Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference -- 20 Mar 2023

<Lisa> scribe: jenny

<Lisa> scribe: jennie

<Lisa> zakim next item

csun updates

Lisa: Did anyone have updates from CSUN?

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlxR5QyxiKwXKFAuMgNeT3Vs8bpKtFX2QW7qBOXRSng/edit#slide=id.p1

Rachael: I thought the face to face was useful. John and Jennie were on the call.
... We went through different conformance models that were proposed.
... We are working on getting a draft out in the next few weeks.
... Then we will work on getting guidelines ready.
... I think we will rework the document to focus on ideas.
... This slide deck has the different ideas we talked about in slide form
... You can skip the background, and start on slide 16
... The ideas I will try to draft are:
... Functional needs (disability categories, and needs) - I will skip these
... The structure for WCAG 3 is pretty much the same as the draft COGA is reviewing
... Assertions is the big change
... Scopes have not changed for a while (slide 22)
... Slide 23: the list of guidelines the working group approved
... These are placeholder level, grouped by expertise needed ....Goal: have the conversation to go through the research and writing process
... Each will have a subgroup for 8 weeks trying to get better outcomes
... If you have interest in a particular area, consider joining

Lisa: Placeholder - at what point should we make sure we have the guidelines in there we think we will need?

Rachael: I think the right thing to do is look at the list
... Ask yourself which of these guidelines needs COGA expertise
... We took everyone from WCAG 2, and as much as we could from Content Usable, put them in a list, and regrouped them
... (This is in another doc)

John K: I think all of them

Rachael: There will be 8 subgroups working together at a time
... This doesn't mean that is the only input time, just the first input time
... There are some that are COGA-centered ...Example: provides help
... site does not cause harm (meant to include things like mental health triggers)
... They all have touches on COGA, but there are some you will want to ensure someone from the taskforce is included

Lisa: Do you have a timeline for expecting a reasonably stable editors draft to be created?
... We should be sure to have input in before then?
... Is now the right time?
... Or is it still experimental?

Rachael: Different pieces are at different points
... The pieces I asked you to review are further along than this is
... Stable is different in how we are doing this.
... COGA has interacted with groups that don't come to us until the end.
... This is not the same.
... This is iterative.
... You can engage as much as you want, and this is not the last chance
... But, your input is valuable.
... And I try to make sure that when something is getting closer to maturity
... The guidelines are placeholder - absolutely going to change, but we are trying to move it to exploratory
... It is a good time for COGA to jump in

Jan: In regards to the 8 week subgroups
... I am assuming this is being organized through AGWG
... And we would need to be a part of those AGWG meetings?

Rachael: We have been experimenting with subgroups
... They are independent, but come and report to the main group at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and at the end
... It is working really well
... The hope for this set is 3 sprints
... Publish a document which I will send to you as it gets written
... Sometime in the next 6 weeks
... And we are kicking off the subgroups
... Each meets independent of the AGWG meeting
... We are trying to bring in expertise we don't have in the AGWG group
... We will use the invited expert structure so we have a broader expertise set
... You can engage in subgroups of interest only for the 8 weeks and not have to engage with the AG as a whole

Lisa: Do you have a schedule of which groups are happening when?

Rachael: I think we will try to take expertise into account
... 1st ones: site aids navigation, prevent users from making mistakes, controls have correct markup
... Content is visually ordered
... Site minimizes interruptions
... If you can tell me COGA's priorities, I can try to get some of these moved around

Lisa: Can you give the link to this?

Rachael: I will create a cleaner document, and share it with everyone

Julie: Rachael - this guideline (placeholder) list
... The clear language here is from the 8 week sprint where Jeanne has been joining us?

Rachael: yes, so we have you listed as the lead

Julie: Ok, great

Rachael: The tests - the names have changed, the concepts have not
... Proposals in draft deal with levels and percentages
... Some are required, some are optional ...Bronze: just made up of required items ...Silver: bronze + some ...Gold: bronze plus a larger percentage

<scribe> ...New: prerequisites/preconditions

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: These are things you can to in procurement, or quick assessments
... Or people preparing for testing ...Example: can the video player display captions
... If this isn't there, no need to test captions yet ...Concept: a preset number of tests people can run to see if accessibility is even possible
... And Gregg came up with a way to build in technology advances
... As something becomes more testable and achievable it moves up from gold to bronze ...Example: sign language is an organizational practice, pretty cost prohibitive for all videos
... But as automated sign language improves, we may make an assertion around automated sign language
... Then if it becomes high quality, it would move to bronze
... As things become more definitive they can change levels

Julie: Prerequisites sounds like it below bronze?

Rachael: no. It is not meant to be a level
... We do not want a level lower than WCAG 2's approximate level
... We don't want people to declare that level as "done"
... It is like a checklist
... Let's say you are procuring 5 things
... Instead of doing a full WCAG assessment, you do a check against the preconditions
... If 3/5 fail, you don't want to bother doing a full assessment

John K: shouldn't it be preassessment?

Rachael: Yes, the name is something still being considered

<kirkwood> pre-assessment -suggestion

Julie: It seems a bit like it needs reframing

Rachael: and, it may be a bad idea. It is not even at placeholder
... It is something that might be worth thinking about
... We don't want it framed as an automated test level
... It should be based on what kind of test it is.
... Thinking about the most basic level that some things depend on
... Please send me an email if you have other thoughts on this

Rain: I don't think it is a bad idea. I think it is great.
... It saves a lot of time and energy.
... To give a more tactile example - if someone can't walk at the moment, you don't evaluate the person's joints
... So you don't do the evaluation, and mark as unevaluated
... Then other measures can be taken before doing a proper evaluation
... This determines: is this at a place yet where it can be evaluated, or does it still have a ways to go before doing an assessment

Rachael: that is a great way to frame it
... We will try to write this up in a better way
... 3 other options
... 1. Stackable outcomes
... instead of breaking things out into success criteria broken into different levels
... We would have outcomes put together and some type of level
... You can see things together in a single location
... 2. Adjectival Ratings: we are still talking about this
... 3. Issue Severity: this is not dropped, but we don't have great solutions for it

Lisa: Thank you
... I think there are 2 things we need to do as a group
... 1. Identify which are the ones we think are the most important - COGA gives strong input
... 2. A check on which ones we think are missing
... What is the best way to go about doing that?
... Does someone want to take it as an action item and lead it next week?
... Is anyone volunteering?

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EsNS1z_WBt3Ey30m-At8V87jYeM65KoWSR7L3SRR3T4/edit

Lisa: We may want to make a spreadsheet or document and people can vote on it
... We can vote through the document

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to explain document

Rachael: This document has the guideline name (ties to the other document)
... It has the success criteria from WCAG 2.2
... Sometimes it will also say things that are in addition
... Like came from Content Usable
... This is a result of the work taking each guideline and breaking it into all the parts tied into it
... I would recommend copying this document over

Lisa: Rachael - the 1st one was really important, lots from Content Usable
... Navigation, being easy to use
... But the table were the WCAG ones, not the COGA ones
... You would not get the kind of hierarchy discussions we put into Content Usable as an outcome
... That kind of is a 3rd thing - are the outcomes including the COGA perspective
... Sometimes a specific success criteria excludes some user needs

<kirkwood> Good point, Lisa

Lisa: Is not the right time to ensure Content Usable patterns are included here

Rachael: That is what the subgroups are doing
... They are taking concepts, that are based in the success criteria
... The group of 3 or 4 (subgroup) will do a deep dive
... They will look at information from mobile, Content Usable, research
... And suggest what the outcomes should be
... Adding them here (in Proposal #2 for Organizing Guidelines by Use) can work

<Github> https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues/2: References to Research item 41 is misformatted

Rachael: But reviewingin September would be helpful
... we are about to send an email to ask who would like to work on different topics
... Then if you only have a few people but know others are needed
... We can work with you to recruit someone to work on these in addition to those we already have

Rain: Is it possible to work asynchronously?

Rachael: every subgroup will be light, and small.
... And that is a good question - I will add the question to the survey
... Thank you for the idea

Lisa: I will put it in a document tomorrow, and send it out
... You can add comments for things you think are missing
... I think the errors one is also important

Jan: I think I am having trouble following
... The last document you showed with the guidelines, tables
... I think because that initial group is going to be doing a deep dive
... I think it would be helpful if COGA can stay on top of the schedule, and add this as an agenda in our meeting

<Lisa> +1 to jan

Jan: To include what the subgroups should be reviewing
... Are you expecting each subgroup to have a volunteer?
... Or that only a few would be reviewed at a time?

Rachael: We have 24 subgroups - we will do 3 sprints of 8
... Once I see the listing of which ones you prioritize, we can spread them out over the sprints
... And, once those come back, there will be more opportunities to add in

Jan: When the deep dive is done, it would be ideal if we had some comments in there before this is done
... I think the earlier we can get the COGA concepts in, the better
... I know there are competing interests, but I want to be sure we think through how best to staff

<kirkwood> feel It would be good for us to have a subgroup landing/tracking page for COGA [google doc]. Overview and input places, schedule. (to properly work asynchronously) ?

Jan: and support asynchronous involvement

Rachael: You can certainly make the suggestion
... We have a limited number of moderators
... If you can tell me which ones are critical we can take that into account

Jan: OK

Rain: Going back to the preassessment conversation
... Determination of assessment readiness ...Results: ready or not ready

<Rachael> +1 assessment readiness.

Lisa: plus 1

<kirkwood> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to Rain's wording

Rachael: I will write it up that way, and we can take a look at it
... I will try to be sure you have a copy of the survey

Lisa: Thank you Rachael.
... Tomorrow I will make a google doc to help us identify which ones are the most important
... And it can work as our management tool
... We can add suggestions as we go to it.
... Hopefully we will have that for you next week.

Rachael: That sounds great

Lisa: I really like how the subgroups are being managed
... We have KPIs meant to end at the end of March
... Most subgroups are a bit behind
... I am wondering - should we adopt the same kind of thing?
... If we are on track for some, those are fine

<Rachael> Our subgroup documentation is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/12O-1BKwlx4iR43GvFzmScejq2xU9V-rehrlxN42st5M/edit

Lisa: But for others, having things that are closing after 4 or 8 weeks
... How do we feel about transitioning to that structure

Rain: I like the idea a lot
... We would also be breaking the projects into smaller chunks
... We basically have massive projects
... If we isolate the chunks into smaller pieces, we can have more time bound sprints
... Different groups of people can come together based on who is available
... It better accommodates the ups and downs of lives and work schedules
... Then helps people not feel overwhelmed

Lisa: The proposal to transition towards the AGWG style sprints
... Other subgroup leaders - we would have to transition from the current model to this
... How do you think?

John K: It makes sense to me.

scribe: I like the idea of at least surfacing it a little more so we can see what each one is doing
... Maybe some people can jump in just for a few minutes in an asynchronous way

Rachael: A coupld of notes
... I linked earlier to our handbook which goes through the detail
... One lesson learned: 1st week the subgroup agrees on the goal being targeted
... We discourage people from hopping in once started
... We are trying to get a shared understanding
... We have found that when people jump in the middle it disrupts work

<kirkwood> sounds good to me

Rachael: Having the feedback from the main group at different points, but then the subgroup goes back has been good

Lisa: if no objections
... Asking each subgroup to write a small document, even an email
... Which has in it, over the next week, what is done
... Referring back to the KIP
... KPI
... What is intending to be done over the next 4 weeks
... Then, a list of what is not done
... This might be the next couple of sprints
... Based on this, we can start making the schedule for the next set of sprints
... How does that sound?

Julie: I think that sounds like a good idea, Lisa
... I think having an 8 week timeline is helpful - it forces us to do a lot
... This can mean more meetings within the 8 weeks
... 8 weeks does feel very ambitious
... It is a lot of work to try to do this in 8 weeks

Lisa: Let's divide things into realistic chunks.
... Julie - can you get this together in the next week?

Julie: I need to take a look.
... I can put together an email with my best guess

<Rain> +1 I will do this list for the structure subgroup

Jennie: for the testing subgroup it will be difficult to get it accomplished
... For the images subgroup it is easier

Lisa: OK, some can complete this week, some others next week

Jan: I think it will help.
... Not everything will get done in 8 weeks, but we can prioritize the top things

Lisa: absolutely. We won't be doing a 6 month subgroup in 8 weeks
... It might be better to have 3 smaller subgroups with the same leaders if they want to

Rain: The value isn't to speed up the work
... I don't think we have the resources to create more subgroups running at the same time
... It is to say: here are the smaller chunks within it
... It is to have the groups working on the smaller chunks to help with progress

Lisa: It will help with the testing subgroup
... Some had interest in some of it, and not necessarily in the whole KPI
... It would solve some of the problems as we come across them
... I will send out an email asking people to fill it out

<kirkwood> 1

Lisa: Would people prefer one google doc for all subgroups? Or do it individually?

Jan: I think 1 is best

Lisa: Hopefully I will send it out tomorrow

Julie: So we just keep using the existing subgroup page where we add updates
... Then just put the new kind of updates?
... Or is there a strong desire to create a new document?

Lisa: The actions page
... We could put it here if we want

Julie: yes, that is the one I was thinking baout

<kirkwood> link?

Julie: This is the one I have been trying to update

Lisa: I will try.

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#

Lisa: Any other urgent pieces?

Julie: all are welcome to attend Thursday's meeting

- DRAFT -

Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

20 Mar 2023

Attendees

Contents

csun updates

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output