Topic FTF at ICCHP see https://
FTF at ICCHP see https://
docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 1TO-oh_T6-ql2B-WrD1JSEyqNEZ0Kc3kvDym_3Z8nYrA/ edit#
informal meeting no scribe yet
we are only minueting big dessions for this sesion
tech, sort out presentions
decision on structure for mental health project meeting:
Rain will introduce everyone
Lisa will present the slides
Rashmi will have questions ready to bring to the conversation
Rain will monitor questions and the room, including Meet Chat
Key topics Rashmi will have prepared: triggers, overstimulation, privacy, manipulative or deceptive patterns
decision on the structure for the COGA Making Content Usable talk:
Rain to present from in the room, but to ask Lisa at key points (documented in speaker notes)
Lisa introduce the mental health work
Rashmi give the examples (keep to 10 minutes)
Lisa will talk about working on version 2
Rain wrap up with recruiting and then open up for questions
tech, sort out presentions
close item 2
Review our docs and put them together into one findable place in preparation for the Research next steps conversation
Updated priorities and work: https://
take up item 4
determine what to focus on for this 1/2 hour
For the Clear Language patterns, the title is very important
These are what make it into the left hand navigation bar
Above from Lisa
Lisa: for example, "avoid double negative" doesn't work because it isn't consistently good advice
… what we found was consistently good advise was "avoid a double negative to express a positive"
… when changing the wording of the method before changing a pattern, bring back to the bigger group before working on test cases
… someone in the bigger group may know why we have chosen specific wording
… change in the pattern title can make it confusing and difficult
… should we determine this as a principle of something that goes back to the group?
RESOLUTION: when writing pattern, method or objective names, bring the names back to the group for review and consensus before starting any detailed work
Lisa: this includes any wording changes
Rain: suggestion to review these resolutions at a future meeting, since there are people who may want to know this who aren't present
Lisa: adding to a future agenda
finish up review of functional needs
Lisa: functional needs matrix, which could be very important and helpful to us
… includes buckets with lots of categories. First thing we are reviewing for this project is whether or not we are happy with the categories
… First column is the category
… Second column is what they've put there,
… Third is what we think
… We also added a section called "new proposed buckets"
Lisa: looking at attention
David: attentional capture or capturing attention is technical turn
… then there is top down attentional guidance
Lisa: not necessarily what helps or solutions, instead this is where there is a reduced ability
David: whenever you have things that don't match the schema, then it can throw someone off (stroop effect)
… if scanning through environment and it doesn't match the schema, then it will prevent them from directing their attention
Lisa: so what about the buckets as "sustained attention, returning attention"?
David: concerned that how these are written in are more from the ADHD angle and less from the real need, will add research
Lisa: yes, the research is really helpful, please add the links
… the user's choice of task is important
David and Lisa together (summary) -- the point is finding the user's key task and purpose
David: read recently about the doorway effect. When in one room and think about something, like get a glass of water, then walk into the room for the water, you are still associating the water with the room you were in
Maya: remembering a book about neurodivergent students that talks about returning attention, will send it to one of us so that we can add the reference
<Lisa> Restore context after focus is lost and return attention
Lisa: merging returning attention and restoring context
<Lisa> and objections
<Lisa> any objections
Lisa: any objections to this block?
No one had objections
Lisa: moving onto language and communication. We discussed at the last meeting to separate language and non language communication
… we felt that they covered language, but non language communication gets lost
Lisa: back to previous -- should we also add direct attention
David: yes, direct is a different moment. Capture is something you cannot control. Directing attention is something you can control
… so they are different things
… so including both is good
Lisa: back to language
… suggestions to separate. Had a discussion on other ways to device it
… remember that they may want to do research based on our suggestions. This isn't the final wording
David: what makes non-language communication, because sign language and AAC are language
Lisa: things like metaphors, body language, implied communication
Rain: adding implied communication, which comes from contextual information
Lisa: also need information about culture
Rain: another way to break up communication is "expressive" and "receptive"
Maya: language and non-language are under communication, is there a way to be clear on how this is delinated?
… non language is relating to communication which is non-verbal or sublinguistic
Lisa: level of granularity is a lot different from the definition
Lisa: suggesting followign subtopics, expressive communication, receptive communication, language, literacy, and sublinguistic
Rain: just bringing up a comment about literacy that I've heard, which is that individuals with reading disabilities consider themselves literate. Something to have in mind
Lisa: going back to literacy because of all the the things that might be missed
Lisa: confirming that we don't like their list and want to replace it with our new list. Do we have consensus to use the new list?
Breaking for lunch!
<Jennie> Good morning - afternoon to all of you! I think I am trying to connect to the correct Google Meet. Can anyone tell if I am in the correct waiting room?
Deck to help us collaborate on structure: https://
<Jennie> Good morning Rain. I think I am in the waiting room
introductions - maya (from israel), Kluss (Icchp, and student support), EA Daffran (southampten) Becca (US)
and Jenny (Us - minisota - canada)
Rain review of stucture of content useable
1. very long.
2. lots of content
3. uses w3 sytles (not aure what we can do)
michal introduced - will be ginving a talk on scafolding
Rain: overview of slide https://
User Stories: Objectives Detail https://
repitition with the design (objective titile)
<Jennie> Lisa: There is also Appendix A
<Jennie> ...Mapping User Needs
<Jennie> ...And scenarios
<Jennie> ...We know this is a very long document
<Jennie> ...The consideration was that people would need a reference point
<Jennie> ...It has all the information that we have to give them in this one document
<Jennie> ...Then we were going to make a more interactive way to use the information, with some hidden until they reveal it
<Jennie> ...Now it is in the WCAG supplement website, just of the design guide
<Jennie> ...This can be a bit problematic because there is much more here
<Jennie> ...The idea is to have different entry points
<Jennie> ...Maybe what we need is an entry page that sends people to different places depending on their preferences
rain: looking at survey feedback
31 responces - please push the survey
mainly used, content creaters, designers creaters engineers, and some use from end users
klaus: Lets announce the survey tomorrow at the conference !
Dave: and ask facebook to fill it out
Lisa: they have joined
Jennie: are we socializing it in diffrent circles. Lets pmote it
rain: the link is on my linked in page
Maya, will send it to her group
rain: I reached out to our designt eem and they are over represented
age groups focus of people work are younger (a third is working with 65+)
Many people are new to coga user groups. more in genral accessibility. very small number were not used to accessibilty
a fair number red most or all of it. 13 percent
almost 30% havent read any!
maybe stucture based on the jorney of users
dont have heavy use of people using it regualu
david: people use it for a usage, or situation they need to solve and it works well for that
EA: you are using it regualy, (say once per module) ibut they may say occosionaly
dave: can we add cookies
Lisa: From the previous slide
… Lots of people haven't read all of it, but you have 30% that have read most of it
… It is actually designed for you not to need it
… to read it all
… If you don't set policy, you don't need that section
… For those that have read most of it, they found what they needed
<Fazio_> +1 Lisa
Lisa: There is some redunancy because different teams have different working styles
… You can go into a section, and forget the sections you don't need
… That is optimal
… People should be able to read most of it and get what they need
ongoing users: most find what they are looking for. 30% often do not find what they need
Survey responses and edit form: https://
<julierawe> How long are we leaving the survey open? And is there any chance that other W3C groups would share it to help us get more responses?
<Michal_Lahav> hello world!
<Michal_Lahav> would you kindly resend the links?
<Michal_Lahav> survey results/survey shareout link
Welcome! If you use the word present followed by + it will mark you as present in this channel.
usages included: neg : looking for unabigues guidence
headings best practice for aria?
evidence or get a message
maya: it is effective for it
rain: it being a note help
has waight for a team, less in law court maybe
lisa: it might be useful in law
rain: lots of use of stories, refresher prinicples, help for advocusy
needs more practicle application
massive and overwelminf. u can use control f, but need to know what you are looking for!
we are advacating to do better
<Michal_Lahav> Rain, would you kindly resend the survey results link?
Lisa: This week in the research group
… we reviewed a study about the search, when it isn't working as you expect
… They didn't give many examples
… We thought it meant more operators not working
… You can't narrow your search or get selections
… Here we are getting direct feedback
… One of the patterns in the next version will be "friendly search"
… So it works well, so people can find the right results
… We have to do what we are advocating
… We should be implementing this in our document
jennie add about quickref has suggested search terms - helps shrink the content
WCAG Quick Reference Tool I was talking about: https://
maya: there are skimers, (some hate control f)
Survey results: https://
Lisa: For the Quick Ref style, you need to remember you are out of the same space
… Lots of the interactive pieces are not available within the ntoe
… As you were going through the feedback, I noticed that some people were looking for information on ARIA
<Michal_Lahav> Thank you!
Lisa: They won't find it, because it is not there
… They are going in a direction that is for other end users
… There is much less cross over than you would imagine
… There is a percentage of people that replied that they didin't find what they were looking for
<Michal_Lahav> Rain: Access requested
Lisa: It may be that they are looking for something that we don't want to be doing, which is a small number
Rain: maybe a note that says here is what you won't find
Lisa: All the things we are not including?
Rain: Not everything, but just at a high level
Lisa: I am not convinced that some wording couldn't be counter-productive
… But when you consider comorbidities
… That would be up to the consensus of the group
… But for those that are lost
rain: trouble what the terms meen, the distintions are not instictive
EA and Dave had the same probelm what is a pattern
Lisa: We changed these terms a few times
… There were objections to them if they looked too similar to WCAG
… We weren't allowed to use guideline, or checkpoint
… This feedback is fantastic
… Maybe we have to use intuitive words
… Using things like design checkpoint, to distinguish it from WCAG
… We iterated lots of terms
… and had consensus meetings with the other groups
… At the end of the day, you are right, it needs to be intuitively understandable
we should close the conversation until they are clear
control f does not work on mobile (I am not sure it is true)
dave: should we define our terms!
maybe tool tip
can it be accessible
rain: visual map
dave: an easy reader
ea: easy access to the glossary -
on control f, until number 5
used many ways - including change at work
used design devlopment and implementation
need to promote in the planning process
peaople who use it rarely (44 pecent) coudnt find what they were looking for
only 1 said they wouldnt use it (found it to complex to browes)
new users: ;want to learn about coga and improve their skills
one person said it also helps useability
not a visual document
That's a good note from that person when we consider tagging for findability on browsers
rain: can we use this survey as a tool to push back at w3
lots of interst in user reserch (2 thirdsx)
very north american
need to send it out more
24 percent in tech
few over 65
reserecher offered to help with the numbers.
<Zakim> Lisa, you wanted to say about my svg interface
Lisa: I made something in the past that converts headings into a spider map
… I have the code somewhere
… It pulled out the first paragraph too
… Also, I think tech is the right audience
… That is who we said is our first audience
Rain: We included government, and healthcare
… Those are our audiences as well
EA: Those of us in one area may also be in another
Rain: Being a student in special education, we may want to reach more teachers
… to make their materials more accessible
EA: they may have a department that does that
Klaus: Translation, annotation, using a different language
… Saying "what role do you play?"
… Giving everything over to students - they need to understand the service provision
… I would be happy to bring this to the European service providers
… They work on a day to day basis with their groups
… I went through the document
… I would recommend to describe different roles of providing usability and accessibility
… You cannot do everything
… They have to support personalization
… We don't know which symbols to use
… I think this would be very beneficial and be a door opener
Rain: Over time the accessibility of the document gets at risk
Lisa: My feeling is that asking a researcher - that is fantastic, thank you
Klaus: service providers should be another category that we reach
Lisa: What I would do first, let's focus on getting those hundred responses
… Other businesses
… Then when we are ready, we can ask them to
… analyze it
… Don't take that offer too quickly - it will be more useful when we have more results
Rain: We will keep this up for a few more weeks
Klaus: the ecosystem. The designers are only part of the process. Would be good to add how each of the roles in the process impact accessibility
Keep in mind that there are different titles in every country
ea: roles have diffrent needs in diffrent countries
E.g. special ed = personal assistants, paraeductors, education coordinators
julie: how long is it open? is there a value to asking other groups?
lisa: wai intrest group
rain: a few more weeks, it is summer
Until at least mid September?
Short link for sharing the actual survey: https://
julie: lets have a better external deadline
Same for some American school districtrics
Lisa: We wanted to put out another survey on what people want from research documents
… so we learn how urgent it is to update them
… Will we have 2 surveys out at the same time?
Rain: I think that is ok because there is some overlap in audiences, but there are differences
Lisa: If we can keep some kind of log on what channels are being approached, then we can repeat it relatively quickly
*Jennie is stepping away for a moment
ddave: do we expect people to read it to answer
rain: there are questions for people who didnt read it
Survey link (public): https://
Link to survey results: https://
rain: i sent it to the coga group, and slack and drubal, women in tech
and google and linkedin facebook and twiter
*Jennie is back
dave: i can send it out to itu
Shari Byrne Haber
maya: slack groups on designers
lisa: who disaster relieafe and whatsup for israel AT devlopers
maya. negishuyt on facebooks
ea can we have blog post wording
Blurb to improve:
Help improve digital accessibility! Share your thoughts on the W3C's "Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities" so that we can make it as useful as possible:
dave: other networks
rain: will make a spreadsheet, so we can all share it
julie: make the next version as useful as possible
"make it as useful as possible" change to "make the next version as useful as possible"
add face deadlines...
jennie: i will put it in our news letter, that explains the doc
WAI is pleased to announce publication of the Working Group Note: Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities https://
Lisa: That is a link to previous announcements and requests for participation we have made
… I think that is what people are looking for to augment their own blurbs
blurb from other times
rashmi: I made a post on linked in!
rain writing blerb
berb at https://
rashmi: are we colecting ids?
it is anaomus unless they agree at the end
Lisa: as part of the mental health review we have been doing
… There are concerns for people that they have the option to be anonymous
we can say you can choose to answer anaomusly?
julie: maybe clarify that you dont need to have read it
rain: updated the blub. you can edit it
conversational interface https://
Review our docs and put them together into one findable place in preparation for the Research next steps conversation
Questions we need to answer the following questions Who is using our research documents? How are they using it? What research documents do we want to make “publish ready” ? What research documents do we want to work on or update? How research documents do we want to publish? And in what form (wiki, w3c note etc)? What research documents do we want to publish to merge? Should we make structural changes? Are there other urgent issues papers for v2? [CUT]
Adding to notes so that we can remember to look at this document: mental Health paper for research Bernard, R., Sabariego, C. and Cieza, A., 2016. Barriers and facilitation measures related to people with mental disorders when using the web: a systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research, 18(6).
And also: Bernard, Renaldo (2020): Web accessibility and mental disorders: difficulties experienced by people with depression and anxiety on the Web. Dissertation, LMU München: Faculty of Medicine (both shared by EA)
scribe+ Rain Lisa
Lisa: sharing the Research subgroup. This is the moment to plan what to do with all of our research. It is overwhelming and people don't know what we have
… it is also now out of date
… What do we need to do to get these documents ready? What needs updating? How do we want to publish them? Informally as a wiki page with less process? Or more formal and citable as a note?
Lisa: reminder for what we did when we started
… people said it was impossible. Too much, too many different types
… so we made a user research module and looked at 8 diverse diganoses
… normally we deal with functional needs, not diagnosis
… but we used the diagnosis to create a framework
Lisa: our working document was published in 2015, so it may be really out of date
Lisa: Issue papers took a topic across cognitive disabilities. E.g., logging in, privacy, finding help
Lisa: everything comes together in the gap analysis
… User needs, when updated, are updated in Content Usable
… Question about whether or not we can let the user needs in Gap Analysis age since it is in Content Usable?
… For issue papers, we have a couple papers (horizontal topics, e.g., user preferences, personalization, authentication, multimodal, etc.)
… Things we've started drafting but not in format: wayfinding paper, conversational interfaces, and (from Community Group) live transcription
Lisa: this is what we have that we can be working on. Research projects is quoted often. If it is in use, we should probably update it
<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to ask location of link to this slide deck
Michal: mentioned when you had the needs, had the user groups and diagnosis, and then the functional needs. Where the functional needs also sorted by user needs
Michal: correction: sorted by diagnosis? How granular did it get
Lisa: structure where for each disability, we described the challenges, and what was working, and what people were doing if they were making content for the group
Michal: groups? how many people?
Lisa: mainly a literary review. Bulk of it. There was some user research
… there is a link to methodology
… this was the last time we focused on disabilities. After that, we focused on functional needs
… when you look at the issue papers, you'll see that we may say "people with memory impairments" without saying why they have a memory impairment
Lisa: took all the information from research and issue papers, did a big analysis and took out things that worked, don't work, and then took out the user needs, and then created deliverables for people to actually use
… such as Making Content Usable
… often doesn't fit neatly into a WCAG type of checkpoint, such as people needing reassurance that their privacy is being taken care of
… also have used this to create pieces that have gone into personalization and APA
Lisa: but then we carried on continuing to do user research, and have a nice document of issue papers
… other papers were near completion and didn't go into the editors draft, but did go into content usable
… for example, wayfinding and orientation
… have two google docs drafts with indoor and outdoor, and we have little bits in design patterns in content usable, but there is more
… now we need to determine what needs to happen next with these documents and how
Lisa: asking about what the room thinks, and difference between doing and publishing the research and what additional topics
<Lisa> How important is it that this research is updated?
Question 1: how important is it that this research is updated?
Lea: extremely important to update the research
… as I was working on a web app, I came to this to use, and am like many developers and designers
… they will want to make sure they are following guidelines
Lisa: this is a good point that you make. This is different from making content usable.
… Which is our document for developers, and our conclusions
Lisa: also doing the mental health literary review
… and that will go into making content usable
Lea: who is the intended audience?
Lisa: that's an interesting question as well. We did it for us.
Jennie: piggy back on Lea
… actually think that Lea is bringing up a different use case
… content usable goes based on the guidelines, but if someone is doing a grant app, citing the original research will be useful for getting funding, etc.
<Lisa> rain: for invation this is very important
<Lisa> this is the gaps
<Lisa> tech has changed so much since 2015
<Lisa> and we need the reserch update
<Jennie> +1 to Rain, maybe talking about it as "raw data" that is needed by some, whereas Content Usable is the "how to"
Michal: echoing, yes, really important to update. Also helpful to have foundational studies on each diagnosis up to date, as well. That way, most update to date information on foundational needs and pain points, etc. Don't know how much is available in the way of resources, but at least a literary review up to 2022
<Lisa> litary review update
Michal: Cherry on top would be actual user research and testing
Lisa: normally also if we publish, different researchers will then do research on our research and put it to the test
… which is really helpful if we don't get to do much in the way of user research
Lisa: I'm thinking we should do from 5-0 where 5 is extermely important
<Lisa> 5- 0 5 is extreamly important
<Lisa> do do a litary review on the user reserch module
How important is it to get it as a published note?
<Lisa> publish the reserch module as a note ?
<MIchal_Lahav> if we are doing a comprehensive literature review, we might as well publish it.
<Lisa> rain: we need to put it though the publication process
<Lisa> it carries more wait
<Lisa> but even a wd is better then a wiki
<Jennie> +1 to Rain's comment
Lisa: what do other's feel? We have a nice wiki, but does it meet the needs?
<julierawe> Wiki does not meet the needs
<Jennie> Side suggestion (so I don't forget): make sure we follow the REHABDATA-Connection research summaries. Lots of surveys are gathered monthly.
<Jennie> That is from NARIC.com
<MIchal_Lahav> it might be a great PhD project
Klaus: this is work that you normally expect from PHD students
… they publish a first paper about this as part of the PHD
<MIchal_Lahav> or Google Research intern project
Klaus: maybe have this be done by a research review
Rashmi: can we wait until we see the responses to the survey we have out now?
Lisa: trying to gather our opinions
Lisa: a word of caution on the surveys
… if the research funding came because of our work, then that might bias them
Jennie: receive a monthly summary of research from NARIC.com,
<LeaW> I am attending a Fellowship program for Leadership Education in Neurodiversity via UIC (Univ IL Chicago) in the fall. I will be attending with PHD students and happy to ask people there.
Jennie: what about partnering with them?
Jennie: their summaries are excellent. Maybe consider multiple groups to partner with
Lisa: super idea
David: national science foundation just launched a convergence excellerator program that we might want to tap into
Lea: working a project with national science foundation with UIC
… doing testing and research called parks and sidewalks study
… to make parks and sidewalks more accessible, funded through the national science
… I'm helping doing funding, and will be attending as a part time trainee in a fellowship
"leadership education and neurodiversity"
… this is something that UIC might be interested with, happy to bring this to people in the fall
… they are research experts there
<Jennie> *There is a LEND program at the University of Minnesota as well.
Lisa: what I'm hearing is that it is really needed, but we should be able to recruit people to do this rather than overstretch the people that we have
Lisa: switching to issue papers
Are the issue papers less important?
Do we need to update the issue papers?
above two notes from Lisa
Lisa: some we aren't done with and know we need to do more with, as we are coming across new information like privacy, and people getting anxious because they log in as an example
<Jennie> Link shared by Lea Whitney: https://
Lisa: a few things we could potentially do
… one is general issues now that technologies have changed
… another is add the wayfinding interface
… and the ones we haven't written or thought about, really important topics we are missing
Jennie: can we consider our need for research as a jumping off point for other groups to do the research and fund or support it, like the educational institutions
… they may not have identified the use cases, aso we can use this as a way to partner and have value on both sides
… and our time being well used
Lea: another topic I think about a lot is AI and how AI can potentially be useful or helpful when building technology
Lisa: actually in a-step, based on what information got from Google and Microsoft, trying to collect APIs that people could use in research
… there were some analyses that have been done, and will probably come across more
Rain: when prioritizing, feel that the foundational user research is higher priority because we have to have that right. Really like the ideas that are coming up to scale and leverage other groups to expand this work, but our reasoning behind what we emphasize has to be solid
Lisa: good segue into gap analysis
… we do have these ideas in as a summary in the roadmap
… and conversation about user needs, so this is where these things come together
Jennie: hearing two things, 1 is that there may be need for researchers to be able to reach out to coga taskforce, to have a conduit to reach out to us after reviewing the information already available
… 2. this gap analysis being published as at least a working draft would be important in terms of the promenance for people reviewing, have more weight for research being approved
Lisa: hearing all important, but that there is a staggering of the work
… user research module is stage one
Jennie: think it goes research, lit review, gap analysis, and then if there are things we don't see getting picked up, then that is issue papers
+1 from Rain :)
Lisa: have the summary in the gap analysis, so while they wait for updates, they can be wiki pages
… then the summary is published
Michal added on chat: 1) UXR lit review 2) Gap 3) issue papers agreed!
Lisa: next steps, make an outline draft of a plan
… when send out our questions ask if they feel this is a reasonable set of priorities
Jennie: can you add to the questions, "what else might you need from the COGA Task Force" with an open field
<MIchal_Lahav> yes, I added this to the deck to!
Jennie: there may be ways that we don't understand that they are missing support
Klaus added the importance of making sure that the quality of the research is very high because people trust it
Lisa: another advantage of publishing as a note and not a wiki is that it is published with a date
Klaus: it also needs a methodology behind it. Which databases, what keywords, how did we come to a decision of what was relevant and not relevant
… based on this research method, then we can claim it is complete or sufficiently complete
Jennie: in the past, seen research institutions partner together to tackle larger questions
<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to ask Klaus about dividing work, research institutions
Jennie: is there a pathway for this kind of partnership?
… could be an additional issue to highlight here, a bunch of researchers here, in particular in the session on cognitive accessibility
… for phd and master students because they then have a sound reference, and we don't have to redo work
<Jennie> * I would recommend the research institutions, not the PhD student's themselves
Klaus will talk with Susanna (sp?) starting a followup project on August 1 using easy read
… have students, master or phd level, starting with exactly this work
… could be a good partner in a shared cooperation
Lisa: need more synergy with universities
Michal: either publish or wiki is good, but would also be good to have a progressive document, such as the wiki, where case studies can continue to be added
… and a forum for adding content as we have new insights
Lisa: are there issue papers we don't have, and then Klaus mentioned it and we did a review on working with users in Content Usable. Claudia's research.
… some of it ended up being quoted in Content Usable
… is Working with Users an issue paper
… don't we have to do that for the next version?
Rain: volunteering to connect Sally who is doing up to date research on including individuals with cognitive disabilities in the research
Lea: have done remote usability testing recently with a company called Autonomy Works with individuals who have autism
… can also potentially take work such as that, with videos and case studies
… when test with individuals with different disabilities, the testing and script is completely different
… but the feedback is amazing
<Jennie> * Look forward to a future conference presentation on this from Lea Whitney!
Lisa: hearing what we need to do is in this update, is to figure out how out of date are we
<LeaW> Thank you Jennie
Lisa: so have to be very careful on the next version of content usable that we are not publishing out of date research
<LeaW> This was the company we tested with: https://
Michal: would like to add her work, the scaffolding method, which remains unpublished, working on a publication
… is presenting this here at the conference
… a methodology that can be used
Lisa: giving a session on networking for researchers and support for cost action
… one of the things is to be able to put things up in a common space where people can comment
… that then gives COGA the ability to access it
Lisa's session tomorrow on cost network: https://
And the github link: https://
Jennie: topic see missing from a lot of research is IT Governance
… with three sub headings
… 1 employees with cognitive disabilities
2 citizens with cognitive disabilities
… 3 disaster planning for that group by the stakeholders
… if there was research showing the value of stakeholder involvement at these different places, with solid research to point to, would give citizens research to take when someone doesn't include them
Lisa: it's a bit like a small appendix on policy?
Jennie: yes and no, just like talking about the protocols for how to involve someone, how you involve people with disabilities in IT governance, we need to make sure that we break that open
… otherwise the codesign piece that has been brought up, which is a major kickoff piece, where something is going to impact the standard process. Being able to impact the conversation
Lisa: worked years ago on a maturity model for smart cities, and there seems to be overlap
Jennie: what I'm finding is that if it is not published with their words, specific to their space, they will not generalize it over to their group
… if the research is specific to IT governance, then it will get the focus and attention
… under the general umbrella, it won't get the attention
… we want to make it get that prominence
Lisa: so, how important is this?
… all very important
Lea: government space builds technologies or ensures content is findable, usable and accessible, so with that, the information is also promoting independence
… connecting the dots for all parties
… clarify that we are also promoting supporting greater independence
Lisa: in an interrelated space, the WHO is about to publish a draft of a standard for IT for health care, and that will need review from the cognitive perspective
Lisa: should we be drafting a sample policy (overlaps with testing subgroup) for health care?
… or critical services such as health care
Jennie: not my recommendation because of the effort it would take
… but we could draft points of order to include, things to consider, or questions to answer
… and formulate it the way those documents are currently working
… that way, they can grab some of the language and port that into their documents
… it will need a champion to get the language in
Lisa: as far as resources, do we have the right ones?
… it is something that needs to be done, but probably comes under a different title. An issue paper?
Lisa: coming out with potential issue papers that might be important, and next steps
… helping us frame our information into a way that government can absorb it
… we've tried to do that for designers
… same thing as Making Content Usable, but doing it for government instead of designers/creators
… that suggests another survey
… because it's not the same survey for researchers
… and what about the legal perspective?
Lisa: next steps
… Lisa will put everything into a document
<rashmi> I will have to drop off ,thanks everyone,see you later!
Lisa: will then ask the people on this call to review, update, improve
Lea: looking at it from the perspective of the end users, a lot of end users and designers would like to see more videos or images of the actual users themselves
… knowing that we have some quotes or ways to talk with more individuals and have that in the material
… to show that all of this work is involving these individuals
… then tech and government will then see that these end users are benefitting
<Jennie> * Lea is kind of also suggesting a COGA PR campaign! Love it!
Lisa: what I'm hearing is an issue paper on the research on our research
<Jennie> And, we can add this easily into the web version
<Jennie> 1. here's what you think about, 2. Here's how you design it, 3. Here's how you test it, 4. Here's how a person uses it
Rain spoke to talk about more naturally weaving the quotes directly into the structure
Jennie: does it actually speak to how we have to consider using the web version of making content useable
David: has access to research opportunities through the state of california, can look into that
… also wondering if we are starting to move into what EO is working on?
<Jennie> If we have a survey that points to the need, it may support EO to adopt working on that
Lisa: good point that we need to be careful to scope
Lisa: what is our level 4/5 have to do?
<michal> (I think it's beyond our scope)
<Jennie> I think the government issue paper idea could be some presentations
<Lisa> (gov 4)
Rain: struggling to put a number to it because feel the foundational work is more critical
Jennie: if the group supports Jennie with some time to review materials and set up talking points, we can be strategic about how we present representing COGA in target areas
then it doesn't take the same amount of work
… for example, there are government tech conferences
… and then we can make sure it is tailored to the group
… so multiple ways to tackle this
+1 to this idea
<michal> + 1 too
Lisa: over time, asking one more question
<Jennie> question: is there a group already researching this?
<julierawe> Issue paper on how to work with users?
Rain: take an action item to talk with Sally to help out with the include users issue paper
<Jennie> This was fantastic!
<Jennie> Thank you to everyone that joined!
<LeaW> Thank you!
<julierawe> Thank you!
RSSagent, make minutes