– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CeqiSy3tVDoeBzCG8LpkyFT1fvugGk86JuT6NvfSiAA/edit#heading=h.1kru9t5f0fpj

<lisa> zakim next item

Updates with task requests and actions <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#>

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JXa94s2lbzJ0v9FHasxxws3CsOcljHHBdlQ2VOxYqAQ/edit#heading=h.ykqwx9vsxdya

<lisa> How to test subgroup, and section drafted KPI measurable goals: Initial exploratory draft created, feedback requested from some stakeholders (EG silver, rules WG) Plan to get to working draft

Julie: Test strategy subgroup met last Thursday. Focused on the outline - is it creating a huge separate doc or making a timeline/workplan. Initially wanted to go through all patterns to decide what type of test makes the most sense and then to start to develop them. Shawn reaching out to Lisa.

Lisa: Group decided on making exploratory draft for Silver to get feedback

<lisa> by march KPI measurable goals: Initial exploratory draft created, feedback requested from some stakeholders (EG silver, rules WG) Plan to get to working draft

<lisa> Working draft Answer issues next 6 month

Julie: There is some confusion about what this first exploratory draft should look like. Where will it live? Will a person need to learn about the pattern in content usable and then go elsewhere to learn how to test them?

Lisa: Exploratory draft could be a table of contents and perhaps an appendix with some open-ended questions (for example: where will it live?).

<lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/Testing

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JXa94s2lbzJ0v9FHasxxws3CsOcljHHBdlQ2VOxYqAQ/edit#

Lisa: Deadline is in March, so testing strategy subgroup should probably plan a meeting day to figure it out plan together

*Deadline for exploratory draft in March

Shawn: We had a number of questions and concerns in subgroup meeting.

Lisa: Questions do not need to be answered now - they can be included in the exploratory draft. Should also include a few sections (aim, introduction, etc.)

Lisa: Document aim - can be used to demonstrate how people can test compliance with content usable, whatever that looks like

Julie: So exploratory draft includes table of contents, where each pattern has some type of test. Some tests may look similar to silver, while others may be assertions, user testing, etc. Later we would go back and recommend which test?

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Otsl4HTCvpQj63xYVKzOVkulf6o75dWEthu6WI9Vtj8/edit#heading=h.7ejnh0q5wdpx

<kirkwood> lets do it!

Lisa: Some of the questions that we have cannot be answered until we have more details on the document itself

<ShawnT> [Documents published at W3C](https://www.w3.org/standards/types)

Lisa: Current research strategy document has some proposed document structures

Lisa: For exploratory draft, these can be consolidated, expanded on, and then open questions added, along with timeline/plan to create a working draft.

Shawn: In subgroup meeting, we considered maybe switching aim of document to actually testing patterns to see if we can develop an outline to document testing for COGA. Interested in seeing what patterns are most easily testable

Lisa: Would need consensus for that aim. Concerns that outside of governmental agencies, organizational users may not want to use onerous testing (like hige checklists) and may prefer simpler user testing. Can both be incorporated?

In Lisa's proposed structure, includes "testing the process" which includes user testing, a "design checklist", and "unit tests" with clear pass/fail criteria

<Zakim> ShawnT, you wanted to talk about splitting the group

Shawn: Shawn and Jennie feel more competent/interested in testing the patterns that we have, rather than writing best practices around user testing. Not enough subgroup members to split effectively. Rain suggested switching KPIs to test the patterns first to help determine how best to write the document

Shawn: Focus on determining what kind of testing we need for the patterns we have - not just focusing on unit testing.

Shawn: we know WCAG 2.x is doing binary testing, so we can determine what patterns already fit in that model.

Shawn: Then we could determine which patterns, for example, definitely need user testing, and then go through what process we would recommend for that user testing.

<Fazio> Are you saying one blanket approach for all patterns, instead of an individualiazed approach?

<julierawe> +1 to David's question

<ShawnT> Minutes Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 26 Jan 2023: https://www.w3.org/2023/01/26-coga-minutes.html

<Fazio> -1 to blanket approach

John: I am unsure about which direction we should be moving in. My issue moving forward is what is the core stated goal of this document and are we all on the same page.

David: Are we struggling with looking for one blanket approach for all patterns?

Shawn: No, we are looking to determine what testing to apply to each pattern individually.

Julie: Lisa, were you thinking about a more universal approach?

Lisa: In Lisa's document outline proposal, there are some universal things (esp. in testing the process), a design checklist which does not necessarily have rigorous testing, and then unit testing, which has clear parameters for each pattern.

<Fazio> there are some patterns that can be automated tested

Lisa: Then people can pick which mechanisms work in their process

<Fazio> Redundant Entry SC in WCAG 2.2 whuch maps to not relying on memory can be automated

<Fazio> A lot of patterns also cross over into each other

Lisa: Subgroup leaders are interested in testing individual patterns, which doesn't necessarily work with user stories.

Lisa: Do we want to change the KPIs to just focus on pattern testing or do we want a more comprehensive draft that includes some of the more ambiguous things that are not captured in automated or pass/fail testing

<julierawe> FOR LISA: Before we end this meeting, I'd like to give a quick update on the assertions doc

David: Many patterns have a lot of crossover. So having tests for each pattern would create a lot of redundancy. Before creating testing, should look at how testing for one objective/pattern overlaps with other objectives/patterns

<ShawnT> List of patterns: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15kHdhq_KaIgbxdNPEA0ceNZ-tMs6aAe4m_vOitEM3HY/edit#gid=0

<kirkwood> that difficulty of spreadheet may be part of the problem David?

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Otsl4HTCvpQj63xYVKzOVkulf6o75dWEthu6WI9Vtj8/edit#

<JustineP> +1 to David's point about addressing overlap to help this approach work for both small and large organizations

Lisa: Agree with David. Could clarify the tests and help us find that we need fewer tests than we think.

<lisa> straw poll: 1: chage kpis, and we just focus on pattenrs. 0 is focus on patters but do the full table of content with lots of To do notes on processes. 3: process is just as important so focus on the table of content and a few paterns as examples

<ShawnT> 0

0

<julierawe> I don't know how to answer

<Kiki_> I am not sure how to answer either

<David-Swallow> 0 (I think)

<julierawe> What will be the most helpful and least duplicative to users?

<Fazio> @Shawn, what link?

<kirkwood> yes

<ShawnT> Fazio, didn't you say you shared something in the IRC, I don't see it. I thought it was your spreadsheet for the patterns and how they overlap

<Fazio> It was my comment I put in IRC. No links. Sorry

Julie: update on assertions doc. Silver has sent out surveys about the guidelines for an assertion/procedural test. COGA will have a few weeks to review this doc once it moves to "developing" phase. For now, individuals can submit feedback on exploratory draft in survey. Feb 9 clear language meeting will be used to align feedback and then bring to full COGA group so that we can prepare consolidated feedback. Julie will send email [CUT]

<Fazio> I did said I created a spreadsheet listing testable items for content usable based on objectives. It grew over 100 pages long with many redundantcies

<kirkwood> link to survey?

<ShawnT> Oh ok, thanks Fazio

<julierawe> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/assertions-feb/

Julie: The survey link will close 2 hours before AG meets tomorrow morning, so if you want to submit individual feedback, suggest doing it today.

<lisa> justien. process is just as important

<Fazio> We missed you Justine!

Justine: re: straw poll - process is as important as pattern testing, so suggest being broad in how we do that.

<lisa> (3 in the staw poll)

<JustineP> Glad to be back, David!

<kirkwood> agree to that

<kirkwood> +1

<lisa> (john agrees to both)

<Fazio> JUSTINE, YOU WERE HERE FOR THE IMPORTANT PART, content USABLE111

<lisa> John and justine are (3) in the straw poll

<Fazio> oops !!!

I was seeing 0 as addressing the capacity issue in the subgroup (re: Shawn stating the group is not large enough to split in two), rather than stating that testing is more important than prcess

<JustineP> Yes! It is an important doc!

Julie: what is most helpful rather than duplicative?

<ShawnT> I'm not saying one is more important than the over

<Fazio> I started doing something like this using burger king as a sample

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Otsl4HTCvpQj63xYVKzOVkulf6o75dWEthu6WI9Vtj8/edit#

<Fazio> its in there

<Fazio> LOL

Lisa: we need a table of contents/appendix with all of these questions. We can get the feedback about what people find most useful (run a survey, for example) after and then we'll have a better idea. But we can't get those answers without a draft to show people

<Fazio> KIIT Justine

<Fazio> Keep In Touch

David: Reiterating that we need to look at crossover between patterns before we can move forward.

I also need to drop off, sorry!

<julierawe> Thanks, everyone!