<Lisa> next item
Rashmi: Mental health subgroup - rashmi working on issue paper on trigger warnings. Reviewing papers assigned to members and waiting for those to be completed
Rashmi: MH WG working on analysis document.
Rashmi: will send email to list to schedule some additional meetings.
Lisa: Structure review subgroup meeting on Thursday this week
Rain: Kiki sent out card sort for structure review. Preliminary results that will be discussed in detail in subgroup meeting. There are still some divergences in where patterns fit. For example, "breaking media into chunks," "supporting simplification," etc. that have very low agreement even within the subgroup. Working to bring recommendations to the group for new categorizations.
<Lisa> close item 4
Rain: Talita (qualitative researcher) is working on ethics/legal approvals for the qualitative study before recruitement can begin. This is a follow up to survey with a much lower number of respondents giving interviews.
Rain: Structure review will provide examples of structures and layouts that will be included in qualitative study
Lisa: Re; previous conversation, we agreed to leave it to Kiki to address our questions/concerns as would be most appropriate.
Lisa: Kiki had said she would send a revised card sort that included 4 new proposed categories to see if it addressed the problem of divergences in previous card sorts. Has that moved forward?
Rain: Yes, that is the version that still has a number of divergences. Results will be prepared for subgroup meeting on Thursday to address those patterns that there is no agreement.
Julie: Clear Language met on Thursday. Rachael walked us through types of test for WCAG 3. Clear Language and one other group will be using this document to map out how we would create the clear language section of WCAG 3.
Julie: aiming for breadth and then at least 1 test in depth. Need to complete in 8-10 weeks. Will be sharing out more info soon to schedule more meetings. Will be meeting with Jean Spellman on how to write for WCAG 3
<Lisa> close item 3
Julie: new guidance includes the assertion doc - asking for our feedback on that rolled into this larger project.
Jennie: Test plan - Shawn and Jennie are meeting this afternoon to discuss the impacts of the clear language meeting last week and will have updates soon.
Becca: research plan and strategy - will be preparing notes on issue papers asap. Lisa will send Bots paper
Jennie: Images subgroup needed to reschedule. Hope to have updates in next 2 weeks.
Rain: community group has been discussing how best to collect feedback from larger community. Next meeting is March 2. Will ask chairs when COGA can expect that feedback.
Lisa: community group and COGA members can all contribute to this document on suggestions for next version of Making Content Usable: https://
Jennie: reviewed info on collaboration tool github post. Some of the links in that response are behind permissions and others are open.
Jennie: question on workflow: in google, do we have different spaces for docs that are public vs. working group only vs. community group? People may have difficulties accessing our documents
Jennie: When storing documents, how are we determining permissions
Lisa: Generally, Lisa makes google documents public. But we will need to discuss further. Added to agenda
Research Task Force/APA made request for us to review document on research process
Lisa: COGA needs to make concrete recommendations to RQTF research process to make them more likely to address COGA user needs. Lisa will share their process for COGA comment
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> close item 2
Rashmi: issue paper on personalization settings to remove/hide trigger warnings. Current research suggests that TW are not as useful as suggested in current context. TW increase anticipatory anxiety about subject.
Rashmi: Academic research suggests that TW are also not helpful to users with PTSD. Suggest providing customization that allows users to turn off trigger warnings
Rashmi: requesting feedback from COGA about this conclusion
<kirkwood> well done!
Jennie: Was there a consideration for people who do/don't want the trigger warnings but also have memory-related disabilities? Should users be asked to review their settings periodically?
<kirkwood> fantastic question
Rashmi: will be developing use cases, so these examples are useful
<Jennie> Thanks Rashmi!
Lisa: global vs. local settings - either don't show the content at all (completely missing) vs. brief summary/link
Lisa: Adapt can make a registery of triggers. But some triggers are specific/unexpected/uncommon. How do we account for those?
Jennie: What about reframing from "trigger" to some broader implication? For example, some people with physical disabilities have high startle responses to loud noises. Not necessarily a trigger
Lisa: to-do list included in draft document
Jennie: for intervention - would the solution be a warning? Or would it be something implementable. For example, for loud noises, could a user have an upper limit set on their audio settings?
<kirkwood> where can we see the Adapt information being referred to?
Lisa: In these settings for mental health, we might want to build in some additional settings - could there be settings on frequency of appearance in topics?
<kirkwood> ah W3C Adapt TF rather than personlization… got it
Lisa: Adapt task force used to be called personalization.
<kirkwood> think this might be a heavier lift than we realize?
Lisa: will make Adapt aware of this issue paper