Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

16 Oct 2023


rashmi, Eric_hind, Rain, tburtin, JustineP, julierawe, Becca_Monteleone, Jennie, kirkwood, abbey


<Rain> agenda_ How to move ahead on published issue papers?

<Rain> scribe: Eric_hind

Rain: Note that for the immediate future, include Rain for any coms with Lisa.

<abbey_> join

Rain: Please do continue communicating with Lisa, but if you need something more quickly, CC Rain.

Subgroups updates sprints - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#

Rain: Review of subgroups, Research plan. A draft is available and feedback from group is in queue for group.
... Semi-ready issue papers, Becca

Becca: Continuing, but the process for preparing issue papers for publications in needed.

Eric: Github review issues; still need 15 minutes to complete votes with group

Rashmi: Mental health group, creating proposals for main task group.

Rain: Structure subgroup, status is that we're putting in feedback and have markups. Week of Nov 7th, a UX eng will create working protoype. Then some qualitative AB testing to check information architecture.
... Images subgroup will be led by John and Rain. New reach outs and actions are in queue; updates soon.

Julie: WCAG 3 and plain language; confirming dates for subgroup in next 3 months. Will incorporate feedback from W3C review in August.
... Some guideline splitting to be done which will help break down the work in a better way. Tests for outcomes to be developed.
... For aspects of Internationalization, we are waiting to talk to W3C internationalization group to work with (for clear language) based on some sample languages.

<kirkwood> I’d join

Julie: Next steps to get buy in from these groups (W3C Internationalization) and then get matching resources for what we want to do.

Rain: Testing strategy for content usable on hold for now

Jennie: APA review may be worth checking in with Rachael as person with most up to date info.

AG and WCAG3 update

<Jennie> If not Rachael, then Lisa will be the most current on the APA issue.

<Rain> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oy5Guap5wnMFhp4OPhgGn1ihuHYmksstPqMHMrc_Krg/edit?usp=sharing

Julie: Around AG and WCAG 3, there is an ask to look at sprint teams scratchpads to try to prioritize those most relevant to COGA.

<Rain> link above is the list of scratchpads

Julie: If anyone (in COGA) can participate in these reviews, that would be appreciated. At this phase its about capturing input (COGA perspective), there will be more chances to contribute.

Rain: These are exploratory drafts; for those without COGA folks assigned. Ones with a Pull request as Next Step are further along.

Julie: Review hint, when adding comments, tag the lead of that document so it gets noticed

Rain: NOTE With 2.2 formally released, the silver subgroup has been superseded by the AG Working group .

How to move ahead on publishing issue papers?

<Rain> Lisa’s email on October 11 - “how to publish issue papers”

Rain: Review 'how to publish issue papers

<Rain> Track one: Papers to be included in our formal W3C Note. This should be our new papers, and papers we have updated

<Rain> rack two: Older papers that we are not updating, we can put on our wiki. I understand that we can point to our wiki in the note. but need to be very clear that these are out of date. We can update them and include them as additional modules later.

Rain: Based on publishing as W3C notes; requiring a fair number of reviews and work (per Lisa's comments).
... Is this the right direction to take? (per Lisa comments)

Becca: What is the distinction between the approaches (on publication)?

Rain: Formal W3C notes and wiki pages delta; we can edit wiki pages any time, W3C notes have more rigour and are more official. W3C notes have fairly formal review process.

John: There are public policy and industrial references to the W3C notes, wiki pages are not considered as academic/official.

<JustineP> +1 to John, you covered it very well Rain

Jennie: Any info not in an official document is far less likely to be referenced by users in general.

Becca: Suggestion, if we move to the more formal method, this could use a subgroup.

Eric: Are the formal notes using github.

Rain: Yes, more formal but it is github based.
... Should we move forward with the path forward? Lisa's proposal on a couple of papers to update to become notes.

<Rain> Proposal from Lisa is that we decide on a couple of papers to update or write now, and those become notes, and we let the others remain as wiki pages until updated

Jennie: Is there text in a wiki about how formal the document is?

Rain: Not sure, but not likely, but this could be a part of the proposal.

<Rain> Adding to proposal above - the issue papers that remain as wiki pages will have a clear note at the top that they are out of date

<Rain> (and not an official w3c note)

<Rain> example text "this is a wiki maintained by coga and not a formal note" and links to our formal notes

<kirkwood> +1 to Jenny, suggestion adding link to formal notes

<Rain> +1 is agree to this proposal, 0 don't care, -1 something else

<kirkwood> +1


<julierawe> 0

<JustineP> +1

<Jennie> +1

<abbey__> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<Rain> +1

<tburtin> +1

<Rain> We agree with Lisa's proposal for 2 tracks, but we need to include the clear note as well that Jennie proposed

<Jennie> Good concern Rashmi. I think it may be solved by linking to a plain language definitions page.

<Rain> Minor update to our resolution to go with Lisa's proposal + Jennie's note - we want the language of the note to not undermine the value of our wiki issues

Rain: Confirmation; 2 tracks of papers; new ones as Notes, old ones as wiki updates

<Rain> Issue papers: https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

<Rain> issue papers are at https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/

<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.

<Jennie> https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/

<Jennie> * Apologies - have to drop. Have a good week.

Rain: Next steps, create a sheet of papers we're updating and which we aren't... and track who's doing what.

<Rain> Next steps are that Rain will create a spreadsheet of the issue papers for tracking and share with Becca to refine, then we will share with group

Mental health proposals

Rashmi: Continuing to work on mental health. more to come late.

<julierawe> Thank you, Rain, and sending support to Lisa [insert heart here]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2023/10/16 16:00:55 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: rashmi, Eric_hind, Rain, tburtin, JustineP, julierawe, Becca_Monteleone, Jennie, kirkwood
Present: rashmi, Eric_hind, Rain, tburtin, JustineP, julierawe, Becca_Monteleone, Jennie, kirkwood, abbey
Regrets: Lisa
Found Scribe: Eric_hind
Inferring ScribeNick: Eric_hind

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]