scribe sign up https://
www.w3.org/ WAI/ GL/ task-forces/ coga/ wiki/ Scribe_list
<Lisa> no qurom
scribe sign up https://
www.w3.org/ WAI/ GL/ task-forces/ coga/ wiki/ Scribe_list
Lisa: not sure that we have quorum, determining if we are continuing to review collaborative tools document
Rachael: difficult to work on if we don't have it ported over to the document. yet
Lisa: APA suggested we make a google doc with a copy of their specifications and then use suggest mode to add to and comment on it
… so that is the next step
… Rachael had offered to move the document, is that doable?
Rachael: yes, but not before this meeting is finished
<Lisa> we have quourm
Lisa: update on who we have on the call, now we do have quorum and can continue
task requests and actions <https://
docs.google.com/> document/ d/ 15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/ edit#
Lisa: mental health summary, had an Indian time friendly meeting and will be having another
Lisa: there is another special meeting on Nov. 7 so if anyone wants it changed so that they can attend, let Lisa or Rashmi know
… Jan has sent in a few more papers to review, and are way over the KPI and have 2 things that are new patterns that are very interesting
… related to impulse control and decision making
… a lot of suggested changes for existing patterns as well
… really shows the huge overlap between cognitive and mental health
rain: kiki is working on the quant study, and we reviewed it and are looking for themes
2 mockups and great feedback
next step mockups and adding stucture to the study
concern that they are two big to see
might need to make it a real document
before we evaluate
but a lot going on at work
should have progress by the 17th
Lisa: when do you think we are going to have stable structure suggestions for clear language and access to help?
Rachael: have broken out the conformance models, worked together to break them out, evaluate them, and put them back together in mays that work
… will then identify the first two to explore over the next 3-4 weeks
… then we will have 1-2 models by january timeframe to have clear language see how they can fit into them
Lisa: research plan, have a couple of agenda items
draft plan https://
Lisa: two documents that may be useful that we'd like people to review
… draft plan, also thinking about how research is done within w3c, which is by members and the results get vetted
Lisa: also have a survey on the research papers and need TF members to share that survey out (link above)
… surprising how many people want it all updated and updated as a w3c note
… we cannot do that amount of work, and currently only a sample size of 6
… but really do need to assimilate it better
… repeating ask to have people send out the survey
… everyone please disseminate it at least one place
Rachael: is it okay if we fill it out if we are using it outside of W3C?
Lisa: yes, if using it in your organization
<kirkwood> I definitely feel it should, agreed
Rain: images subgroup meeting after Nov. 4 should have an image to show for coga tf review
put examples here: https://
Lisa: in terms of requests from other groups
… have collaborative tools request, need the document in order to move forward and so will do this by email
… spoke with Janina about verifiable credentials
… we've submitted our feedback to EO
From Julie: "EO update: I submitted all the GitHub issues in time to meet EO's deadline last Friday. I checked GitHub this morning and so far EO have sent any follow-up questions."
<kirkwood> Julie’s EO update: EO update: I submitted all the GitHub issues in time to meet EO's deadline last Friday. I checked GitHub this morning and so far EO have sent any follow-up questions.
<kirkwood> no objection
Lisa: research process within W3C is that members do this work, and then pass on the results to the task forces/working groups
… this matches what Kiki and Rain proposed to have Google do for the structure qualitative research
any objection to google doing the qualitative study
Rachael: confirming that if Google does this we will have an IRB of some sort?
Kiki: it's different, goes through legal, but not an academic IRB
Rachael: do you have checks on human safety?
<Rachael> Perfect. Thank you for being willing to take on this reasearch.
no objections (but we ask shawn
Lisa: thank you to the Google reps for helping with this
Lisa: need to revisit recruiting
… looking to see if researchers are willing to pass on literary reviews and other research work on to us
… may find that most of our topics are covered in other people's work
kirkwood: the Understood folks are definitely good people to connect with for research
Poornima: will go through the document and see what can be done
… Enable India is a possibility
<kirkwood> Think they would at least know who… regarding the org Understood.
<kirkwood> What is the specific ask in one sentence?
kirkwood: confirming that literary reviews can be submitted
Lisa: yes, absolutely
<kirkwood> Are there any literary reviews you can share with COGA? seems like the ask to me
<kirkwood> John Rochford may be good for this as well
Rain updated on who the researchers are that she's talking with
+1 to John Rochford
Rachael: maybe if we have a more integrated relationship with research centers we can also create situations where we benefit from student work and they benefit from a more public stage for their work?
… something to pursue in January
… may be useful before January to get a list of organizations and points of contact
Lisa: next step is to speak with Michael Cooper about academic collaborations
<Rachael> update: https://
Research collaborations (structure and research sub groups) See actions at https://
docs.google.com/ AND draft of reserch plan at https:// document/ d/ 15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/ edit#heading=h.6co50luve41b docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 1wu0WYcvCpp-zIz2NzPk2AuTJOrzgh3T4sKQgzCa10ps/ edit#
<Rachael> Maybe we could start a google doc of possible organizations that WAI might partner with. Good conversation for the Wednesday WAI call
Google or pther doing interviews on stucture, and sharing the feedback with us . see https://
docs.google.com/ document/ d/ 1wu0WYcvCpp-zIz2NzPk2AuTJOrzgh3T4sKQgzCa10ps/ edit#
Lisa: year one is over in March, deadline for meeting our KPIs
… are we going to meet that deadline?
… need to start looking to see what we have to do to meet these KPIs
… Mental health, think we will have literary review and have a draft for new patterns, but not for all the changes
… Community feedback, how is that?
Kiki: have done pieces, are working to get a form together to gather feedback and will use it to reach out to our communities to get feedback on what feels difficult when navigating the web
… should be solidified by next meeting and will go for broader reach
… have put together feedback from the community group itself
Lisa: next step is to find a way to pull all that feedback together so that we can consider it for the next version
Lisa: Research group - have a draft and got the survey out
… need more people to send it out
… have a plan but haven't gone through all the issues or identified which issue papers need updates
… quite a lot to do there still
… stage 2 is after march
Images: working on drafts
Test process: exploratory draft by March will be difficult, will put on agenda for next week
Lisa: inviting Kiki to use our group, as well, for community feedback
… can also ask AG to send it out
<Poornima> * Lisa, I can scribe for Nov 10, can you pls update on the scribe list? I have to drop now for my next meeting.
<kirkwood> ERG’s - Employee Resource Groups may be good within orgs
<Poornima> Thanks everyone and have a great weekend!
Taking a 5 minute break then moving onto subgroup meetings
topic, reserch and stucture subgroups
research and structure subgroups
any objections to google doing the reserch on stucture (asking shawn)
shawn: no objections
Shawn: does not have an objection to Kiki and Rain scheduling study through Google infra
Kiki: Rain and Kiki to discuss and schedule the study
<Lisa> agenda: what do we need to do for the study?
rain: re mock up - we have two (from rain and lisa) i want to fill them in a bit and update them
lisa: actualy cut and paist the doc may be easier
we can have a wirking call
<ShawnT> I'm good with CSS or HTML
<ShawnT> and Github
we also identified the theme in the survey. will update next week
Discussion on themes in responses to survey on Making Content Usable
shawn: very long, but that can be good. to long to just read, people find things findable
Shawn: length was both a negative and a positive, control f was helpful
contol f worked
Shawn: also matches how I feel about it
so it is good that it is all in one document becuse contol f worked
is it plain langn?
Quote that stood out to Shawn: "Greater input from more than the COGA WG (which has pushed out people interested in the issues in the past) and more recognition that cognitive disabilities are broader and more complex than what WCAG has traditionally worked with. This includes acknowledging that all a11y advocates will at times have to decide that something cannot be made 100% cognitively accessible for some users."
JohnK -- the survey and feedback is around Making Content Usable: https://
<kirkwood> oh thought we had a working google doc, w/ comments, all good
kik: persona are reductive , need to be more diferse
<kirkwood> +1 to potentially bridging to community group to assist with rounding out personas
shawn, need to recrute
Rain: would like to see if we can leverage the community group to bring in the richness and diversity
can we have the comments with the themes?
Synthesis of themes: https://
kiki: people liked the long document, people wanted principles, glancables, but were getting blockers. repatetives, some people were there for an introduction to cognative accessibilty but the problems included
content is good but diificalt to find
do our prinicples sean in the doc
some of this we are working on
<kirkwood> An introduction: About this document: structure, how to finding, how to use this document?
personaly (kiki) jargon example include: objectives senrio, user story
FYI I've updated the synthesis link that I provided to include all three of our summaries, and the full feedback: https://
<ShawnT> We can all here Rain
<ShawnT> hear even
We can hear everyone, but it seems Lisa cannot hear us
kiki: mainly teck
getting feedback is hard
<kirkwood> great feedback, seems a plain language summary (& purpose) should be rounded out a bit would be helpful? and just define jargon? to address feedback (my thoughts)?
more analisis will be done
qualitative study will also help
john. great feedback
rain: we are in the analisis phase
<kirkwood> shows how we need to make understandable, not ez great feedback
Structure KPI - yes, think that we may be able to agree on the new form/plan by end of march
Research KPI - stakeholders, yes, new issue papers and identifying and making them publication ready, possibly at risk
<ShawnT> I can help formatting but not really researching the documents