Clear Language Subgroup Meeting

26 04 2023


jeanne, JohnRochford, julierawe, Santina
julie rawe

Meeting minutes

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JKJ32DK_A82ahsQ_k0RVPc-ZYpX5uuKtuGOLdo2OqyY/edit#heading=h.ho88uer4k9cv

Good feedback from COGA about Outcomes were too broad and combined needs

<julierawe> Julie intro of today's debate: At [Monday's] COGA meeting, I showed the taskforce the Clear Language working draft, and several members raised concerns that the number of outcomes is too small. The concerns include:

<julierawe> (1) Clustering concepts that don't fit neatly together under same outcome, e.g., explaining uncommon words, acronyms & abbreviations, and ambiguous pronunciation (Lisa)

<julierawe> (2) Complicating the challenge of writing testable outcomes (Jennie)

<julierawe> (3) Making it harder for guideline users to find the information they need (Rain)

<julierawe> In light of this feedback, I drafted a new section below our original 5 outcomes. The new section, "Shift to narrower outcomes? (1 test per outcome?)," splits the original 5 outcomes into 20 outcomes to help us debate how to proceed.

<julierawe> I also mentioned at the COGA meeting that our subgroup had been debating whether it's better to have narrower outcomes that are easier to test or broader outcomes that are easier to learn and remember. It will be interesting to see where we land on this, thanks!

<julierawe> Jeanne: I think it's more important to make it easy to find things than it is to have fewer outcomes to remember.

<julierawe> Jeanne: Certain people in the industry freak out when they see us at 67 or 77 success criteria to 300 outcomes

<julierawe> Jeanne: I don't want to kill an idea because we think some people might get upset about it

<julierawe> Jeanne: I thought about sharing with AGWG but Rachael thinks this isn't ready to go to them yet

<julierawe> [[Jeanne, back to you to scribe, thanks!]]

JohnR: I don't think remembering the outcomes is an issue. It's more important for people to understand things
… our focus should be to explain things as simply as we can.
… it's not fruitful to make a decision set on a number/

s|a number/ a number

Santina: More rules that are testable.

JohnR: Wish should give examples of how to test rather than trying to think of every circumstance to test

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JKJ32DK_A82ahsQ_k0RVPc-ZYpX5uuKtuGOLdo2OqyY/edit#bookmark=id.33kux5kjvx2

In summary, it sounds like we are in agreement for more outcomes

List of 20 Outcomes

Clear Language Working Draft - Shift to narrower outcomes

Julie: We drafted a conditional test where people could state their own list of common words (like 3000, 5000, accounting terms) and kept it as an outcome

Julie: Acronyms and abbreviations go together. No objections.

Julie: Ambiguous pronunciation: Remove the word optional.

Jeanne: I think "diacritics" needs explanation or plain language treatment.

[minor word smithing]

Jeanne: it's an example of an outcome that applies to other languages and not english

Julie: Tense: use the verb tense it is easiest to understand. Example: Present tense isn't always the easiest to understand. It's difficult to describe an event in the past using present tense.

Julie: Voice - same structure

Julie: Unnecessary words or phrases. Is it in the right place in the sequence.

JohnR: "that" is the most common unnecessary word. Include it.

JohnR: Describe it as a filler word. Unless they are essential to aiding understanding.

Unnecessary words or phrases: Avoid filler words, such as “that,” or phrases, such as “needless to say,” and “and so forth,” unless they are essential to aiding understanding.

Number of ideas in a sentence. (no objections)

Jeanne: Double negatives: I'm concerned that this applies to English and there are other languages that may treat it differently.

Julie: We couldn't find any language that used double negatives to explress a positive.

JohnR: I found a definition that includes the "non-standard" in the definition.

Julie: The big difference is that we say "to express a positive"

Santina: add "unless it is standard usage for that language or dialect"

Julie: Implied meaning: Does it need to be separated ouit into jokes, sarcarsm, etc.

JohnR: I think it should be kept together

Jeanne: similar tests, identical solutions -- keep them together

Implied meaning in emojis: What is an implied meaning?

Santina: A skull emoji can mean "I'm dying of laughter"

Implied meaning in audio or video in tome of voice, facial expression, etc: Does that belong in Clear Language?

Santina: for people with autism, it would explain contradictory words and facial expressions.

JohnR: I think it is too much to include in Clear Language when every other Outcome is about text.

Julie: Is there an approach that keeps it about cognitive instead of captions or descriptions.

Jeanne: I think it goes with Captions and Audio Description

Santina: Since it can be expressed in text. It's not just video or audio.
… the implied meaning can be expressed in text.
… add "in written word"

What do we need to be done?

<julierawe> rrsagent: make minutes

Julie: We have the list of 20 outcomes and an example of a test for Common words. Is that enough?

Jeanne: I think it is for now, and I will check with Rachael.

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).


Succeeded: s/I think it'/I think it should be kept together

Maybe present: JohnR, Julie

All speakers: Jeanne, JohnR, Julie, Santina

Active on IRC: jeanne, JohnRochford, julierawe