updates and actions https://
docs.google.com/ also look at https:// document/ d/ 15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/ edit#heading=h.1bvszq5s0esc docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 1n_pV-lbgorW2oihIB4EdONOFN0EcRmBAkmUEEPdTAEw/ edit#
Lisa called for updates and actions - very quick round up
Mental health sub group - set two more meetings
Lisa and Rashmi worked late for initial meeting so set new times - India friendly times and more that are US friendly. One after this call 7/19th Oct meeting in the mornings
Any problems due to timings?
<lisa> any objections:
Structure subgroup - Rain mentioned a concern
Rain had a solution to possible issues - qualitative research having done the quantative survey - Kiki, Shawn and Rain analysing quantative data and now want interview for sharing more data
Also share more to validate data
Need to record the interviews such as video recording or carefully documenting what comes out of the interviews... need ethics
W3C does not have approved tools or ethics approval for privacy and data etc
We as individuals are responsible for the ethics - means that coga individuals are put at risk. Possibly Google could be the organisation that has the research ethics
Findings would then be shared with coga and it is possible other organisations have ethics and could provide support
Rain feels that coga task force should be comfortable with the chosen organisation that receives the data and has the insights.
Kiki confirmed that only the consent forms and data would be seen by the organisation and then shared outcomes - confirmed by Lisa
Lisa explained that invited experts may not have any infrastructure behind them so could be sued. Asked if Google could work with a hybrid system where the experts can do it as part of Google and the others have their own research infrastructure.
Rain replied that this would not be possible with Google as the latter is very careful about sharing data and keeping private data secure.
Rain said that it is possible to pull our anonymised data and share that with others.
Lisa asked how it affected viewing the survey
<Jennie> 1. Institutional Review Board (IRB) process/length of time for review before launch. 2. Assent process in addition to Consent or option to use this. 3. No pay wall for publication.
Rain replied that what people agreed to initially states clearly what is allowed - so that is easier but as Kiki confirmed the data collected from individuals the consent is different and belongs to Google.
data belongs to Google
Jennie commented on the length of time that needs to be considered - then you need to think about assent as well as consent as some groups may have difficulty with this aspect. Google may want no pay wall
Lisa suggested that after Rain and Kiki do the research around the interviews it is then shared - not a formal partnership - need to avoid that.
Becca added that many universities allow people to be added as part of the research team - affiliated to allow for collaboration.
Universities can take time but it depends on the subject content and liabilities.
Rain followed up as confirming that she and Kiki are happy to work on the interviews but happy to support it going through another organisation.
Kiki +1 to Rain's comments and willing to help with research and scripts etc. as the initial stages do not involve the data
<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to Kiki - university standards, it is only the consent process, data collection, and de-identification that need to be done through the approved ethics process.
<kirkwood> no objection
Lisa asked Rain and Kiki to put together the actions to take to carrying out the research around the interviews at Google.
<Jennie> no objection
<Kiki> no objections
<Rain> +1 to that path forward and gives people time to think of another organization if there is one
Updates with EO
<lisa> Draft survey https://
Research Plan and Strategy - send out the survey
Updates with EO - speedy update
<kirkwood> can we put google doc in irc?
Julie - Another script to review - explanation of cognitive and learning difficulties - feedback on text version - script now about video version. Please use the Google doc Next Weds aligning on feedback
Calendar invite sent out
Meeting Wed Oct 19th to be completed by 21st Oct - possible 1hr - complexity of one of the user stories
Roxanne - scripts based on information already provided and reflected in the script.
Lisa said the Julie has pulled out 8 paragraphs and sentences for commenting
Roxanne confirmed that was all as revolves around coga scripts not the rest of the scripts for other disabilities
Julie thanked Lisa and confirmed that the survey covered many other abilities - scripts on tools and techniques, perception etc and coga may want to comment on but due to time restraints Julie feels we concentrate on the aspects that directly relate to cognitive impairment. EO will lose their funding for the videos if they do not get them finished by the end of the year
Lisa agreed that the timeline is tight and may need to consider a pre-consent system. So please put in comments from now on and try to attend and Julie will submit it as there is no time if you have an issue. Lisa asked if people were happy with the tight timeline
<Jennie> +1 to following Julie's lead on this
<Rain> +1 I am okay with it, Julie is really good about reaching out for clarity when needed
<lisa> are we ok with julie submitting the results of the google doc as an issue to eo after wensdays call
+1 to following Julie's lead
<lisa> any objections
Structure qualitative research
Lisa apologised for the fact this had to be completed so speedily
<lisa> close item 3
<lisa> close item 4
Our review of Collaboration_Tool_Accessibility <https://
www.w3.org/> at coga review of accessible meetings <https:// WAI/ APA/ task-forces/ research-questions/ wiki/ Collaboration_Tool_Accessibility docs.google.com/> document/ d/ 14Ha6bbgDMMo_zLLWa3yz88mkwL2Dz7eczWXQTB6mcPc/ edit?usp=sharing
Review of collboration tool - need results
Jennie asked people to look at the document and make decisions as she will not be around later
Share feedback in the document and Jennie will share her screen. Added suggestions, tools and title and has shared this via email and clarification and going through data already collected
Jennie also added the prior comments so they are available.
<Rashmi> Recent update - We got Janina's response for Jennie's mail about asking the scope of collaboration tool
Jennie hopes that it will all be completed by the end of the following week as she is out of her office
Jennie read Janina's email response with more documents to look at and other note documents. Lots of acronyms mentioned
The acronyms relate to the groups working on other documents related to the collaboration document.
Lisa mentioned the issue with time that is now being considered for feedback - early January. Lisa mentioned that it was going to be end of October.
Lisa feels this is an important document and our feedback appears to be getting lost in the workflow
The document appears to be going to be published now and we have not had time to put together finalised feedback. We have to give quality feedback.
Rachel asked if we had agreed to end of Oct - Lisa mentioned it was in a coordination call and Rachel said she will check out what she can find.
Lisa asked what we should do now... suggested we carry on and Rachel will talk to Janina if possible to see what we can do.
Apologies Rachael - spelling of name.
<Rachael> Rachael has an action to circle back with Janina and find out why the date changed and what we can do to provide feedback (which wont' be available until Nov 1)
<kirkwood> can we propose a github issue? .. is there a github issue already to this point?
John asked if there is a specific Github issue that we are talking about?
Lisa saw on an APA list that the working draft was going to consensus.
Jennie reviewing what Rachael mentioned
Rachael gave a couple of options - APA members can put negative 1 to the group - concerns not got coga review. Or it could be a cross group review which is what we are trying to do to provide feedback. Rachael would prefer to contact Janina first and then consider what should be the next step.
Rachael will email Janina and also have a private conversation as the next step.
Jennie will make sure she has reviewed what has taken place over the coming days and review comments added.
<lisa> jennies doc: https://
Lisa and Rachael please can you take care of other things whist Jennie is away.
Lisa is hoping there will be some conclusions to the review and Jennie is happy to complete the action.
<lisa> call for concensus from APA is at https://
<Jennie> APA members only?
<lisa> if you do not agree and are in apa you can respond -1
subgroups Structure Review For Content Useable and Research Plan and Strategy
<lisa> close item 5
<lisa> next item
<lisa> Draft survey https://
<lisa> Sending it out :https://
<ShawnT> awk Rain
<Rain> scribe+ Rain Kiki ShawnT kirkwood lisa
<Rain> survey deadline is Nov 30
<Rain> post anywhere we can now, including social media
<ShawnT> Take a survey about W3C's research documents on accessibility for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities.
<ShawnT> Through the survey we would like to understand how people are using the current content, what needs to be updates. This will help us make the next version more useful.
<ShawnT> (links to a Google Form at https://
<ShawnT> For maximum reach, help us in sharing the survey widely so that we can make the next versions even better!
<ShawnT> This survey is anonymous unless you choose to give us your contact information for more conversations.
<Rain> can use the text on the top of the form for twitter, facebook, linkedin, etc.
<Rain> Post again closer to the deadline as well for people who are deadline motivated
<Kiki> I can post on linkedin (sorry on mute) making coffee and it is loud
<Rain> Lisa: we've had two surveys, one on structure, one on research
<lisa> we basicly want feedback on how our reserch is bieing used. this included our reserch module and issue papers. we want to know if people will use an update and if it is enough for it to be on the wiki or if they need a full w3c note
<Rain> Lisa from LT: So we had one survey on making company usable, and this survey is about our research documents.
<Rain> Lisa from LT: You know the research module and the issue papers. And basically you want to see people using it.
<Rain> Lisa from LT: And how important is it so that we we can get a feel of how important it is to update?
<Rain> Kiki: will send to research groups at Google, talk offline with Rain regarding groups
<Rain> Julie: will post on linked in, but this survey more in the weeds for some folks
<ShawnT> What's the link for the research documents
<Rain> Links to each of the documents are at the top of the https://
<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to speak on supplied text?
<Rain> Kiki: will mock up a linked in post and share it with the group memebers
<ShawnT> +1 to Kiki
<lisa> next item
<Rain> Lisa: research collaborations, when it comes to updating our research the best things to do is work with others
<Rain> ... have drafted an email we can use
<lisa> link to email https://
<lisa> next item
rain: kiki doing analisis
75 responces. wich is quite good
<ShawnT> I started my review
<ShawnT> ... Shawn started taking a look
rain: we should consolidate after kiki is finished
john: initial concluisons?
rain: i am afraid to biase results
kiki on the study plan
quistions to help understand how the stucture should occor
and behavoural - how they find things
(based on task not self reporting)
reserch qurestions guided the questions
most edffective to have 5 users per user grpups. get most of the issues
what about people who should use it but do not becuse it is tooo dence. so they are tvery important so they CAN use it
please review it
lisa: can we do the tasks again with the new draft
kiki: even an outline would help
<ShawnT> I'm so happy we aren't using the expand and collapse feature
Review 1st draft of a revised structure
rain: folowing ftf meetings we can out with the linked idea
<Rain> idea 3 for structure that we came up with at TPAC: https://
<Rain> preliminary first draft of what this might look like: https://
i made a fisrst draft of what it looks like
take a look and see what u thinlk
summary as a table
ignore the icons
tags after each prinicple
#ignore language for now, and ignore icons
<ShawnT> I really like the WCAG Quick Reference tool: https://
will the grafics make it hard to translate
shawn: if there is text in the grafic if you dont need it in alt you dont need the translate
text in grafics is a problem
rain: we could make sure the alt text is not specific
but images are realy important
kiki: images are very important
it is comment to have reserch at the bottom
maybe an apendix
i like the industry tumonlogy
the organization to me makes sence
have them all in one place is helpful
<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to speak about basing terms on work being done in FAST https://
rain: they ared very diffrent
lisa: should wse alight
fast functional needs
lisa: summary as a table stops being a simple lang summary
rain: we need to try iterations
lisa to try and iteration