<Lisa> note there is no subgroup meeting becuse of gadd
<ShawnT> .me thanks Rain
Lisa: thinking of having ICCHP being a face to face
Lisa: not sure if Lisa will be attending
<kirkwood> will do
Rain: program is set we have a room. sent out an email to task force and will do again once program is more flushed out. about virtual versus in person
… 2 session friday July 15 last day is W3C related stuff on that day
… first a project meeting about research in mental health space
… two puproses to find out about things we dont know about
second is recruiting
and second session is an educational session on making content usable. anyone can copresent in task force it would like
… we would like COGA task force feels like a group effort
… we also have a small room tuesday july 12th for upto 14 people
… need to decide today for them to announce a face to face
… task force members on that day as a hybrid for anyone attending in room. Google will be a cosposor with reasonable attendance to have screens to include virtually as best as possible. equally a part of conversation
… the room we have no matter what.
Lisa: can definitely attend virtually, and we have the space to do that
<kirkwood> I couild attend virtaully as well
Lisa: let's check if people want to have a face to face on July 12 (hybrid)
<ShawnT> +1 virtual
<Lisa> do you want a FTF at icchp on july 12th - will be hybrid.
<Becca_Monteleone> +1 virtual
kirkwood: clarify that FTF means hybrid virtual and in person
<kirkwood> +1 to F 2 F virtual
<Lisa> +1 virtual or hybrid
+1 to hybrid (will be in person, will support virtual attendance)
Lisa: if you object, put in -1. If you need more time to think, put in 0
<EA> E.A. +1 to hybrid (will be in person, will support virtual attendance)
julierawe_: mainly not sure if I can come, but think it's great to try to make this happen
Lisa: would you be able to call in?
julierawe_: most likely, yes
<Lisa> any objections
<julierawe_> Can I change my vote to +1? I misunderstood what "0" meant, thanks!
<ShawnT> I'll see folks at TPAC!!!!
Lisa: confirmed that we will have a face to face (even though short notice)
… will be hybrid, both in person and virtual
<EA> If the flight is on time!
Lisa: will have at least three people in the room (EA, Rain, David)
RESOLUTION: FTF at icchp on july 12th - will be hybrid.
<EA> Oh my goodness - all day - sorry I can only manage after 1pm at best
<EA> 1pm Italy time!
Lisa: start after lunch so that we can make it more comfortable, especially given EAs schedule
… may have different sections at different times
… will make sure to schedule breaks!
Lisa: we also are intending to meet at TPAC, will be a hybrid
<Zakim> Rain, you wanted to ask about research repository (off topic)
Roy: mention that want to have W3C formal face to face meeting, will want to follow the content above
Roy: guidebook (link above) will help with making sure that we do this correctly
… will also need to update a wikipage to show the important information for the FTF
Roy: can refer to last FTF meeting page to help with this
Lisa: we have already provisionally let Janina and Rachael know this on the coordination call, and they thought we were okay
Rain: thank you Roy for the guidance, and we are following up with APA and AG chairs following up
Lisa: will also send an email letting the group know that we have this resolved and will get the preliminary agenda up in the next week or two
Lisa: can we use this zoom room?
Lisa: putting an agenda item to send the resolution to the list
<Lisa> close item 2
FAST functional needs . see: From FAST In https://
w3c.github.io/ ; our notes at https:// fast/#cognitive docs.google.com/ , document/ d/ 1ndRziXRfnyAgDaL8ctByQagDdM36H8QxV44lO3u8zgc/ edit?usp=sharing
<EA> I can scribe
Lisa is sharing her screen to show fill people in on what we are doing
<Rachael> We moved the taskforce from AG to APA recently
She has AGs work to functional needs
mapped to functional needs
Lisa feels the document could be important as this could be used inside the W3C - does not want coga to be misrepresented.
EA asked if being mapped against ISO and Lisa replied that this very different.
<Lisa> their spread sheet: https://
Rachael said this could be potentially much more important as it is something that is linked to 508 in USA
Lisa has said we do not want to miss this moment - as there is also a document on specifications to check if they are accessible
There is also a spreadsheet with rows for user needs and columns as functional needs.
Need to check whether coga is comfortable with the user and functional needs - not directly used for the check list - clarified by Michael using positive language
Michael suggested it was more about potential needs that could come out of having a disability - functional requirements for using online content
Michael also mentioned the resulting outcomes that may not be the same as WCAG 3 - divided into content that needs to be looked after by authors and technologies that need to be evaluated to fullfil the needs
John sugggested that some of the structure does not seem right such as limited memory and then processing speed - hard to map and this should perhaps be clarified
<Lisa> our note: https://
Lisa has already started a google doc to collect thoughts from cogo task force members. A copy of the functional needs have been copied into the document
Lisa feels that some of the categories did not feel perfect so there is a need to get them right before thinking about user needs
John noticed that processing speed is missing
<Lisa> Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies (FAST) advises creators of technical specifications how to ensure their technology meets the needs of user with disabilities.
FAST is a tool with the functional needs list before the user needs - use with limited vision etc. missing is the cognitive aspect.
Same categories for cognitive as a separate issue which Lisa felt that there would be ovelaps and these seemed to be missing
Lisa suggested start with main categories and then break them up. Lisa has started with the definition from Content Usable.
Lisa felt the definition may not be as strong as we would like as it was not aiming to be used a mapping tool against functional needs
Need to go back an look at the way we wrote certain documents that contained functional needs - reasoning and knowledge missed out of the FAST document
Lisa went to talk about the various taxonomies that needs to looked at to help close the gaps
John suggested that intellectual difficulties such as reading levels may be missing and IQ - could create confusion
Lisa said we have it but not the FAST document
Lisa is collecting the coga task force items and check what would need to be added to the FAST document. Looking at definitions
Lisa picked out 'learning' as a key term
Lisa continued to copy items across to the Google doc
Lisa is trying to build categories from the coga documents but the mapping is complex due to the different slant on the topic.
John suggested that when he describes the functional difficulties as memory, processing and learning. More about storage and speed linked to information and learning is the ability to understand information due to experience intellect and processing. This maps to how a computer works RAM and hard drive
John illustrated how to simplify these processes into something that can be easily understood. Age and deterioation
John then also added understanding as a category
Julie added that many of the categories mentioned in the FAST github document might also been in our document - suggested developing a table to show a comparison between coga docs
EA +1 to Julie idea
Lisa suggested we need to look first at what we feel should be included and then look at what FAST have included so we do not cloud our memories of what we alread have
Julia felt we might be getting lost in the comparisons. Column A is FAST - Column B is what needs to be changed. Julia suggested coga may have more rows such as adding processing speed etc.
Lisa is keen for us to look just at functional needs - John agreed that it might not be too difficult as not too long
Le asked what it means with cognitive and sensory intersection?
This highlighted the problem when they also included language phonetic and phonemic and then there were sensory issues - several issues with the way things were being described
Some items are in WCAG and as Le suggested there are external issues that impact on cognitive abilities
<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to spoons!
spoons - similar to fatigue and cognitive overload
<Le> My blog entry on spoons online: https://
Only have a limited number of spoons - use them up and you cannot then have the abilities you might have before you started a task.
Need to separate Language and communication
Lisa also wanted to add orientation and then there was a more indepth discussion about needing it in executive functioning - or does it need its own category
John felt it was good in executive functioning.
Lisa said we can go through the mapping exercise such as adding processing speed to the same category and John suggested also part of memory
<Becca_Monteleone> my apologies - I need to head to another meeting!
John added poor memory affects executive functioning but not necessarily the other way around
<Lisa> john, lisa, will continue filling it
<julierawe_> Thanks, everyone--I am late for my next meeting, cheers!
<Lisa> ea: we can share the iso doc for expert opinion and help
<Lisa> but careful not to make it public