Meeting minutes
<lisa> next item
Lisa: We had a meeting this week (Rashmi, John) and I think we need to set up some more meetings.
… We discussed what could happen with global personalization for things like triggers, things that disturb you
… We haven't quite finished yet - the analysis
Rain: The Structure Subgroup has a meeting today
… It will be interactive, and fun!
Lisa: Clear Language is on hold
<lisa> scribe+ lisa jennie
<kirkwood> prsent+
<lisa> jennie: test stratagy are revisiting what they want to produce and the stucture of the document
Lisa: The research plan and strategy has been moved
… Becca is the lead on getting the papers ready for publication
Becca: This is something I can't take on until the semester ends
… I received all the information from Lisa about the issue papers
<Becca_Monteleone> I will type here!
<Becca_Monteleone> My apologies!
*Thank you!
<Becca_Monteleone> I will review and reach out to Lisa at the beginning of the new year if there is a need for a meeting
Lisa: David Swallow is preparing a list that then we can work on for outreach in case people want to share content
… I spoke to the people on the WAI coordination group, but will also bring it up again
… Kim Patch said the low vision group has done something similar, and will send their list to us
… Hopefully we can make a united list
… Often groups interested in one of these groups is also interested in the other
… Then we can share that working resource
… Aaron is doing a mini review
… I have to do a meeting with him
… We have to revisit the structure of the issue papers
… I will put forth a proposal for technology support
Lisa: I am reminding everyone that there is a survey to share out
… Rain - I know we got the things from Roy that said how many people are looking at our research documents
… Can you share that?
Rain: I can take an action item to get that
Jennie: Images subgroup is meeting tomorrow!
Lisa: Requests from other groups
… The Collaboration Tool Accessibility
<lisa> Collaboration_Tool_Accessibility by jennie
Lisa: I think this is a different document
… And John K remembers something different than this as well
… We want to do a double check that the comments we made are being included
… I will check that the list includes the things we have discussed
… I don't know where this page came from - the wiki
… This has never been reviewed
Lisa: I will have to check
… so I don't think this will be enough
… The first one had a lot of meeting time, even though it is old
… I think there was another google doc
… I will research and have a look
<kirkwood> so action is to compare 1 and 2 and make sure incorporated into ?
Lisa: I will add the links.
Lisa: Some of the information did not get consensus, and this is noted in the notes in some of the documents. I have added this into the document.
Rachael: I want to check, or clarify for step #3
<Github> https://
Rachael: Will that be a document that copies over the text?
Rachael: We spoke as a group of the possibility of copying over the tool user requirements into a Google doc, and putting the comments directly on this
<lisa> rachael: we discussed just coping over the actual doc, and putting the comments into that
Rachael: The research group was happy to take the comments in that form
<lisa> and apa are happy to do that
Rachael: I recommend that as a way forward. This gives context to the comments being made.
<kirkwood> the purpose is to review for differences to compare and to aggregate to add to a google doc and put comments into that. I agree with that
Rachael: It does mean putting all the comments COGA makes into the document alongside the information from the original CTAUR document
Rachael: Yes, a Google doc that contains the information from the CTAUR, plus COGA's comments. The group will accept this.
John K: That is my understanding as well.
Jennie's tasks: 1. Copy over the CTAUR into a Google doc. 2. Copy over current comments from COGA in the Collaboration Tool Accessibility Feedback. 3. Update the next steps document.
<kirkwood> yes
https://
This is the CTAUR
Lisa: The rest of us are checking?
Group task is to review #6 in https://
<Github> https://
Some of COGA's feedback is already in https://
Rachael got that information from https://
<Rachael> +1
Lisa: We will need the instructions, the document list, and then we can go through and check.
John K: It is always useful to have the purpose of the document in one sentence at the top.
Jennie will have these steps completed and sent to the list prior to the December 1 meeting.
Lisa: What is happening with the wiki?
<Rachael> That is fine
+1
We will not abandon the wiki totally, because we will update this page with a link to the wiki when we are ready for the APA group to review
Lisa: I will review that wiki page since people are reviewing it
John K: Can we write something on it to say it is in process
Jennie: Maybe we need to update the date?
Lisa: I think we can keep it vague for now
Lisa: If I want to make updates to the wiki how shall I proceed?
… For the wiki, they weren't prepared to hold while we prepared our comments
… We reached a compromise - that they would link to our wiki page
… Rachael kindly put together a summary of some key points
… And she has linked to the W3C tools and processes document
… We don't have everything from all of our different documents
… Are people comfortable with me making changes? Do you want to have me post proposed changes to the list?
… We are making a Google doc that will be available in December or January?
… The issue is that some people will be looking at it right now?
… I get the impression that people are saying go ahead and edit the wiki if you like.
Lisa: There is a meeting happening between a vendor and the accessibility team
… They want to use this to show what the issues are
… If they do, will they get the feedback that we need?
… It could be a sentence that says many products do not address the concerns raised in Making Content Usable
… So there is an overview
… Of the issues people are having
… And please look at Making Content Usable
… Then, if they actually look at it, they will get more than just individual comments that got added to Github
+1
<kirkwood> +1
<Rain> +1
<abbey> +1
John K: That makes sense
Lisa: OK, I will just put a summary at the top
… This will be easy for people to check.
… I will send it to the list
John K: The purpose is to get consensus and review this
Lisa: OK, I and Jennie both have actions to do
… I have another action on verifiable credentials
… In general, I am asking APA in January to have a meeting with the research questions group
… We will check through the methodology a bit to see if it can better include cognitive from the beginning
… This could impact their research strategies
Lisa: EO has asked us to review scripts
John K: I would like to volunteer
Lisa: Their message is urgent
John K: Yes
… We have done some review
Lisa: The script can't be changed, but things can be cut.
… I think it is important, and needs to be done over the weekend.
… Julie is not here, so I will find the emails, forward it
… Was there something on the list?
… I don't see anything new
… We will ask them to send it
… If anyone can review this weekend that would be great
<lisa> next item
<lisa> close item 2
<lisa> next item
Lisa: I am going to make short videos, conversations
… We have part of it
… Training resources for Making Content Usable
… EO's courses don't have a section on language, for example
… We could see what we have, and what is missing
… Then we can see what is missing
… There are presentations we have made
… We can see what is missing
… We may find we have a cause
… If you have information to share that would be helpful
<lisa> web accessibility traing module
John K: I know some companies have cognitive accessibility training modules
… Some are current W3C members
Lisa: Maybe we should also have sections for each topic on testing
… I am adding to the list of things you can tag it as
… I will change media to type
… Add testing
… People can add information in
… If it is a video
… Does the group agree that this is needed?
John K: Would this be - what is the end product?
… Is it putting it online as a training resource material?
… I think it is something people look for
… I think it gives legitimacy in the cognitive space
… It is also a big thing when there are proprietary things for doing it
… Some is behind a paywall
Lisa: I was thinking open things that people can link to
Lisa: a blog post at a vendor would be good
… From this conversation I am seeing the media and the type
… A testing tool, or a webpage
… It can be proprietary but as long as everyone can use it
… And we need a short summary of what it is
… So people can see if they want to implement it
… It can be used by a big team
… I think it would be really helpful
Rain: I think that this would be incredibly useful, but I also think that it is a high risk thing for us to put together
… We have so many other things that we need to put a lot of time and thought into
… It could end up including things that are suspect
… We could put something there that is not under a paywall, then goes under a paywall
… It could look like we are endorsing someone
… Like if we link to the materials of a company
Lisa: We can say this isn't an endorsement
… I think people need something
John K: I fully agree with Rain, however, it would be a fantastic resource
… We have to make it a very long list
Lisa: We could add a column to say if something is for a fee
… If we don't like something then we just don't include it
John K: There are cognitive accessibility overlays
Lisa: we can put comments
John K: Sure
<Becca_Monteleone> My apologies, but I need to head to another meeting!
Abbey: You said that there is another group that has something similar to this?
Lisa: They have it for general accessibility
… EO - the outreach and education group
… They have curriculum
… And they link to existing other courses and curriculum
… I didn't see something that deals with our issues
… It is more AG focused curriculum
Abbey: we are trying to curate a list of courses that focus on cognitive to be added to this list?
Lisa: We can suggest that they get added, and put them on our wiki once we collect them
… And gives people a starting position for Making Content Usable
<abbey> is this the list? https://
stucture subgroup
<lisa> rain: took everything into mock ups
<lisa> quick ref style
<ShawnT> Link to [How to Meet WCAG (Quickref Reference)](https://
<lisa> each theme has summary, user needs and the patterns
<lisa> apendix is called resourses :)
<lisa> minimize and full screens icons at the top
<lisa> clear visual indicators
<lisa> (using figma)
<lisa> John love it
<lisa> be careful with tenses etc
<ShawnT> I like it too
<lisa> sujected stucture:https://
<lisa> persistent when u scrol etc
Lisa: two comments
… we have been told we can't change the specification, the w3c has their own style
… we've had feedback saying we are clear enough we should be able to change our respect
… there's a limit over what we can change
… we should have a meeting with Micheal
… another thing, we could have another version, the left hand is a style sheet
… we could have a version with our own style, and have an official version with the W3C style sheet
+1 on having two different looks
… same source document just different looks, just a suggestion
… would someone be able to find the pattern, besides Rain or Lisa, who created the structure?
… broke it down into types of designs
<lisa> sujected stucture:https://
<lisa> site stucture, insted of site design
<lisa> (john)
<lisa> design for mobile first
<lisa> +1
https://
<lisa> kiki will be doing some of these
<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to ask about the full screen
<lisa_> shawn: control f is very important
<lisa_> so have it all on one page, open by defualt?
<lisa_> could be a suggested pattern! open by defualt
I think this is the WCAG Quick Reference project: https://
<lisa_> thank u rain
<lisa_> shawn: we went though a get rid of nav , and we need it back
<lisa_> the user testing did not included coga
<lisa_> we could make it open souces and standaize