Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

23 Jun 2022


Roy, Becca_Monteleone, ShawnT, Fazio, kirkwood, julierawe, Rachael
Lisa, Jennie, Chris, Rashmi, Kris Anne


E.A. present

<Rain> agenda

Check in with all sub-groups and COGA Action Items - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit

Rain offered the group a chance to update what they are working on and started with Shawn

Shawn mentioned that he is participating in a sub group and wants to work on a French translation to link to his tool kit

Shawn is planning to translate Content Usable into French

Rachael is coping with some actions and is part of Clear Language - still have some things to sort out in the work being carried out.

Apologies Becca working on testable elements with Clear Language

<Rain> EA: looking at the document for clear language, as well, collecting issues from other organizations and looking at research

David F did not have an update

Rain asked in APA needed anything and David mentioned that there were some reviews coming up

Roy mentioned that he does not have any actions

John K aside from the images mentioned that he has been linking up with the other group but no updates

Joy is trying to get the EO comparison ready for Lisa and Rain next week. Also dealing with protocol queries linked to Content Usable

Rachael provided an update on the Protocols group making Content Usable as a possible protocol - could be a challenge - important to think about the risk as this could introduce some complexities with testable elements. Protocols are meant to address things that are not testable but content usable has testable elements that might not be included in WCAG 3.0 need to ensure we do not lose items. Need to be aware if the risk. Really are shifting towards WCAG 3

<scribe> Continued with breaking items into different groups and looking at different examples such as reviews for clear language etc

John K said that Rachael had provided a clear review but wanted clarity about the differences between protocols and other items - mainly about being testable against those items that cannot be tested - WCAG 2 tends to be thought of being more objective than perhaps it really is - policy and procedures

John felt we need harmonisation between policies and procedures and the language used so there is some sort of standarisation

Clarity needed about the next steps for the clear language group

Could there been someone to explain in the next meeting.

Rachael agreed and Rain asked Julie to follow up with the request.

Next group meeting of clear language subgroup in 30th June

Michael had no updates for coga task force

In the next month a meeting about legal guardianship may happen

[Rain and John K] Group feedback: images subgroup work - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dMvZJNtGl4_lOsYhMMAIOCz9p6AQNbh7wowdF3JzNKQ/edit#

Rain shared her screen to check the icons being used on overall layout and clarity

Rain explained that she just wanted people to consider the visual quality of the images on the web page

Rain wanted the group to look at the icon files first in context and how the icons are used as visual indicators

View first for clarity and understandability

Becca commented that she was not sure there was enough differentiation between them all. Need prior knowledge

David also agreed maybe some numbers might be needed.

Rain mentioned that numbers and monetary icons were removed because of internationalisation.

John thought there was a problem with numbers

<Fazio> good point EA

<Rain> EA: Yes, I was going to add exactly what's just being said that unfortunately there is very little internationally. 10:28:41 We can do if we start to include either monetary signs or numbers, because they are definitely different in certain countries. 10:28:48 Although the Arabic style might well use Roman numbers, they actually have their own numbering systems as well. 10:28:57 So it depends on what you've learned and actually echo. I think it was men[CUT]

<Rain> ... find I always have to learn them and I have to learn them basically from the word or from the label that's given to the Icon, and therefore over time I learn that the floppy disk actually means save or my 10:29:23 students learn that simply because they've never met a floppy disk. 10:29:30 They know that that's what's always there and I think That's the problem we have. 10:29:38 But you very often have to learn through share. use So so something l[CUT]

<Rain> ... aspects. Some people will just have to learn them but they'll learn them, because they appear often in several documents

<Rain> nounproject.com

<Fazio> +1 julie

Julie commented on all 4 icons. 1st needs a different phrase - why plural and need a plainer language such as 'what your plan covers' 2nd claims and bills - thinks a claculator symbol might work. 3rd one move ? to the right and 4th could just be simpler such as a folder. Is essential helpful could it be 'Your records or My records

John mention my or your summary.

Rain - Need to have more context and then consider the wording.

Rain asked people to add notes to the document

Rain then showed the overall layout

Rain - looking at it all as a cognitively accessible experience

Julie suggested even in context the essential records icons is more complex than it needs to be

Rain also said the help probably needs to be last

<kirkwood> +1 to get help being last


Rain finally looking at the language - need more clear language - what your plans cover etc


<kirkwood> I like “My Summary” “My Records”

David mentioned that essential and my records are different

Rain confirmed they are personalised records

David said they have to be defined.

Sorry if I have the wrong speakers as I am not seeing them!

<ShawnT> Wouldn't "essential records" be a subset of "my records"?

Rain mentioned that when you have insurance the coverage is different for each category of insurance

Julie - use 'the' instead of pronouns so 'what the plan covers' then do we keep records or change it?

<ShawnT> +q to say wouldn't just coverage be enough?

Rain wondered if documents may be a better word

<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to say wouldn't just coverage be enough?

Shawn would the word coverage be sufficient

Becca was concerned about that word and may be unclear

What the plan covers is easier to understand

Rain asked about the overall layout with the menu at the top and the search plus the page title and 4 blocks/

Julie mentioned my account has different wording compared to the wording below - not seeing the same phrases in the tab and header

<ShawnT> +1 to julierawe


Rain is now seeing all these issues

<Rain> Images document for feedback: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dMvZJNtGl4_lOsYhMMAIOCz9p6AQNbh7wowdF3JzNKQ/edit#heading=h.iinou3hnfcy9

<kirkwood> +1 to putting my account into header as well

Rain moved onto next agenda item

Functional needs review that Lisa has been working on.

Rain wanted to check if anyone has looked at the document and if there are any further concerns?

<Rain> https://w3c.github.io/fast/#cognitive

Rain said that the document is going to be a page in the special W3C specification.

Michael confirmed that the user needs will be published as a working draft which will be the start of a public review process and now they are going through comments. Also expanding the definition of the needs

Long term plan will include cognitive user and functional needs

Rain suggested that it was important to review this document for next week when Lisa returns

Only two mins left for please finish the next item independently and the topic will be discussed next week. The intro will be written and next week the document will be turned into a form.

if you are on the structured subgroup please comment as Rain shared the screen

Rain went through the draft survey document and discussed each question

<Rain> document links: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_pV-lbgorW2oihIB4EdONOFN0EcRmBAkmUEEPdTAEw/edit#

Reminder, sign up to scribe - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list

11am-12pm ET: Subgroup meetings: Images (Rain); if enough people are available, then also Research Plan and Strategy (Aaron)

Thank you please can you sign off the notes!

<julierawe> Thanks, everyone!

<ShawnT> Thanks everyone, have a great weekend

<Rain> RRSAgent: make minutes

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2022/06/23 15:09:05 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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: Roy, Becca_Monteleone, ShawnT, Fazio, kirkwood, julierawe, Rachael
Present: Roy, Becca_Monteleone, ShawnT, Fazio, kirkwood, julierawe, Rachael
Regrets: Lisa, Jennie, Chris, Rashmi, Kris Anne
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: EA
Inferring Scribes: EA
Found Date: 23 Jun 2022
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

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.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]