– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Scribe_list

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: Please sign up for a time to scribe, once every 2 months. The link is listed above.

Lisa: Made a Wiki Page that is tailored to our task force on scribing and running meetings.

<Lisa> next item

<Lisa> close item 1

Lisa: Will send out a link to the wiki on scribing and running meetings in the next email to the list.

Lisa: Did anyone sign up for the WCAG Active Subgroups?

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nw0uqseDHPiRfrC8NvnHAoX2HsRERblGEOGW6MU-jJM/edit

<kirkwood> yes

Lisa: They are running 8-week sprints, so we don't have a lot of time to get involved.

Lisa: Control to the right semantics is a topic we need representation on.

Lisa: Another topic is minimizing interruptions

Lisa: Another ... content is visually ordered and another is on translation - these need representatives;

Lisa: I will talk with Rachael tomorrow about a different way we might be able to get COGA involvement.

Lisa: We could, as a group, pass on our feedback in a way that is less involved than being a member of the subgroup.

John: I would be interested in conformance and legislation.

Lisa: The plus ones in the document was people saying that there should be representation from COGA.

<kb> I still feel like I'm getting used to everything. But if you're struggling I can volunteer for one - which is the most urgent in your opinion?

Lisa: Minimizing Impact of Timing and Interruptions is probably the next most important one on this list - we will need to talk it over a bit as well.

Katie: Yes, you can sign me up for that one.

<Lisa> next item

<Lisa> close item 2

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: We have a lot of information on this in Content Usable - be sure to reach out to the list if you get stuck. Anyone joining these subgroups can reach out to the list for help on existing patterns we have in Content Usable.

<Lisa> next item

Jennie: This morning, I spent time working at calendars for the Collaboration Tool meeting: I am sending a meeting to Jan, John, and Lisa for next week; At that point, I will have reviewed all of the emails and will have an agenda to that group before the meeting.

Lisa: We have been reviewing a wiki page of their requirements, but we have not been reviewing the actual document.

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/TR/ctaur/

Lisa: The above link is what they are wanting us to review.

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: Subgroup updates are next.

Jennie: Given that we will have the information on the 5th - if this week is the beginning of the sprint, we could confirm that the sprint will be completed at the end of the day on June 2nd.

<kirkwood> +1

<Rain> +1

Mental Health will be done by May 2nd.

Lisa: I think all of the groups have clarity on the sprints.

<julierawe> ?

Julie: We have added a couple more meetings to our 8-week sprint, so it's more of a 10-week sprint. We are looking at finishing either May 3rd or May 11th.

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UAFHZuxmyhYAjZZyWxp_rvhIHuXmeWQosgVZD5LcxmM/edit#

<Rain> +1

Lisa: I have put in the schedule that this week the draft of Clear Language and May 1st going over patterns for test strategy group; May 8th, I was thinking of putting together the next sprints. Does that sound reasonable?

+1

Jennie: The test plan and strategy meeting is on Thursday during the regular call time.

Jennie: I will type in the agenda for Thursday.

<Lisa> next item

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

Lisa: We have about 15-20 minutes for the discussion on the Clear Language draft.

<Jennie> Test plan and strategy agenda for Thursday's meeting: review what the group will present on May 1st's COGA call (completed work), consider next sprint availability and goals

Julie: During the Clear Language sprint, we have been working with the WCAG 3.0 template on how to write a guideline for WCAG 3.0

Julie: We tried to stay as close as possible to the Content Usable document.

Julie: We are trying to use a path of a category of disability, rather than listing out all of the functional needs.

Julie: We took all of the patterns in Content Usable (13 of them) - we chose 5 that the patterns can ladder up to.

Julie: Each outcome can have different methods and different tests.

Julie: Further in the document, we have more details.

Julie: What we discussed at our recent meeting was whether we should split this into more outcomes. More narrow outcomes are easier to test, but broader outcomes might be easier to teach.

Julie: We are getting ready to write detailed outcomes for short blocks of tests.

Julie: Our goal is to find detailed descriptions of the 5 outcomes and we also want to show depth for common words - we are actually building out tests for Common Words.

Julie: We will share this more widely to see if people agree that we're on the right path.

Lisa: I have a question: Some of the mappings are obvious, but others might not be. Some of these issues might not map back to clear words. Diacritical marks are an example.

Julie: We moved some topics under different outcomes, so we should probably get your feedback on where we moved them.

Lisa: It might fit under implied meaning is explained. I would put it under 3, but it would be interesting to see what EA thinks.

Lisa: Remove unnecessary words is under simple structure.

Julie: Unnecessary words are often also common words, so we moved this under simple sentence structure.

Lisa: Maybe summary of long documents could go under number 5

<Zakim> Lisa, you wanted to ask why Use symbols and letters necessary to decipher the words has to do with common words?

Lisa: I don't like text alternative for numeric concepts - I would change 5 to provide alternatives for numeric information, but it's not text - text can be part of it, but it's not the full story.

Becca: The ambiguous pronunciation - maybe there's a need for an additional outcome.

Julie: You mentioned acronyms and abbreviations don't fit well under common words?

<Lisa> Provide Alternatives for Numerical Concepts

Becca: I think acronyms and abbreviations, as well as ambiguous pronunciation could possibly be put under an different outcome - maybe something like, "essential information being provided"

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#provide-alternatives-for-numerical-concepts-pattern

<Becca_Monteleone> Perhaps its about rewording that first outcome slightly then?

Julie: We tried to get as close as we could to the WCAG requirement as the requirement to stick to 3 outcomes. Jeanne Spellman advocated for us going to 5 outcomes.

<Lisa> but provide alternitives could be then used to included summaries

Julie: How do people feel about having more narrow outcomes, as opposed to a broader set of outcomes.

Lisa: I spoke to Rachael and she said not to worry about the number of outcomes. WCAG proposed 3 and are trying to see what can be managed.

Lisa: My goal is that people an look at the outcome and know what it means.

Lisa: I would like for the outcomes themselves to be intuitive.

Rain: I mostly want to +1 to having the outcomes easy to understand when they are read.

Rain: When I used to do VPAT audits, I don't know many people who remember everything - there's too much in accessibility to remember - it's more about being able to easily reference where the information can be found.

Rain: We want to be able to easily look at the outcomes and skim for reminders

Rain: I would like to suggest that we allow ourselves to be a little more imperfect so that we can get things into the best shape that we can so that we can refine later and maybe even advocate for a changing of the rules.

Jennie: @Julie - if you would like some of the things that Shawn and I have been gathering about achievable tests, that might be helpful. One layer is what you need for learning and the other layer is what makes it testable or more easily used to determine if the outcome has been achieved.

<ShawnT> +1 to @Jennie, I am willing to help also

Julie: I encourage everyone on this call to put comments in the doc - this is very helpful to get fresh perspectives.

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JKJ32DK_A82ahsQ_k0RVPc-ZYpX5uuKtuGOLdo2OqyY/edit#heading=h.ofc72f1ys4p0

<Lisa> next item

The above link is the clear language document that we are looking for feedback on.

Becca: I have been firming up drafts of two issue papers - I wanted to show you on where I am on those two drafts.

Becca: Conversational Interfaces:

<Becca_Monteleone> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B1vCqlU1IF5UmqxhJAy8Khdi-kRQNPalVX8f3lCMr7w/edit?usp=sharing

Becca: There was a pre-existing paper on Conversational Interfaces - this dealt with telephone services and voice services; I have left my comments in the document. I propose that we change the title to Voice systems and Voice interfaces

Becca: I have a question about Voice User Interface - should we stick with one term or go with other variants to meet other users.

Rain: Conversation could be any number of modalities and voice is specifically if you're using your vocal chords. The concern I have with changing it to Voice interfaces is truly understanding the scope of the issue paper.

Rain: When considering the title, we need to first understand the scope. Is the scope of this to only include the use of vocal chords to interact with systems?

Rain: Are we also including systems that have no visual screen or systems that might include both voice and a visual screen or other inputs?

Rain: "Conversational" implies that things are dynamically changing based on what you put in

<Lisa> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/#voice-systems

Lisa: Link to voice systems - old issue paper, but very well done.

Lisa: This issue paper talked about phone menus and the problems they posed for people with memory or language processing issues.

Lisa: These are different from bots who don't offer the option of going to a human.

Becca: The document I was given to work on, uses the voice systems paper as the basis, so this new paper matches the voice systems paper quite a lot.

Lisa: The layout of the voice systems paper is based on a template, but there's quite a lot of great research in the content from the voice systems document that we want to make sure we keep.

Becca: Next steps - it would be great to have people review the document; I rearranged the challenges a little bit - John K had left a note about processing speed that we can talk about adding as we move forward on the document

Becca: I would like to revisit the purpose of the document; Two topics appear to be: telephone self-service interactions (respond verbally or with a button push) and the other is intelligent voice systems, such as Alexa. Are these the two topics we should be addressing?

Jennie: We need to be sure to include AAC and speech-to-speech, where a person may have a communication partner. These can impact how these systems are used.

Lisa: Have we done a lit review?

Becca: I did some additional research.

Lisa: Maybe send the paper to the list and give people 2 weeks to review.

<kirkwood> well done