Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

03 July 2023


abbey, DavidSwallow, Jennie

Meeting minutes

<lisa> no quarm

<lisa> next item

<lisa> close item 8

look at CTAUR document colaberation

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CJhBYRI-zk2rl_mohHZ63xAGZxzpDMxhHhXT66bjFBI/edit#heading=h.9s2myah44bjb

<lisa> srcibe: Jקממט

(talking about the review of the CTAUR document)

Lisa: I thought we would be adding user needs and requirements
… I think we can use "COGA suggested user need 1"
… And some of the comments are actually user needs
… I started with general comments
… Those aren't user requirements
… They say you need to follow WCAG, but also do more
… I suggested adding a recommendation for Making Content Usable
… I took a few more examples from Jennie's comments
… And I put them in as COGA suggested User Needs
… This looks more like concrete suggestions
… The Requirement is their format. So when I added a user need I added the requirements needed to meet them
… Is it easier to have them in the comments, or in the "COGA suggested user need"?

David: Will this need translating from inline comments into Github?

Lisa: That is a conversation I had with Janina
… They have someone who has volunteered to enter each one as a separate issue into Github
… They have asked us to make our suggestions extremely concrete.
… Because of this they want things like "add this user need here"
… We have to make it clear for the person adding into Github

David: I think the comments are easy to drop in. The suggestions might be a bit more difficult.

Lisa: We thought that originally. When I started commenting, I could see we had threads
… It will be hard to see what the final draft is, I think
… We have had to take a step back - right now we are not concerned with what form we give it to APA in
… Because we are still trying to make sure we have collected everybody's thoughts
… So we need to see what is easier to do. Maybe we will move them back into comments
… I think the first issue is collecting the input
… We have comments in different documents, unfortunately
… We will have to check that things have been added
… So we will have to look through all the comments

Jennie: my suggestion is breaking tasks down into small chunks per person, and being sure we follow up in a compressed timeline
… I don't have a preference about inline vs comments, as long as we select one method and keep using it

Abbey: I cannot see the document right now.

Jennie: I can access Github at work
… and my availability will be spotty over July in terms of participation in concentrated amounts

<lisa> inline (1) or comment (2)

Jennie: 0 - as long as it is consistent

<lisa> 1

<abbey> 1

<DavidSwallow> 2

David: I think the comments help focus the issue. You can browse through them
… You can go from comment to comment, and work to them
… You can resolve them when they are done
… Comments are a kind of unit
… They are portable - they force you to condense your idea into a block of text
… It might be hard to tease apart the inline comments

Lisa: the problem is we got stuck getting to the phase of moving them into Github
… some members couldn't use them
… since we have 2 to 1, it goes towards the inline
… We will have to try to make it easy to change into Github comments
… Let's go through the things that they have, and see if we think we have the suggestions we need
… Real-time co-editing - their user needs were mainly focused on screen reader users
… until one about distractions
… My feeling was that all of Making Content Usable would be useful - we put that at the beginning
… I am thinking about the stuff we have learned to do in collaborative documents
… One of the things we have learned is to put instructions at the top
… People have said that is helpful
… But I haven't always seen it
… What problems with real-time editing have you come across?

David: Just like this one.

Lisa: I have opened one of the older documents, that contains comments from previous conversations
… We have said not to do this in Content Usable, but I think it is a big deal for collaborative documents
… the use of strange terms

Jennie: I wonder if the terms are caused by the need for something unique, in terms of copyright

David: maybe the mechanics?

Lisa: Going back to the document we are reviewing...
… It divides it into sections
… Should there be a general section? Or is that what was in section 1.3 and 2?

David: Do you mean about how to do?

Lisa: I will put in the document within section 2: COGA suggestion - common pitfalls
… (kept drafting using suggesting mode in the document)

David: Can we preface it with something like "Collaborative tools use processes that are not as a familiar as....they have a set of unique mechanics"

Lisa: (drafts based on this into the document)

David: ties it to collaborative tools

Lisa: (continues drafting in the document)
… I think this area needs a bit of work

David: This is a good start
… To present the interactions clearly

Lisa: I think someone said previously they needed the search
… Like when things are somewhere, but you don't know where

Jennie: there can be different permissions/capabilities of different searches
… It would be important to expose this to users

Lisa: Knowing how it works - using ands and ors
… this is important to know
… For some, if something is in quotes, that can have a different use case
… Sometimes you can be inundated with terms

David: Is it specific to collaborative tools? Or is it more general?

Lisa: We are listing common pitfalls that we know about
… Not limited to specific areas

Jennie: I am wondering if we need a section called provide help
… And then specifics of using search could be under that

David: yes, these are the mechanics of using the tool

Lisa: Then we can add some things under the help
… (goes back to looking through Issues using W3C Tools and Processes
… )
… reading from one commenter saying it is hard to have to learn a new way of thinking to do something like edit
… (goes back to the document we are editing)

David: maybe expose common features?

Lisa: I have that here in the COGA suggestion - common pitfalls
… (continues adding into the draft)

Jennie: one of the comments we have is about adding a glossary. Maybe we can add it into the document as suggested text, then resolve that comment?

Lisa: (adds it in to the document)
… (resolved)

Jennie: thank you. Making sure we add information into the document with suggested text, then resolving the comments will help ensure we are
… all working within this document the same way

Lisa: (added in the comment about adding information about what is out of scope in the document, then resolved the comment)
… (continued working through the comments, moving them into the suggested language within the document/inline, then resolving the comments)

(Lisa continued going through the comments, pasting them inline, then resolving the comments)

Lisa: Do we put in something like "add topic, or make sure the topic is clear"?
… (drafted into the document in section 3)
… We are not talking to the document authors, we are talking to those making the platforms
… We know that multi-step processes are difficult
… Having a link that automatically opens the read me file
… It will open
… You can write your instructions
… Or have a place to add instructions for your reviewers

David: Are you thinking of a specific platform?

Lisa: we sometimes put read me files in

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


Maybe present: David, Lisa

All speakers: Abbey, David, Jennie, Lisa

Active on IRC: abbey, DavidSwallow, Jennie, Lisa, lisa