<lisa> regrets, Rain, Kris Anne
updates and actions https://
docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/ edit#heading=h.1bvszq5s0esc
<lisa_> next item
Lisa started with subgroups - Rashmi summary just regular update - need everyone to complete literary review by Sept. Please can you say if you are willing to take a paper. Lisa sent instructions to John to cover a paper
The latter was about a subject not yet covered
Structural group - Rain not present so no update - some positive feedback regarding the structure and comments within the group such as multiple entry points - Julie upgraded the documents for some of the groups.
Lisa not seeing the document where suggestions should be sent but will find it as ideas needed separately from the survey. The survey needs to go out again.
Julie update on Clear Language - deck sent around about which aspects of Clear Language can be tested via the different outputs - higher interrelater reliability versus lower - need proceedural testing for the latter
Julie gave examples such as acronym versus testing for uncommon words - meeting later to sort testable outputs versus testable inputs
Test plan strategy also available Shawn and Jennie - breakout room separate from Clear Language as first time meeting then see how it aligns with Clear Language
Lisa asked Julie if that was OK - as first time subgroup for test plan meets
<lisa_> fyi suggestions for content usable structure: https://
Link to Google document for group to suggest changes to Content Usable - preferably use the template in the document
Jennie mentioned that she and Shawn had put together a document with all the materials for the test plan from the Patterns
Research plan in place thanks to face to face at ICCHP- AAATE 2022 conference. Now need to make a survey - please look at the document Aaron unable to co-chair
Does anyone else like to lead or co-chair with Lisa
Images sub group - now working with designer and a few updates on the wiki page
APA - AGA Rain working in this and not present - working on functional needs. EL group Julie received email from Kevin and happy to make changes suggested and if anything is unclear he will make Github mentions.
Lisa mentioned writing guidelines to help with making issues on Github
Becca working on updates for Clear Language
David working on mental health - needs to be completed by the end of August and Lisa offered any help needed
Michael to feedack on images from the legal perspective.
<Jennie> * I believe Michael is working on getting together with the lawyers about guardianship language, not the images.
John K happy with all the updates. Lisa mentioned that the group is still recruiting researches for basic research behind Content Usable.
EO rather than EL above - Julie will send updates on surgical ?
Lisa is going to make the survey for research planning and TPAC timetable
Rachael - CFC going out next week - last minute update on 2.2 and now planning on TPAC and how to integrate coga
Lisa mentioned that all the meetings over TPAC will be virtual as not enough people attending.
Jennie mentioned that John Rochford will be at TPAC in person.
Shawn no updates - just working on French translation
<lisa_> next item
Lisa reminded us that the group had reached the last row in the table for mental health. Lisa added psychomotor - coordination and a series of skills at a lower level when multitasking.
<lisa_> are we happy now with Psychomotor and coordination
<lisa_> any objections?
Jennie included communication - needing an example of the complexities for simultaneous happenings.
<lisa_> (no objections)
Mental health - functional needs - categories mentioned, needed more granularities
Rashmi commented that there is no response time mentioned - user may have executive functional difficulties - pressure causing difficulties with response time
Lisa added it under executive function. Asked if happy with mental function and regulation - emotion, mood, stress pressure, anxiety, fears etc. hard to categorise with overlaps
Julie wondered what derealisation was - Lisa explained it was detachment from your surroundings.
Lisa read more of the content from the categories for mental health and asked if more work needed to be done
Rashmi said that the lists were long and wondered if the various disorders should be added - not in the functional needs
<Fazio> I've read that stress can trigger al these things even stomach pain
<Jennie> +1 to Julie's idea
Julie mentioned that these disorders could be put in as a margin comment
<Fazio> which was the basis for redundant entry SC and in understanding doc
Lisa wondered if the label for the disorders should be changed to actual considers and Jennie then said the names of the disorders could be added as examples. Lisa felt they could be added at the top to solve the problem
Jennie suggested 'specific content needs' - at the top
Jennie also said triggers in both locations
Julie pointed out that somatic disorders are also mentioned and possibly need changing - Lisa - physical disability and symptoms
Also psychosis is mentioned - need to check this as well
<lisa_> are we happy to send it on or do we want another meeting
Lisa checked to see if everyone was happy to send it on.
Julie wondered what the reaction to it would be - perhaps less actionable.
Lisa said that now we have to decide how to make them actionable.
Jennie suggested may be have a line to say that coga are working on the guidance to help with the issues.
Julie agreed that would solve the problem
<lisa_> are we happy now (0 is more time)
+1 if we have the line saying we are working on guidance
<lisa_> dave is it pom if we go to the list
<Jennie> +1 line we have the line saying we are working on guidance
David said there is a lot to soak in - may need to compartmentalise some of it.
<lisa_> cfc for 4 days
Lisa suggested send to the list and offer 4 days for everyone to think about it
<lisa_> next item
Tomorrow last day of WHO feedback - did anyone provide feedback? Lisa said there were very specific comments for each chapter. Look at the questions before you do the review. The summary document did not have the chapters so you need to look at the whole document.
John K only just getting back to it all - felt processing part not very clearly incorporated in the functional needs - memory - executive - task switching etc
Lisa felt that they needed to add ' and any supplements' when looking at WCAG . Plus testing ...
5 minute break before next meeting.
<lisa_> topic Test Plan and Strategy <https://
Clear Language minutes for meeting
Julie went through the Sorting exercise
WCAG 3.0 have 4 types of tests - just need to see if we can test the outputs or do we need to think about the process ie the inputs.
So trying to find what can be tested as yes/no outputs against the procedural testing for inputs
So started with acronyms... could set up test that would be yes/no but common words need a look at the process
Need to each draft the type of tests possible - Rachael asked if it would be possible to sort out this activity at the end of June
Lisa mentioned that there have been some changes to the labels - now have some clear guides as to what can be done when testing
Lisa feels there are the same levels of testability that has been discussed
Lisa felt that it was possible to automate many more tests than have been suggested before going for the procedural inputs.
Julie suggested that even the example of 1500 words is arbitrary and we need to base it all on research and what type of site does this work on ... so many differences - caps may not help and better to have a process for thinking about it all across different audiences across different sites.
Lisa agreed we need to address basis for saying what is included in the test using the example of the number of words needed.
Core vocabulary has been well researched over time.
Julie asked how do you account for different words used amongst groups.
Julie feels it is much more complex and needs to stay as a procedural test
Becca added that it is complex - most common word lists can be restrictive such as disability not mentioned in top 1000
How do we articulate a procedure that reduces the risk of bias on behalf of the developer - e.g. who is the website audience - they may say that it would never include someone with a learning disability
Jeanne added that she also feels we should be cautious in choosing word lists - lots of criticism for the reasons already said. Jeanne felt that the tests had been really well explained but also need subjective test and test condition - this is our style guide or this is our list words and that is what is measured against - this is because you want to know how well they did rather than putting a straight jacket on them that would stifle creativity.
<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to talk about Test Condition type of test.
Jeanne went on to say that there is a problem about using a restrictive vocabulary.
Need to give people the flexibility - give them the tools works with the procedural test or test condition is a good way to make this happen
Lisa suggested we need to take this forward by working out what part of the issue can be tested
then make that test and add a procedural test on top. Asked - where would have a warning? This allows you to relook at something
Content Usable had some extensions for WCAG
Need to add a glossary and guidance to add support complex words
Lisa - core words + fringe vocabulary that includes the complex words that might need explanations
Julie - taking Becca's point about bias - need to make this procedural testing involve user testing with a diverse group
Julia went on to say that the accessibility tester may not know the process is that the site developers have used when requesting content for the site
Need to see if the owners have included guidance about way they have solved the issues of ease of use, complexity and accessibility which may also include the levels of understanding of content etc
Lisa suggested that not many actually do user testing so need to make most things testable
Julie - did not want to equate user testing with procedural testing - need to make sure that it is clear how the procedural testing is done with all the components involved that can be checked.
Julie feels clear words is not testable objectively
Lisa has made several versions of the idea of objectively testing for clear words.
Jeanne wanted to remind everyone that this type of procedural testing can still be required - it is not optional.
Jeanne feels it is really important that companies can improve their accessibility with or without automated tools
Lisa also added the ways in which automated testing can be done on clear words.
Julie is open to the idea of testing automatically but feels the procedural testing will also be hard.
May be do not start with this complicated issue - need to build in flexibility - can conditional testing solve this issue - if it can we can see how it goes
Lisa has offered to find her original work
Lisa suggested whether in the next working session lets see what can be testable - brainstorm all the tests and then see what has to be testable.
Thank you Jeanne for your note... Please everyone note it.
Julie asked if website owners have to make it possible for anyone to test a page with any test tool. .
<julierawe> Correction: Julie is asking if conditional testing can include the testee providing a list of words before the conditional test is done
<lisa_> prevouse versions are at https://
Jeanne suggested that now with dynamic webpages there is an issue with always getting the same results as things keep changing. Feels it is important that there is a requirement for accessibility but now we could start to make website comply with a procedural type of test.
<jeanne> You could build a tool that would allow people to download their vocabulary. The prototype tool that Francis build allows you to load a list of words.
<jeanne> Yes, that puts it into the procedural bucket, unless we make a change to conformance that forces people to make declarations
<jeanne> Lawyers will push back strongly against that
Julie added that there is an issue with different sites such as needing site information before starting to test for accessibility so not all will be automated and some things will have to be explored so that a procedural test can be undertaken.
Lisa suggested that meta data can be used to help explain procedural tasks - such as word lists that can then be validated.
Lisa asked where do we go next to see what tests we have and what needs to be procedural - what might be achievable as a test for the next working session
Julie said she will switch to a Google doc for more content than the decks (slides) and add Lisa's links to clear words. Feels the exercise will take longer that originally thought.
Julie feels it is too early to present at TPAC - need more discussion to finish the sorting exercise before drafting.
<jeanne> The Evaluating Procedures proposal will be presented at TPAC. It would be great to have these examples for that.
Lisa suggested collecting tests, do some research and then perhaps face to face at TPAC as next Clear Language meeting is 1st Sept.
Julie happy to be the 'point' person if able to get to TPAC will get back to Lisa.