Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

06 February 2023


Becca_Monteleone, david-swallow, EA, Jan, Jennie, julierawe, JustineP, Kiki, Lisa, Rachael, Rain, ShawnT

Meeting minutes

Eric introduction - currently working for Google accessibility group and UX for sometime.

Lisa offered an orientation for Eric - may be hard to schedule this month.

<Lisa> next item

Review of subgroups - this was carried out last time but keep it short - Lisa asked if this needs to be done again.

Requests from other groups as we have got a little bit behind with some work.

<Kiki> I have a request from the group from an action item

No subgroup leaders said they wanted to go through updates - David happy to delay update till next week

<julierawe> I'd like to mention a quick update for Clear Language

Kiki wanted to ensure that the research plan had been looked at?

<Rachael> upcoming agendas: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Upcoming_agendas


Rachael update for AG mentioned that the surveys will be closed to the Weds/Thursday for a 4 week review and then time to digest feedback.

This means please make sure that every is aware that the survey will close the Thursday before.

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3_draft_2_1/

The updated editors draft is up and is moving in the right direction - will need comment in the next month or two - survey draft in the IRC channel is a draft that is being reviewed and reasonably stable.

First round of feedback will be in the next week so by Weds it should be ready for comments.

If you have issues with it now - please comment now.

If reasonably happy still more time to experiment

Julie a quick question for Rachael - will comments will be available as per the survey date and time on the document

Julie - mentioned an assertions doc. will reach a stable stage later than expected

Rachael said that the assertions are stable but may be discussed again as did not get final approval so still stable enough to be looked at and finalised.

Julie said Clear Language will discuss the assertions issues on Thursday

Also got strategy group meeting on Thursday

Julie suggested Clear Language needs an hour

Shawn suggested testing needs full hour and want Julie at meeting so separate meetings needed

Jennie - happy with Shawn's ideas - two separate meeting times but cannot do 2 hours.

<Lisa> no problem. we are relaxed about that

Lisa felt that Julie would be needed for the assertions and Jennie and Shawn could have different rooms running at the same time as Clear Language.

Shawn keen to have Julie in testing meeting as Clear Language views needed.

Jennie is scheduled to meet at the original time for clear language

Lisa asked if the time could be changed

Julie, Jennie and Shawn can meet at another time to discuss the testing outcomes -

<ShawnT> +1

Lisa proposed that both subgroups meet at the original times and then Julie, Jennie and Shawn meet up later

Jennie then wondered if the testing group could meet at later date

<ShawnT> let's do that!

Julie felt that the Clear Language group decisions might affect the testing subgroup meeting.

<julierawe> Yes!!!!!!

<Jennie> yes please

<Rain> +1 to Rachael's suggestion!

<ShawnT> +1

Rachael asked if meeting together she could walk through the assertions document

<julierawe> Thank you, Rachael!!!!

This was agreed by all.

Actions that other groups have asked need addressing.

The collaboration tool accessibility draft - Lisa admitted that there was a note that was put in but was not updated - the draft was developed and became a wiki page. Feedback received and it said was said that more work was needed.

Lisa made an 'issue' - Jennie sent in an email - Lisa pointed out that there were documents that had been written so there was confirmation that some work had been completed and the issue was closed.

Jennie added that Janina was having problems access the Google doc. So two issues one of acces and one of what had been written and if it was an update. So now need to make new issues in Github.

Jennie said she would take an action to see what is needed and then give a summary back to the group. Making sure we have all the data and much still needs to be done

Lisa suggested that we need to have the issues in a format that is clear -

Lisa went on to say that each change is housed in its own document

Jennie will validate this with Janina

Meeting with verifiable credentials - Lisa is going to check if she has added an issue to the APA log but she will check where it should go.

Issues with a remote happened but this could be an overlap - Jennie may need more time

Request for a new audio description track - opened as an issue?

Lisa will track back to see if this had become a formal issue or send a text to the list

Lisa will write the text to the list and then the issue can be edited at a later stage

Mental Health subgroup needs extra meetings - Rashmi needs to know and timings are important as she is based in India

<Jan_> I am interested in participating in the mental health group.

<david-swallow> I would be interested in the mental health group (I'm on European time).

<Lisa> close item 1

<Lisa> close item 2

<Lisa> david swallow is also interested in the mental health group

<Lisa> take up action 7

<Kiki> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18WzZ0wO7eyRfhL4oSFpUN0vfbanyGKYJpgf3lB3xkto/edit

<Lisa> take up item 7

Kiki research plan - any concerns such as research questions asked - needs concensus to move forward

Kiki reviewed the doc - understand how and why people use Content Usable. survey - people wanted simple wayfinding as content dense.

Questions to guide the research - what are people looking for, pain points and challenges if they do find something. Then what is missing etc. Methods to do interviews and understanding behaviour with 5+ people per user group. Preferably with people who have used it before and those who have used it less frequently

<Zakim> Lisa, you wanted to say what would gain understanding, correct implemention and to add correct expectations

<Jennie> Nice work Kiki - this looks really good.

Lisa asked whether we look at gaining understanding about what they are comprehending that would lead to the correct implementation of patterns and objectives. Secondary research question is about who this document is for and what to do with it? There seems to be a lack of understanding what Content Usable is for! .

Lisa also added how to use the document also needs to be understood and also where you had the groups of users there may be an issue with not having sufficient diversity

Need to have those with cognitive disability, learning disabilities - needs to be fit for use as per a range of individuals even if they do not know how to make something accessible they still know about the issues that arise.

Kiki mentioned that she is not trying to change the way the document is used or why it is used but Kiki has suggested that she can talk to the researches to make sure they have a knowledge check - perhaps grading it - make sure the concept tests are understandable.

Kiki confirmed that they will aim to check how they ask for disclosure around disability but may not be as explicit as people may expect.

Jennie said that when a call goes out it is important to say be open about seeking participants who have used the document with cognitive difficulties and also add a space that users can share anything else

Kiki suggested that this can come about by the Assistive Technologies that are used but this is hard when it comes to cognitive disabilities as not so many technologies but may be ask about the functional aspects of coping with documents. Kiki also recruiting to find out more about the frequency of use

Kiki has suggested that she can do a specific call out for wider diversity

<Lisa> with the changes are we ok with the reserch plan

Jan suggested we need to find out what we want people to use Content Usable for such as training or development etc. otherwise we won't get facts or specifics

Kiki agreed but this would mean a change in the research questions.

Jan suggested there can be multiple answers in single questions - lists with multiselect question would provide the variety and then an other option

Jan felt that defining what they thought they used the document would then provide a base for the later questions.

<Lisa> with the changes suggested are we ok with the reserch plan (1) or do we need more review (0)

Lisa reminded us that many of these questions were in the survey -

<julierawe> Great, thank you, Jan!

Julie did not just want super users and Jan agreed with the need for more variety - but survey needs to allow for quick easy checks.

Kiki pointed out that there has been an aim of getting a cross section and the interviews will have a variety of types as a result of the surveys

<Lisa> with the changes suggested are we ok with the reserch plan (1) or do we need more review (0)

<Lisa> +1

<ShawnT> 1

<Jan_> +1


<Jennie> +1

<julierawe> +1

Kiki should move forward bearing in mind the concerns

<ShawnT> thanks everyone!

<Kiki> Thank you everyone for feeling comfortable to provide feedback

<Jan_> Bye everyone!

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).


Active on IRC: Becca_Monteleone, david-swallow, EA, Jan_, Jennie, julierawe, JustineP, Kiki, Lisa, Rachael, Rain, ShawnT