– DRAFT –
Accessibility Functional Needs

Joshue108: Feedback on COGA call. Any thoughhts?

Joshue108_: How we felt it went, was it useful?

JakeAbma: Always useful. Felt like they thought they had something else than us, I don't think that's the case. We're not that far apart.

JakeAbma: Would be good for them to give feedback on FN list

Joshue108_: Usefule, constructive meeting, and open to their ideas and input.

Scope has to be managed.

<Joshue108_> Not this one? https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2/supplemental/#cognitiveaccessibilityguidance

<JakeAbma> https://w3c.github.io/coga/user-research/

<Joshue108_> JOC: I really like this https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2/supplemental/#cognitiveaccessibilityguidance

<Joshue108_> Useful, clear, terse

<Joshue108_> + 1 to using this - nice way of adding these COGA requirements into our Matrix

Have to step away for a minute

<Joshue108_> <discussion on naming conventions on Adapt etc>

<Joshue108_> JOC: Next steps on COGA

<Joshue108_> JOC: Lets invote COGA again in a month, Josh to reach out to Rain and Lisa and we can discuss approaches to using the Suppl guidance doc

<Joshue108_> JOC: I thought it would be interesting to hear their perspective on our Deceptive Patterns work

<Joshue108_> We can add that our agenda for next time.

Review of Jeanne and Mary Jo's feedback

<Joshue108_> Review of Jeanne and Mary Jo's feedback

<Joshue108_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ZeCqTRTY0lmWvp1Xv_wO0iH1OzyECBa1UXQ_UeocjQ/edit#heading=h.4jiwp8jpc143

<Joshue108_> They've added comments on our doc- lets discuss

<Joshue108_> Main Functional Needs - Main User Needs - Main Outcomes

Joshue108_: Walking through wwhat Jeanne and Mary Jo left in their feedback

Joshue108_: Can walk through comments left in the doc

<Joshue108_> <Discussion of Bruces comment - on Safety>

JakeAbma: Big problem with intersections

Josh, I missed that, I've got fires at work I'm trying to contain

<Joshue108_> MC: Safety is a general user need and not a functional need as such

Thanks Josh.

<Joshue108_> We could on that basis remove

<Joshue108_> JA: I have an issue with some of these intersections - we should review

<Joshue108_> MC: Discussion of user needs for Deafblind

<Joshue108_> JA: Some blind users may not know braille- or have their needs covered in other places

<Joshue108_> JA: There are potentially endless amounts of intersection, so we have to be careful

<Joshue108_> MC: Right, we should not create intersections because we can

<Joshue108_> I'm inclined to be minimal

<Joshue108_> MC: Lets keep it simple, if we can avoid some intersectional joinings

<Joshue108_> JOC: It's an issue of coverage

<Joshue108_> So the question is do we still need this "Essential Use without physical harm or risk (to self or others within a physical environment)"

<Joshue108_> MC: We should bring Charles back in.

<Joshue108_> JOC: Do know harm *grin

<Joshue108_> I think it was XR related

<Joshue108_> MC: What about multiple disabilities?

<Joshue108_> JOC: Right, and competing user needs.

<Joshue108_> JA: In this case - we should ask people to prove something is an issue, or the requirements of the intersection doesn't work

<Joshue108_> This would be a trigger to see if it is something that we should actually document

<Joshue108_> MC: Makes sense

<Joshue108_> MC: So not abandoning the possibility of an intersection but expecting them to be exceptional

<Joshue108_> JOC: I'll ping Charles and see where he is at

<Joshue108_> <Discussion on Lisas comment on 'Restoring context' for people with dementia>

<Joshue108_> JA: This could already be covered by the existing functional need - on memory etc