– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

Slide 3 explains it all

<Lisa> 18:01] <julierawe> present+ [18:01] == Rain [~Rain@a11e3e9c.public.cloak] has joined #coga [18:02] == Roy [ran@142614f9.team.cloak] has quit ["This computer has gone to sleep"] [18:02] <ShawnT> present+ [18:02] <Rachael> present+ [18:02] <julierawe> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html [18:02] <Lisa> scribe+ EA [18:03] <julierawe> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index[CUT]

<Lisa> Lisa> summary: genral breadth and deap dive on one aspect [18:12] <EA> High level guidelines - outcomes - methods - sets of tests and then these are linked to assertions - maybe one all the way down if possible. [18:12] <Rachael>

breadth for the outcomes methods - depths building out the specifics

<Rachael> Breadth across a single guideline to the outcome level and depth of 1 outcome and 1 assertion

<Lisa> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k_rCBUVPQj2myECC06rQtnC1Mks_UsI5P9Wmpc4nBCk/edit#

Slideset: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_eXtFaHSD8y5b2W8FcyubSEH1k8ZTvygEd6QuFrtg-g/edit#slide=id.g2073df47411_0_5

<Rachael> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html

<Lisa> last pull request

Rachael showed the most recent draft that AG is looking at. slide deck has the editor's draft link.

<Lisa> Timeframe for this conversation is 8-10 weeks [18:07] <EA> Then setting up meetings with regulators - need public comment. March - Aug high level of all the guidelines. [18:08] <EA> Clear Language and error prevention are very important as much of what has been added is to do with coga users. [18:08] <EA> August will have two more examples - in Sept progress to next stages

<Lisa> Julie asked hope Clear Lang can spend February and March and see who we could use the tests and have a draft of how it would be used [18:10] <EA> Rachael admitted that there was a need to have breadth as realises that it is not possible to depth going down to test level

Coga needs to comment on the approach - if you have comments please send to AG plan or list and these will be addressed in the meeting.

<Lisa> Rachael said hoping to have breadth for the whole Clear Language section and depth for at least one specific thing/method [18:11] <EA> have depth at all levels for all the tests... concern that if only going into one specific thing more realistic

<Lisa> I think I captured the important stuff.

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/2023/02/09-coga-irc

Conformance section feedback required.

To level are the guidelines such as clear language, contrast etc - under guidelines are outcomes - can be compared to success criteria. These need to be written so they can be tested

Then come the methods as set of tests to meet the outcome - each method must meet the outcome - text and techniques may be different for instance for a different language.

Lisa asked if this is what WCAG 3 is going to look like? or is this description of the terms that are going to be used?

This is WCAG 3 and there will be a separate document with explanations. A longer list of guidelines will be coming but please look at conformance for now.

Lisa asked so the types of tests described in section 4 is not where the actual tests will be in the final document.

Guideline - outcome with links out to methods and tests? Is this right - could be hard and confusing when you are trying to get to a test as you will need to open different windows. The document cannot be read sequentially.

Mulitple steps and orientation are going to occur together so not so easy to find where you are meant to be.

Lisa asked if this was going to be a difficult task because of the method of navigation

<ShawnT> I think the redesign will help

Lisa confirmed just having to open and review several tabs to other documents is going to make it harders

Shawn and John suggested that the redesign may help where there will be options.

John K said please have a list of all the URLS that need to be reviewed and then you have at least a primary document for checking

Rachael - right now not reviewing the guidelines - she will take back the idea that multiple links to multiple windows/tabs will cause problems

Rachael Just need to look at conformance and John added purpose of the page is clear - see if that works for clear language aspects

<Rain> my mic isn't working

<Rain> no worries

<Rain> +1 to Jennie -- that was what I was going to recommend

Jennie wondered that the process of reviewing may be hard to understand so perhaps produce a document to make it easier to work on.

Rachael will look into a document with links and copy over specific things that need reviewing as per previous documents that have often been in Google

Julie has said that everyone will work together on this idea

<ShawnT> Google Docs doesn't work for me

Rachael went on to outcomes and tests that work on multiple scopes - an item is the smallest testable. Views are like pages, user processes are a series of actions - need to test across a multi stage process. An aggregate is a composite of all the elements mentioned across services and apps.

4 different scopes to think about.

<kirkwood> concerned we are increasing the amount of jargon?.. “a view is very comprobable to a pa page” that is plain language

Views are comparable to a page but the challenge is that it could include a web app. It is a concept of view is a set of contents that do not radically change

Lisa asked is the view what you can see without scrolling or is it more where the view is more about changing the content rather than scrolling - not what is visible rather than programmatical changeable

Check this last sentence for correction

Pages in WCAG 2 were URL centred now a view is what is in front of you without the URL changing. If the content substantively changes it will not be a view

<julierawe> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html#types-of-tests

<Lisa> need to step away for a bit

tests need to be true or false - quantitative and qualitative tests would be the next stage such as and alt text is there but when you read it the quality is not good so there are two tests

Julie asked where you may have one or other of the tests - or do we need to have the yes/no test and then maybe not need qualitative one but you must have two types of tests not ones that do both aspects. Can have several qualitative tests so you have some level of evaluation. If a test is not testable then it should probably becomes an assertion

<julierawe> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html#conditions

Both types of tests may be conditional and may not apply to everything in the world. This means outcomes can be added when they only apply in certain situations for instance use of diacritics for some languages that only apply in certain places

Language with grammatical rules, multiple contrast modes is another test that might need different types of tests for different situations.

Can we have multiple ways of testing - this is a regulator issue and there may be questions on conditions.

<julierawe> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html#conditions

There may be some concepts that are so important that at a high level / critical make sure it is marked out for comment

<julierawe> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html#scoring

Scoring options need to be understood - 1st option pass/fail but some outcomes may be best practices so clear words is hard to test so may be best practice method rather than a requirement.

The other option is that within a method tests can be pass/fail but within there is the concept of going above and beyond - so think about this as you mark tests

<julierawe> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/silver/draft-conformance-options/guidelines/index.html#assertions_procedures

Assertions are a claim that someone did something - How much will be required from an assertion in terms of testing has yet to be sorted - what type of documentation or links out to what might support an assertions.

It is not a test of whether the assertion improved the accessibility it is just whether that the assertion is supported by validation via a document etc.

John K exporatory section of critical issues - triggering content idea - image of a gun for instance may act as a trigger - need to address this for coga users.

John K went on to stress the problem of 'triggering content' Needs to be kept in mind - consequences need to be considered.

Rachael asked if this could be kept in mind with examples

Julie asked if anyone has drafted an assertions as examples

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_eXtFaHSD8y5b2W8FcyubSEH1k8ZTvygEd6QuFrtg-g/edit#slide=id.p

Rachael said that some have be tried and she will offer some examples if possible as none were actually used in the draft

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zW-UubALQOCokCoLnIuQrnGNKLm2uHi36S8yhAojrIE/edit

Jeanne Spellman has offered to facilitate the writing process and Rachael will attend - need to return to the Silver writing process that has the structure concept

Step by step set of instructions need to be looked at before writing - going to the outcome, methods and what test supports the method, two types of tests and what is required and what is best practice and finally does it need an assertion.

Then finally end up with what is really required for clear language and produce the tests such as avoiding ambiguity, clear language review... testing with users

all the methods and one or two tests for an outcome.

<Jennie> +1 to attending Jeanne's presentation

<kirkwood> sure

<Lisa> next step, call with jeene

<ShawnT> I'd like to be looped in as well

<ShawnT> Thanks @Rachael

<Jennie> Really helpful, @Rachael

<Lisa> i need to leave on the hour :(