draft doc
… took all suggestions and starting to go through to incorporate them. When two conflicted, we merged the concepts together
… example, took both problem statements to ensure that we had both concepts included
… now a couple things left to resolve. Will go through those after reviewing the structure
<Jennie> Guardianship document: https://
Jennie: structure review, start with the Goal
… changed the document to reflect the goals of the document
… people in a person's life may also require cognitive support
… spoke through different types of requests for people who are in the community groups
Jennie: first unresolved comment
… vulnerability is a consideration
… if a person is vulnerable in any way,
… want to verify that having two examples of vulnerability are helpful
Jennie: example 1: robo calls and phishing attacks targeting adults with cognitive challenges
Jennie: would like to remove "other"
Jennie: general agreement in the chat, so removing the word "other"
Julie: see two examples in the paragraph, so want to suggest considering turning them into bullet points for easier skimming
Jennie: doing that not
Jennie: second suggestion, in online interactions, when identity is available through publications people they might encounter who are not part of their daily interactions may become aware of them
… so individuals who participate may become a target
… any concerns?
Lisa: need to clarify language, and in W3C, person's identity is available in publications
Jennie: we've been using the word publications to include W3C, so adding official notes, meeting minutes, use case publications
… enough to give the idea without listing every kind of publication
Jennie: if a person is not savvy about publishing their name, then what can happen is that they may not be aware that someone can search the internet and find their address
Le: yes, we ran into that a couple of years ago, where states started publishing tax reports
… so if someone owns a home, you can get their address from their name
Lisa: how about "this can be important if the person's address is findable on the internet"
… was not the point I was making
… discussing challenges, and what people do for security, what they do isn't secure
… have to make very sure that that doesn't happen
… example of a potential issue, that now people know that someone writes their password and puts them next to their desk
<lisa> I like how it looks now
Jennie: what we may need to clarify that individuals may not be aware that people are reading the minutes, so what they share can impact their safety
… may need to qualify how we write it be specific to cognitive
… could we qualify "related to disability" to sharing use case and address being findable to highlight the difference for people with cognitive disabilities doing these tasks
Lisa: not sure we need to spell it out, because disability information is sensitive no matter what kind of disability it is
… I think this says enough
Jennie: okay, then going to accept the suggestion that we have and that will resolve the issue
Jennie: suggestion from Michael Cooper, note that this applies to participants in non public groups but where the content is public
… W3C may at its discretion grant member access to confidential information
MichaelC: I'm not sure this applies in this situation
Jennie: one of John Kirkwood's concerns was where one person in a corporation grants ability to participate to others in their corporation who are not part of the group itself
MichaelC: refers to member confidential groups. None of the WAI groups are member confidential
… for all groups we are talking about, not sure this is relevant
… more complex if we are also trying to talk about member confidentiality
Jennie: challenge we were having is how to scope the document. Not just relevant to COGA, but to any W3C group
… went through remainder of comments, and broke out the suggestions into Recommendations headings, with proposed
… pieces that apply to before you become a member, ways to help people participate, and support person or organization option
<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to talk procedure and tooling
MichaelC: do we need some kind of proceedure or tooling?
… what do we need official tools for, and what can we do by improving procedures?
… member representative has precedent
… there is enough content and questions now to bring to the legal team, so suggest doing that now
Lisa: do you feel would be interesting for them to look at as is, and then finish in the next 3 weeks?
MichaelC: yes, think would be good to have them look at it as is so that they can respond to them now
Jennie: feeling secure about the level of security of the document, fine to share now
lisa: resolution is to allow W3C parties outside COGA to review
… and add comments
<lisa> reolution, to alow other w3c parties outside coga to review and add comments?
lisa: if agree, +1, if want to talk about more, 0, if against this, -1
MichaelC: putting on to do list to schedule a meeting with legal team
… think Jennie or John K to present, and will invite Lisa and Rain (off list)
Update on WCAG 3 and testing
Rachael: There are a lot of ways we refer to this
Rachael: We will try the exercise with the plain language group in the hour following this call
<kirkwood> sorry late work meeting just got in.
Rachael: We are talking about not just how to test, but how we will apply those tests
… Last week, the AG did an exercise
… We broke down existing success criteria and applied this process to see if this is a useful way to think about it
… It is exploratory
… It helps with the work on WCAG 3
… There are different categorizations
… Please add questions into the Queue if you have questions
… 1st, the smallest unit
… We don't have final terms for these
… this could be an interactive component, a paragraph, a dropdown...
… 2nd: the view
… In WCAG 2 that is the page
… In single page applications, all the states that can change - page is not currently sufficient
… 3rd: user process
… (reads draft definition)
… The process to go from point a to point b when completing a task
4th: the aggregate of all those things
… The Wholistic thing we can test
… We test in WCAG 2 these things implicitly
… Talking about them clearly has been helpful
… Next: 4 types of tests
… 1: fully objective test
… Measures against a constant, like color contrast
… Totally objective
… Or, does something exist or not
… Easy to make machine testable
<lisa> maybe the task is important layer
4th: WCAG says "it must be there"
… The tests are objective, repeatable, easy to state
… WCAG 2 tried to make tests like this as much as possible
… 2: Condition (subjective) test
… Measures against conditions
… We say 8 of 10 experts would agree
… Less objective than test 1
… Text alternatives is an example
… You need both the constant test (alt text is present)
… And the condition test (quality of the alt text)
… Another example is meaningful sequent
… You have to evaluate the quality
… Now we are talking about aditionally more subjective
… 3: Test case - measures against an internal baseline set by the developing organization
… WCAG defines the types of conditions and the failures, but not the specifics
… Tests would pass if the (reads from slide 5)
… Example: wouldn't say what reading level would be required, but might dictate that the organization sets a reading level
… This concept hopefully lets us expand the types of tests, and incorporate more of the COGA type of tests
Lisa: Does this include/can this include user tests?
Rachael: The next one does.
… 4: Protocols: this is where user testing would most likely fall
… It would test whether a process was done
… There was a lot of talk about the quality of the results
… Most likely WCAG would have people state the date completed, the protocol
… (reads from slide 6)
… Pieces of plain language would be in other tests, but the full review would be here
… (now reviewing slide 7)
… None of this has yet been determined
Le: The test case: the idea is the customer saying this is my audience
… My goal is to have plain language for a certain grade level specific to my audience
… once they state their audience and their goal, then they have to follow it
Le: The protocol - you need to have things in place, like user testing
Lisa: On the units
… There is user process, and aggregate - none of them are actually a task with a goal
… I think that should be specified in one of them
… I think task is really important
… Rather than the flow of clicking through the process doable
… Did I understand the information - if my task was to understand what I needed to do before my procedure
… I wasn't sure that aggregate or user process
Rachael: User process is intended to be that. I will take that back to the group to make clearer
Lisa: Task completion may be "I now understand something that I need to do"
… That might involve search, reading the information at the end...that knowledge is really important, that it is clear
… That has to be tested for
… These look lovely
… Most interesting - thanks so much for all the effort into these building blocks
… The protocol testing group
… We have to make sure that the protocols and the test case ones
… Shouldn't be: you can do whatever you like
… You need to test it with the range of disabilities that are appropriate
… I would really want to review and comment on that protocol and test case
… as well as the subjective tests.
… I would love to see that well defined
… so we know what is included
… So we can test against the testing protocol
… and know that we have done it
Rachael: We are at the beginning of this, so I appreciate the chance to go over this with you
… The protocol currently meets on Fridays, but they are looking for a new time
… They are very much at the beginning of figuring out how to ensure the quality is there
… They will also bring those to AG if you cannot make the protocol group
… The protocols group are working on that problem
Lisa: It will depend which day for me
<julierawe> I'm still on the queue
Lisa: Please let us know when these meetings for review are up on AG schedule
Julie: The test case is a really interesting idea
… It may solve some problems
… But I am wondering: if an organization can set its condition
… If they say we are setting our reading level for college graduates
… How can we encourage organizations to be more inclusive?
… Is there work to have WCAG 3 reward groups that are more inclusive?
Rachael: That is a great question
… We have had conversations around different ways to score, however
… The trend right now in our conversations is to put that off for the time being
… We recognize that we need to solve the problem
… But we need to clarify what we are talking about - scoping the basics
… One way would be saying "yes, if you do this condition, here is guidance on what it should be if you are doing x
… A school should be doing a grade 6, not college level
… Or we can add points, but we just don't know yet how it will fit together
… But it is still on the schedule
Lisa: Is it better to run over a little bit, or pick this up again next week?
Rachael: That is the bulk of what I wanted to do with the main group
… There are 2 other concepts we are talking about right now
… Functional needs
Rachael: And user needs (which is new and exploratory)
… We don't need to discuss those now
Lisa: The plain language subgroup is meeting after this. We will take a 5 minute break
… And continue with examples
… Anyone going to be involved in any of the WCAG 3 subgroups - I recommend you attend
… It will be about how you add pieces into WCAG 3
<Rain> RRSAgent: make minutes
Easy to understand language examples
<lisa> RRSAgent: make minutes
<JohnRochford> +1 to not just about hearing
<stevelee> Hey shawn, I'm happy to chat when you. I finally got my new PC setup just so.
<Rain> +1 I'm okay with taking writing out, as well
<ShawnT> could it be to recognize languages (English vs Spanish)?
<JohnRochford> +1 to Jennie's point about reading with AAC devices.
<lisa> we are adding to the speeker notes, comunication disorder, mental health
<Rain> Receptive communication
<Rain> Overall structure of the document, clear and understandable
<lisa> rain I cant understand with an echo
*Have to drop - have a good week!
<Rain> I have to drop off!
<ShawnT> I have to leave
<Jan_> My apologies - I had to drop for another call.
<Rain> I have to leave, but thank you all! See you in May!
<kirkwood> sorry was pinged on the hour
<lisa> RRSAgent: make minutes