Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

25 August 2022


aaronchu, Becca_Monteleone, David, EA, Fazio, Jennie, julierawe, Kiki, kirkwood, Klaus, Le, Lisa, Maya, MichaelC, Michal_Lahav, Rachael, Rain, rashmi, Roy, ShawnT
Jennie, lisa, rain

Meeting minutes

Lisa: Kiki - please introduce yourself

Kiki: I work for Google as a UX research. My background is Occupational Therapy

Lisa: Welcome

Updates, subgroup reviews, task requests and actions. see https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit# lisa]

Lisa: We are reviewing the actions page
… Today we will review the subgroup information
… Mental Health group: we need to be finishing the lit review in the next week or 2

<EA> Rashmi sent email saying 'Regrets'

Lisa: If you have items on your to-dos regarding this group for the lit review, please review them
… If you need help, please reach out to Rashmi and myself
… Structure subgroup

Rain: We are meeting as a subgroup after this call.
… I have prepared a deck for the meeting with the responses to the survey.
… If you are interested in those, please join the meeting
… We only have 59 responses
… We are keeping the meeting open until September 15
… Please continue to share the survey
… Get in touch with me if you have questions on how to promote it
… Especially for those with contacts throughout the world

Lisa: Do you want time at TPAC?

Rain: I think a 2 hour working session would be good
… And including people that aren't able to attend TPAC - from the community group?

Lisa: Clear Language is an agenda item on itself

Julie: Welcome Kiki!
… We met on August 4th
… The plans to get things done by the end of August will not happen
… We really focused on just one piece of clear language - use common words
… Part of the discussion was how we can make it a rigorous and flexible standard
… Example: allow a site to make available a list of subject matter vocabulary they consider to be familiar to their audience
… Jeanne Spellman was on the call
… We discussed can we make it so the site declares: this is our subject matter vocabulary, these are our core words
… The question we had: if we require those 2 inputs, could it be conventional testing, or just having these inputs makes it a procedural test?
… The main thing: find a way to be rigorous but flexible
… I am working on a way to map out how the 2 inputs could be used for this testing
… And, for the scoring system, reward a site for picking a small number of most common words
… The idea is to build in flexibility to promote meeting the standard
… Not just, have you trained your staff on plain language
… More about: have you decided what are common words for your site
… I'm hoping we can discuss on August 30

Lisa: Let's shelve our questions for the TPAC section
… I thought we were going to do an example of a protocol test, and one that is more of a typical type of test. Is that going to be discussed?

Julie: I had hoped that we could do the sorting exercise, put everything into the 2 testing categories
… We got stuck on the "use common words" so I figured why don't we try to build that one out
… It is perhaps new territory, the idea of using inputs
… I am not sure if Silver will think of this as procedural, or not...

Lisa: Julie, we had said, we were going to have examples of the unit and procedural testing
… Will we have those 2 drafts?
… I think we need that for the next step.
… Incremental - let's make an example of a unit test
… Do you think we will get there?

Julie: I think the procedural test is the harder one to do
… I thought the more conventional test is easier
… Example: acronyms

Rachael: We really do need a conditional test
… The procedural test is great as an example
… We really need conditional because it is the middle group
… Example: in this language, this should apply
… If you aren't going to do it by TPAC, I may need to put a subgroup together

Lisa: OK, this is critical

Julie: Good to know. We can switch gears and make this a top priority

<Rachael> Thank you!

Lisa: Thank you

Rain: On the Silver subgroup defining test types and terminology
… We have identified a number of questions
… We are presenting on that tomorrow at the Silver meeting, if anyone wants to join
… I will share the drafts with Julie so you know what those are
… I have been attempting to write these types of tests
… You might be able to lift some of those

Lisa: Rain, can you send that to the task force as well?

Rain: Yes

<julierawe> Rain = fantastic!!!!

Lisa: Test plan strategy

Shawn: Our next step is to meet with Julie to speak about the testing they are doing in Plain Language
… then we will go more from there

Lisa: Thank you
… Next is the Research Plan and Strategy - and we are meeting after this call
… We are doing well. We have a draft of a survey
… People have looked at
… We can discuss any comments today
… There was an interesting comment from EA to put it through an ethical community, then do it as a research project
… Roy, does the W3C have an ethics committee?
… Roy, interrupt when you have your audio
… We also have a draft outline for our research plan, based on the face to face meeting
… Group members can review and add comments
… It is a good starting point

<Zakim> Rain, you wanted to say that we will probably want to keep the groups together and do half and half

Rain: I think we should keep both subgroups together because there is overlap

Jennie: Images subgroup is meeting tomorrow morning (Central time)

Lisa: Regarding our timeline
… We are wanting to get feedback from different communities
… Is the community group doing that or do we need to reach out a bit more?

Rain: Are you referring to the research survey for getting feedback?

Lisa: Just on the Content Usable, do we have all the use cases?

Rain: Members of the community group are doing outreach within their communities
… I think the next steps are to put together some reports to bring that back to us

Lisa: Great.
… We have 2 new requests
… One is high priority
… They would like our feedback over the next month
… They are making a User Need thing on collaborative tools

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Collaboration_Tool_Accessibility

Lisa: I have put the link here
… They will be working with Github
… They have some actions going on around this
… They want our feedback
… So our voices and opinions are included
… We did things like this
… We made a Google doc - a review of accessible meetings
… One on inclusive groups
… We also had some slides from TPAC on inclusive meetings
… And we had some feedback from the W3C
… I put all of our previous work together
… They don't want to look at that - that's for our reference
… They want individual issues
… I made a document called Coga Review of Accessible Meetings
… We can add as many issues here as we want, and I can either add them into Github, or just give them the whole list
… I think this will help us and them track to be sure we have understood each other
… When people actually give suggested working, it can be really helpful
… Things like: could you add (this technique) to (this thing)
… We may not manage that with each one
… But definitely separate out each issue
… And when possible, be specific about which wording, which section, and give a concrete suggestion
… Is anyone interested in reviewing their document?

Jennie: I can review by the 3rd week of September

Lisa: OK
… Does anyone else want to take a look at it?

<kirkwood> would def take a look… link to add comments?

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Ha6bbgDMMo_zLLWa3yz88mkwL2Dz7eczWXQTB6mcPc/edit#heading=h.lq5z1u5iwsun

<kirkwood> perfect

Lisa: I have put the issues at the top
… Their text is underneath
… Even if you just add comments, that would be fine

<ShawnT> I would like to ask my team to look into it, we are working on a large collaborative project

Lisa: next from APA is verifiable credentials
… This is use cases for verifiable credentials
… This can be more than just saying "I am a person"
… We have done similar stuff, like a paper on metadata
… We could open a document - a similar kind of thing
… We don't have as tight a schedule
… Is anyone interested in doing a review of that?
… We can go over it next week as well
… Rain, have you managed to go through our issues on remote meetings

Rain: I am about half way through and hope to have this next week

Lisa: Let's go through the individual action items

Jennie: Michael Cooper has sent an email beginning to set up the guardianship language meeting

Lisa: I sent John K an email about researches as part of the literary review
… to do the searches we discussed

John K: I see them.

Julie: Kevin from EO have been accepting some of our github issues regarding how people use the web
… One is that they don't understand why we can't define learning or cognitive disabilities
… One person brought up that they are defined in the DSM

Lisa: KrisAnne - should we meet with EO at TPAC?

KrisAnne: I am not sure how many members will be going to TPAC
… Kevin is on vacation
… Depending on who is going to be at TPAC

Julie: The github issues Kevin is creating and his colleague has been commenting on
… I think it would be helpful if we review, and suggest wording
… I am not sure that a meeting would get more done than a working session

KrisAnne: I agree
… Right now EO is working on videos
… We are trying to get the videos done by the end of the year, and some hinges on the work with the personas
… I know that Kevin is trying to get them into a more polished state
… The scripts need to be created, then looked through
… This is making this more time sensitive
… I agree with Julie's suggestion of a working session
… is the best bet

Julie: It sounds like we should make our feedback on the personas the top priorities, and less on the other page

KrisAnne: There are 3 sets of videos
… The cognitive disabilities page may get its own video as well
… I am not sure how to prioritize

Lisa: It seems like we need to ask them
… Rachael do you have an AG update?

Rachael: yes, I can keep it quick

Lisa: Le - you have papers to review for mental health

Rachael: 1. We are aiming to discuss the conformance model, and create a template at TPAC
… We will remind people of the shared architecture, shared vocabulary for conversations
… 2. We are trying to get WCAG 2.2 out the door
… There is a 2nd round of the CFC in the next day or so
… I did hear concerns about all the email conversation going on
… When the CFC come out you can see a single copy
… Directly reach out to me if you have questions
… We need to finish in the next 2 days

Lisa: I would really do better with an editor's draft

Rachael: I tried to send a simple version
… But there has been a lot of conversation since then

Updates from AG (WCAG)

<Lisa> close item 2

Lisa: I look at everyone else's agendas and tried to put them together into ours
… We have a meeting with APA 1st thing in the morning

<Rachael> For reference only, AG's schedule is at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2022#AG_WG_Meeting_at_TPAC_2022

Lisa: Part of this will be the functional needs
… There is also CEPC

Rachael: Code of ethics and professional conduct

Lisa: OK we have the AG scoring
… I was hoping we would have a bit of time at TPAC to get the examples discussed for Julie's group before the scoring conversation, but that is not going to happen
… On September 12th we will have that conversation
… I think we need a conversation mid week to have an example of each kind of test
… before TPAC - does that make sense?

Julie: Yes
… Midweek prior to September 12th?

Lisa: Yes. Like Monday or Wednesday
… Otherwise we will miss TPAC and that would be a shame
… Then I had after lunch building language based on the discussion with AG
… Does that sound ok?

Rachael: I would recommend changing scoring to test types to reduce confusion

Lisa: OK
… They will be examples of where we can tease out what the issues are

Rachael: I think that will be useful. The subgroup Rain is in will talk about their recommendations for testing, then everyone will talk about the examples each group has
… Then we will talk about the requirements for WCAG 3 - are we working in a useful direction

Julie: We have the meeting for September 1, then I will schedule a call the week following

Rachael: Your time blocks are not matching up with mine - at some point that needs to be updated

Lisa: OK
… Tuesday: we haven't decided what we wanted in
… We have divided up the work that needs to be done to update Making content usable, and different subgroups are working on these tasks
… Are there subgroups here that would like time - and each could have a time here
… Are there other subgroups that want to present?

Jennie: I think the testing group won't be ready for a presentation, but may benefit from a working time slot

<Rachael> Feel free to reach out to me

<Rachael> Happy to do that.

Shawn: It might be nice, as a new attendee, to have a mentor

<Rachael> I

Shawn: for attending

Lisa: Maybe join the orientation call with Kiki and I will put some time on TPAC

ShawnT: It is more just about TPAC

<ShawnT> Thank you Rachael

Lisa: I will put together a better page with the call in information
… And I will put TPAC on the agenda for next week

Lisa: We have mental health - I can put that on the agenda
… I will put the provisional findings of the research subgroup
… Is there anything else people feel their topic needs face to face, productive time?
… I will ask everyone to try to keep these days free. There will be lots of interesting conversations happening

John K: Do we have one on testing?

Jennie: Yes, a working time, not a presentation

Lisa: OK, thank you John. You might find it really kicks things off
… We have a follow on meeting
… The structure and research subgroups
… We will have a 5 minute break

subgroups for stucture ande reserch

<Lisa> close item 5

<Lisa> close item 3

<Lisa> close item 4

<Rain> Deck with the current analysis: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PTCdFcg6NRK4exNX9LIquCGFHIwthQod4lgXpQx4vKw/edit#slide=id.g1470018ce4c_0_0

analysis of the structure survey responses to date

rain is showing the slides

tech and US centric at the moment

most are content creaters

but a lot of individuals from coga and advocat4es

low from owners, accedemia, educators

may be a los from educators

70% cognative accessibility for many years, not reaching new

most do not use it occasionaly or regualy

<ShawnT> I live and work in Quebec and it's hard for me to share it because it's not in French

are u working on a transalation?

need to give people more of a reason to return

<ShawnT> Would you like me to? From my understanding Google forms isn't accessible in French. Maybe I can make a Microsoft Forms version.

use: citation, headings, quick ref, practicle design, teminolgy and persona , design stamdard to share with team

pelple are using it to convince their team

4& did not find what they are looking for...

findability is a huge issue

acjk next

<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to ask if I could create a Microsoft forms version in French and English?

rain: let me check with kiki how to do this

shawn: we did something similar

negative comments: too much, findability, practicality, need the reserch , get lost, it get mixed up

not easy to understand, repetive

it gets used at each phase in life cycle

people want: practicle example, simplifing wayfinding, reserch

note we have the reserch but it is not mapped

<ShawnT> +1 to mapping the research to the document content

clarify pourpose, overwelming, w3c note issue

comment: wcag 2 feels discrimination

also some realy nice feedback#no clicking just scroolling

great resource

<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to speak on Ctrl+F

shawn: do we have a pattern on contol f?

<kirkwood> finding within hidden content is a very good point!

<Rain> Lisa: did not find this depressing, these are problems we knew we had

new issues for stucture from working group. see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CeqiSy3tVDoeBzCG8LpkyFT1fvugGk86JuT6NvfSiAA/edit#

<Rain> ... knew publishing document to get it out there, then revise

<Rain> ... new issues from the working group, what Shawn just did was pull out some issues

<Rain> ... as a subgroup and participants, to put ideas we have into the document as well

<Rain> ... and have the subgroup look at that document of suggestions, as well

<Rain> ... be careful when restructure not to destroy the things that are working


<Rain> ... have a slew of issues in the issues repository, as well, tagging for v2

<Rain> ... also ask people to fill this out at TPAC or the research one

<ShawnT> Could we make a QR code for it?

lea: is this an issue of the audence- are we to accidemic

should we have two versions,

<Rain> Lisa: for us that's valid

<Rain> ... EO makes the broader audience work, but not something tempted to push inside the W3C

next steps:

qualitave iterviews - 30 people


rain is working on some stucture suggestions

caan anyone start moving forward with interviews

<Rain> Kiki: help work on the qualitative research questions

kiki can make script

thank u kiki

survey for reserch doc. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-VdpaYq0qLk0bZYryimWb-VL_tlklX-D1Uvtd2btzrw/edit

Lisa: research documents are out of date, so trying to figure out the importance of updating those documents and how they are released

<kirkwood> apologize due to a meeting conflict. I have a hard stop at 11:58

Lisa: created a survey for feedback, got good notes and updated most of them
… some things are getting too long
… for example, Rain suggested to break out the questions into separate ones instead of using the grid

Rain: concern around the grid is screen reader experience

Lisa: ah, okay, thought a comprehension thing
… so we will test the grid to make sure that it works

Julie: mentioning that the demographic questions are not in the form
… so the question asking if the users are willing to add demographics needs to either be removed or have follow on

Lisa: could delete the question, not sure the demographic information as needed here

Lisa: EA asked if we should break up the roles, but that made it a bit long
… Testing and QA probably should remain together, but maybe Researcher and Academic should be separated?
… Does anyone mind if I don't split them up?

+1 to keeping them together to make the data easier for us to parse later

Kiki: I could see academic and researcher as separate because the work is very different

Lisa: should we make a different spreadsheet to track where it is being sent?

Rain: suggest use same sheet but make a separate tab

Lisa: right, we can link to the individual tabs

LInk to outreach record: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xXjHPCfWm00iAJqmjdwFq_RQ80vKwwxFAoiEGI3NOlM/edit?usp=chrome_omnibox&ouid=107030174649805411088

<kirkwood> +1

do we want to delay and go via ethics commity ?

Lisa: would you like to go through an ethics committee, which could delay results by 3 months

Julie: if we go through ethics, can we reduce the long preamble?

Rain: we'd probably have to add more

Lisa: no, there would be lots of standards we have to go through
… checking privacy and that we are meeting all of the international standards
… which means we may end up with more as a result

<ShawnT> This is the link Roy gave for the Ethics community at W3C: https://www.w3.org/community/pwe/

Lisa: advantage is that then we can publish in a journal

Julie: now that I understand more, this isn't the survey we'd want to hold up for publishing
… if we were to go the ethics route, it'd be protocols for doing user testing or something like that

<kirkwood> sorry must drop

Lisa: question is, does anyone care?

<Kiki> I have to drop

<julierawe> I agree with Rain--I vote for not going through the ethics committee

rain: it will also make it more complex

not sure what the gain is

<kirkwood> +1 to Rain


Lisa: one more point, we made an original plan for a review
… please look it over and make comments

<ShawnT> thanks everyone

thank you!

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).


Maybe present: comment, Julie, KrisAnne, lea, Shawn, use