Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

02 March 2023


EA, julierawe

Meeting minutes

<Lisa> Rrsagent publish muinits

RSAagents publish minutes

<Lisa> Thank u

<Lisa> Rachael said we can use the catagory , such as cogantive disability, if it affects everyon

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JKJ32DK_A82ahsQ_k0RVPc-ZYpX5uuKtuGOLdo2OqyY/edit#

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zW-UubALQOCokCoLnIuQrnGNKLm2uHi36S8yhAojrIE/edit#heading=h.vqr6a0mxwynr

Julie introduced the agenda to look at the draft for Clear Language. it is the 2023 draft based on the new template from WCAG 3 on how to write guidelines

<Lisa> Also rachael said we can use more categories, nothing is finalized

Need to focus on placeholder section - 2-3 sentence for short description and functional needs - what will the optimal number.

What will be the optimal number

Lisa mentioned that Rachael suggested that if it affects all types of cognitive disabilities and looking at keeping the main categories as simple as possible

<Lisa_> We can put the big catagory in. Such as learning and cognitive disabilities.

<Lisa_> We can also give as many functional needs as we want

Looking at Julie's shared screen showing the guidelines with a simple sentence such as Content uses Clear Languge. Then the Description with 2-3 sentences and three bullet points.

<Lisa_> Option 3. we can also say mainly comunication, but secondary or coganive and learning disabilties and

<Lisa_> All coga

Julie read out the list of bullet points and wondered if they were necessary as there may be a link to the extra information

John said that he is happy if there is a link that would be ok - Jeanne suggested that it was go clear and helpful set of bullet points so perhaps to keep is as an example.

Moving on to functional needs - Jeanne as added guidance and the main point is . disconnected from Zoom that WCAG 3 wants each guideline to

<julierawe> I just logged back into zoom--not sure what happened but Jeanne and I are in the regular COGA zoom

Back in scribing

Clear Language group does not need to rewrite the functional needs - not to do a lot of extra work.

Julie is sharing screen and looking at Outcomes section - this will need to be completed at a high level with the smalles number of outcomes that works for clear language.

Julie came up with 5 statements.

<julierawe> Common words are used, and any uncommon words are explained. Simple sentence structure is used. Concrete language is used, and implied meaning is explained. Short blocks of text are used. Text alternatives are provided for numerical information.

Julie has been looking at previous work and developed a table in a Google doc to show high level outcomes e.g. common words encompasses explain acronyms etc.

The table also shows how the different 13 patterns in the Clear Language section fit this system

+1 to the work that has been completed by Julie

Jeanne agreed with John who also said this was a good idea.

John R. said rather than focus on the number - keep them limited and 5 is good start but not always need to have 5

Jeanne mentioned that the guide of 3 was because of working with the Silver group - the number is there as a guide so people did not have to think they had to write 20! John suggested that 3 is good and maybe go no further than 5

Julie stressed that this level is trying to show the really high level but should not try to put together items that do not really go together. Summary at the top - compress up at the high level for a quick overview and later add detail

Julie suggested a vote


RESOLUTION: Approve the outcomes as drafted in the Clear Language Working Draft

<julierawe> Do you approve of moving forward with the 5 high-level outcomes in the current draft in the placeholder section?

+1 to 5 with John's suggestion to some word changes

<julierawe> Common words are used, and any uncommon words are explained. Simple sentence structure is used. Literal language is used, and implied meaning is explained. Short blocks of text are used. Text alternatives are provided for numerical information.

<JohnRochford> +1

<jeanne> +1

<julierawe> +1

John suggested some changes and Julie said these can be explained later in the document

Julie is going to keep the table for the mapping so it can be referred to later

Now moving on to the Resources section.

Julie thanked the Silver team for their work os SCs mapping different parts to WCAG3

There are 3 SCs that relate to Clear Language namely reading level, unusual words and abbreviations under the 3.1

These needs to be listed as resources. Should we link to the specific clear language to content usable?

Jeanne felt that the link would be helpful. Julie has it linked specifically to making content clear

<julierawe> Hi, John, we're looking at this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JKJ32DK_A82ahsQ_k0RVPc-ZYpX5uuKtuGOLdo2OqyY/edit#heading=h.h5078lboepuu

Jeanne felt that the resources are almost completed - key thing is that documents must not be lost.

John mentioned that Charles Hall made a list of resources and Julie asked if all these documents should have links

Jeanne said as this is worked on it will be very helpful to see all the work that has been completed in the past to prevent reinventing the wheel

Julie will add the links after the meeting.

Looking at the clear language resources - Julie wanted to know if there was anything that is missing from the main list that needs to be added to the resources section. John will think whether there is anything more needed

Julie asked Jeanne if we have completed the placeholder section - There is a need to spend more time on the FAST document when it appears.

Jeanne hopes that there will be a scoring mechanism by functional needs for conforming to WCAG 3 - trying to get away from A AA AAA and not just renaming them Gold, silver and bronze. Jeanne is keen to have outcomes that support people with written and spoken language and make it important that for instance all 15 outcomes can support the wide range of disbilities


Having identified the functional needs this should allow for a better way to organise the criteria in a way that is not dependent on specific measures for tests that are seen through three levels such as A AA AAA

John was asking what the minimal number will be with around 7 / 8 sub categories under cognitive impairment. But this was cited as being too complicated.

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ndRziXRfnyAgDaL8ctByQagDdM36H8QxV44lO3u8zgc/edit#heading=h.al9gb7xmrm2b

Julie as looked at FAST and said that there were several detailed levels that result in too many functional needs for each subcategory

Julie is worried that the feedback that has been given in the third column in the table has made it all sound as if Clear Language wants many more detailed items instead of actually wanting to clarify things and reduce the overload of content

Maybe a member of coga should attend a FAST meeeting.

Julie added the exploratory section and asked Jeanne how we should build out this section

Jeanne said that when Silver was working on 'error prevention' - very detailed breakdown of it all.

Jeanne said when we have no research items have to be detailed but if there is research this can just be referenced as there will be a tab that will link to the content.

Jeanne said that this is going to be a very important tab as this will mean that the user needs will be right there when new technology is developed.

We just need to make sure that user needs just need to pasted in place and linked through to Content Usable.

That is the user needs that come from Clear Language and also the tests

Summary of resolutions

  1. Approve the outcomes as drafted in the Clear Language Working Draft
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).


Succeeded: s/minutes/outcomes

No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: EA

Active on IRC: EA, jeanne, JohnRochford, julierawe, Lisa, Lisa_