– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<Lisa> scribe+ rain lisa

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: because of TPAC, a lot of subgroups won't be meeting

scribe+ Rain Lisa

Lisa: so we will check in to make sure we don't get bottlenecked

<Fazio> Rashmi sent regrets

Rain: structure - survey is closing September 15, so please do a last push
… links: outreach record -- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xXjHPCfWm00iAJqmjdwFq_RQ80vKwwxFAoiEGI3NOlM/edit

Form: https://bit.ly/content-usable-v2

Jennie: updates on test plan and strategy which is meeting later today and looking at things within content usable to see how we can best make testable statements and processes for each of the items in the document

David: ICT asking me to run an innovation sprint to create testing for people with cognitive disabilities

Rain: part of mEnabled the week of October 24, David leading it

Lisa: research plan and strategy, some back and force with Rashmi and Rain about the introduction. Conclusion is okay with what we have knowing that we have to keep it there and made a lot of text adjustments to make it as easy to understand

Jennie: images update, group had a robust conversation Friday
… Rain provided annotations and concepts, and designers have tasks getting ready for September meeting
… currently tightly scoping work based on specific design elements that the subgroup has identified
… once we get a tighter idea around that, will review the other documents

Lisa: do you want us to continue gathering examples for inspiration

<Lisa> pages in the whild: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TeSP612Z9Zf7Srojdbq0te615CE0g5wB6puCBVLXziw/edit#

Lisa: when you do see good examples, find pages can be good examples of one or two things but not everything, so indicate what you thought was good

Rain: yes, these are helpful, had to scope the designers more tightly for now, but will be looking to these for inspiration

Lisa: current high priority is APA's collaboration tool accessibility feedback
… we have a link to our feedback, please take a look and put your thoughts in

Task review: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Collaboration_Tool_Accessibility

Our feedback document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Ha6bbgDMMo_zLLWa3yz88mkwL2Dz7eczWXQTB6mcPc/edit?usp=sharing

Lisa: the EO group has said they are continually refining this, so I'm wondering if we want to do a pass and offer key points
… they've tried to be inclusive but felt like it wasn't how we do it

<kirkwood> first pass to me it seems like it needs a lot of work

Lisa: the language is not the right phrasing

Lisa: think we should do a review, but don't think this is the highest priority
… does the team want to look at making events accessible as well? Or just hope it will resolve by itself?

Le: might be worth doing as a joint thing since we are already doing one

kirkwood: struck me that this needs a lot of work

kirkwood: not as sensitive as it needs to be

<EA> +1 to John's comments. Odd that the document saved says 'accessible presentations' rather than 'meetings' Mixed messages etc.

Jennie: haven't reviewed the EO document, but think we need to start with the original timeline to satisfy the obligation we committed to, then we can copy it over to the other group
… that way they are aware
… if there is time, we can do this, too, but be cautious of what we commit to

Lisa: okay, going to say that this will be a follow on after we have looked at the APA document
… also lowering the priority, not because it is important but because of Jennie's point about overextending

<Fazio> +1

Lisa: we can point them in the right directions

Lisa: any objections?

(no response)

Lisa: verifiable credentials, which will be part of TPAC

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDPA3R1Y4hVn4Eq9NlRTZ_hg4cpd_8ZtpWoFiVuF_lk/edit#heading=h.w7xxqe7qzxx5

Lisa: they are creating a set of user needs

<Lisa> credials user needs https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Some_use_cases_for_verifiable_credentials

Lisa: they will discuss in TPAC whether they want to take this further
… might be that we decide to get involved if they decide to take it further
… giving a quick read, think it's a bit like block chain, where you can verify what things are used for what

<Fazio> Privacy implications?

Lisa: think there could be a lot of potential here across user needs

<kirkwood> very important

David: seems very important to us to make sure it can't be abused and exploited

Lisa: we have a previous document on metadata support
… one thing that comes to mind is that organizations don't like to give you say quick phone access, but if you are known to be disabled, then they ought to have to let you

EA: we've been experimenting with this, doing a voting session on app for users with AAC access and using blockchain

<Fazio> I have some real world examples of why companies say no to this

EA: each of those elements requires a different security way to enter
… really are limited as to how easy they can make the security
… one of mine requires me to have twelve secure words
… the only way to link between browser and app is to use those 12 words, and a password
… so the difficulty what is required to get you into the secure pathway
… so this needs to be figured out

EA: and once you get in, you may have to go through the process again to get to another part of the block chain
… they are all separate so they cannot be broken into
… need to do a ton of research first to make sure this is usable

Lisa: a key question and wondering if it possible to raise these at TPAC

kirkwood: agreeing with aspect of remembering 12 words or names to get into the secure system
… but the blockchain model should reduce that because should be safer and easier once you get in
… get in through your own device

EA: blockchain by itself can look after your security
… the problem comes with what you have to interact with to get into the blockchain
… the bit storing my votes was the blockchain bit, but getting into the voting system was the challenge

<Fazio> Biometrics

Lisa: there will be work to do in the way of use cases
… and overreaching questions before we suggest using this
… make sure this is itself useable
… these are the key questions

Lisa: think need to take an action to ask APA about verifiable credentials

<ShawnT> +1 to biometrics

Lisa: asking David about the deadline next week for mental health form submission

David: thinks good with deadline

Lisa: feel free anyone finding it overwhelming to reach out to Lisa

Lisa: switching to guardianship drafts

Jennie: Michael Cooper is setting up the meeting. Asking Lisa and JohnK to confirm availability

Michael: proposed time is Wed. Sept. 7 at 11am ET

kirkwood: that time works fo rme

Lisa: thank you, Michael, for making this happen

Lisa: asked about specifications for images

Jennie: yes, we have what we need for image specifications

Lisa: asking JohnK about research for mental health

kirkwood: yes, haven't completed yet

Lisa: will start recruiting

Lisa: asking Julie if anything in her list should be removed?

Julie: working on the examples for TPAC, and John R should be returning to the project soon

Lisa: hoping for at least one example

Julie: EO is on hold, making TPAC the top priority and know Kevin at EO is busy with other things as well

Le: if someone else available to take the literary reviews on my list, that would be helpful
… can try to do one of them

Lisa: pick one and put your name next to it so that others know where to get it

Lisa: my updates, did look at collaborative meetings
… research questions took a look at that, and there is a lot to do there,
… worried about balancing and spending all our time working on research questions
… will go back to the group on what they are actively working on, since there is so much there that can actually impact us
… haven't tested survey with a screen reader yet, but want to do that by TPAC so that we can start sending it out at TPAC

<Zakim> MichaelC, you wanted to suggest generic research questions

MichaelC: research questions, are you wanting to review priorities of the task force, or suggest questions?

Lisa: no, Janina mentioned that we can keep on top of what they are doing by looking at their wiki page, and saw there are tons of things there that can take up all our time

MichaelC: I think what Janina really meant is that if we have research questions, we can bring them to the RQTF
… please don't get lost in the wiki itself,
… COGA questions should be high level
… we can circle back to details down the road
… will require some interaction to make something a research priority
… possible to come up with questions that will engage their interest

Lisa: that's different from what I understood. Understood that they've created documents that we've been upset by or we have made suggestions to late, so need to stay on top of their work
… it might be a good idea to ask them for help with our research, as well

Lisa will circle back with Janina

Fazio: national science foundation reached out to me recently to be part of a grant program to fund research, so we might be able to use that as a way to help us answer some of these questions

Lisa: did something like that effectively for the european commission
… we can learn from that model

David: will look for it and sent it to the group

Lisa: just a reminder that we won't be responding as W3C COGA, but rather as individuals

David: we can review the solicitation together and find out the best route to get us help because this will be a lot of work

Lisa: adding an action item to David's list to follow up on this

ShawnT: mid-september is when we will start the project to link to Making Content Usable. Already been tranlsated into French, but need to verify it is understandable to the French community

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: Adapt group (formerly personalization) wanted a get to know each other meeting
… may find an hour in the morning on Tuesday or Thursday

Lisa: maybe someone should be making a presentation for functional needs and what we did?

Lisa: asking about what other meetings or work we may want to do, writing it into the schedule (not scribing every word)
… when it comes to content usable, we are not all on top of it as much as each other
… also might want to brainstorm ideas?
… are there other things in Content Usable we should be doing?
… we know we want it to be more testable, for example, but maybe there are other ideas
… a really good brainstorm session may be very useful, and Tuesday morning would be key
… then we can have working time on the testing process
… does that sound like a good morning

<ShawnT> +1

Rain: I can have some preliminary ideas ready to share for revising structure by that time

Lisa: that would be great, but also want to make sure there is time for very open conversation

Lisa: then if we have time, overview of mental health review and what patterns we are finding, mid-analysis conversation

Lisa: some of the schedule times noted may need to be adjusted
… will update when we know specifics

Lisa: do we want to try for joint meeting with EO, or leave as is?

Julie: KrisAnne did not think working session would be the way to go, instead to put very specific suggestions on the document for them

Lisa: it would be worth reaching out to EO during this time for people who are there, have a drink with them, and establish a relationship
… we want to widen the scope of how important this work is together

Lisa: five minutes break
… return at 3 minutes past the hour

<Jennie> *Canadians are awesome (wink!)

lang and testing subgroups

Clear Language and Test Types subgroup meeting

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tve0g7pRufB5iShWwstwrfGdDtbn8YdsHEyN7Coj1vU/edit#slide=id.p

Rain: things are changing rapidly
… so don't try to stay with that, instead follow what we've already been doing
… and we will correct once the terminology and definitions have been agreed on

Julie: looked at ways to break off binary testing
… for TPAC, asking "can clear language do binary testing?"
… trying to show that yes, there is a way to do yes or no testing

Julie: tried to create some examples that may be universal
… if you need different versions for different languages, that would be a different test type
… looking for one that doesn't depend on adapting to inputs from the user

Julie: landed on roman numerals as a small discrete test
… which shows that there are parts of clear language that can be done

Julie: including symbols and letters is language specific, because guidance is different in different languages
… when we have parts of clear language that have different rules for different languages, how many languages do we need to do?
… aiming for small and manageable because hoping to have a conversation at TPAC to show that we can do this
… big part that is not in here are the more complex things like common words
… and whether we can set rigorous procedural testing requiring the website to say what common words they are sticking to

Lisa: procedural thing, cannot edit or make comments in the presentation

Julie: apologize, trying to fix that

Lisa: cannot add to presentation, which is fine, but asking procedurally that we set it up so that everyone can edit
… noting that Hebrew is as excellent example, and isn't so simple as what we have in the document so far

Lisa: when we were thinking about language specific, what we were talking about is having a wiki

Jennie: excellent overview, two questions
… some text to speech tools are less feature rich, so are we only referencing feature rich ones or all of them?

Julie: excellent question, pulling from making content usable, so if there is additional detail then we should add it

Jennie: example if take a tool like immersive reader, that is where we are going to find real differences

<ShawnT> +1 to Jennie

Jennie: user agents making to the machine readable components, for example
… have to be a little more discrete

<Lisa> +1 to jennie

Jennie: question 2, in reference to slide 10, if referencing paragraph text alone or also apply to date entry fields

<ShawnT> Would screen readers be considered text to speech technology?

Jennie: there is a tieback into the way information can be taken into a data entry field and then moved back into the systems
… times where for quick visual discrimination, having the number makes it easier
… considering those use cases, may be more helpful to scope down even smaller to paragraph text
… to help scope the conversation for TPAC

julierawe: great point, so specifying in a paragraph
… that way not trying to scope it into non-paragraph, so that at this time it helps everyone stay together in the conversation
… gives a more specific use case for now
… doesn't mean we cannot broaden it out for later

<kirkwood> +1 to splitting

Jennie: will be much easier to split them out because the form controls will make it too difficult and complicated

<kirkwood> agreement to Jennie’s point

<ShawnT> When it comes to forms, I always point to the UK: https://design-system.service.gov.uk/patterns/dates/

<kirkwood> screen reader uses meta data

<ShawnT> I'm aware of the differences, I was wondering if there was a term we can use that covers both?

Rain: addressed that screen readers and TTS are different
… mentioned that we are changing the names of conditional and unconditional to either computational or qualitative
… mentioned that identifying if a site has the accents needed or not is computational, but then have to adapt to how that is evaluated and may have different conformance in different languages
… if a site is using roman numerals or not for numbers is computational, as well

Laughter as a group over the complexity

Lisa: good news is these are good examples to bring to TPAC

Lisa: suggesting we each take a type of test and create examples

Original definitions: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KhuTdTemRjjJIFViftKYPXc1nKhcJ4LqrQum0qOJLBI/edit#slide=id.gfe3effe5fb_0_6

EA: adaptive, would that mean ddmmyyyy if I moved to America my computer would see that my location has changed and adjust?
… web developer has enabled it to become personalized?

julierawe: one more week before TPAC
… like Lisa's idea, folks add to the deck and pick apart examples

<EA> So sorry I am in Namibia tomorrow till 24th Sept

julierawe: align on drafts next week

<Jennie> Apologies - I won't have capacity to take on a task for the next week

Julie: we have a conventional example (diacritics)

julierawe: roman numeral is computational
… slide 10 is computational using adaptive method

Lisa: simple verb simple tense as a procedural test?

julierawe: when word procedural comes up, keep in mind that some people may think it won't have any enforceability
… getting organization to affirm
… I want to push back on checkability
… should get people to declare what they are doing and test against what they are declaring

<Jennie> +1 and it is auditable

+1 to Julie

ShawnT: isn't procedural testing where wanted to bring content usable into the content usable

julierawe: what we are trying to show is that there are parts of content usable that can be old school repeatable high interrater reliability tests
… doesn't all have to be procedural

Julie: happy to draft common words where we get the site to tell us what they are testing against, and then we can check against it

<kirkwood> have you met standards/guidelines and/or are you following procedures? is how to meet legal requirments. so it may or may not be confusing.

<Lisa> john: hard to rap your head around these diffrent tersm, iether proceduers or standards. they cant be both

<Lisa> ea: been reserch if there is the resrch on testing against a process or proceduer on how these words are used. pleale use more , but if you take 1000 words on a subject , the set ofwords is not more then a thousand complex twords

<Lisa> (to say tm, controled language

<Lisa> EA: we can do it

<Lisa> julie: both rigurouse and flexible.

<Lisa> procedual may not be the right word. accessible to testeres what the words are

<Lisa> disagrees with how u see procedual. if you see something being actionalble, there is the policy and the policeduer. if they didnt follow a proceduer it can be messuered, and action can be taken

<Lisa> (jennie

<kirkwood> agreed with Jennie, not following procedures is binary.

<EA> So sorry I will be away next week.

<Lisa> Julie: we are meeting on monday, 9 am.

<Jennie> Apologies - can't meet or take a task for next week

<kirkwood> sorry must drop

<Jennie> Nice work Julie!

<Jennie> Have a good week