– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: Mental health meeting on Thursday

Rain: structure update - received a lot of feedback from community group on design draft. Will compile it and bring it back to the group. Engineer had to pause on prototype but will continue building out next week. Expect to complete by end of year and qual testing in early 2024

Rain: images subgroup is on pause

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8Z2DFd5HNCxNuw94izHfuS8RQBvAda1yC7yiLc3eVc/edit#heading=h.xh5qrkgp6x1d

Julie: WCAG 3 updates shared in google doc

Julie: Attempting to finish exploratory drafts of WCAG 3 outcomes by end of 2023 to be compiled by AG in early 2024 and sent to COGA for review. AG will prioritize outcomes on selection criteria, including what kind of research supports this outcome. Once list of outcomes is complete, guidelines will be refined over several years

Rachael: outcomes without research won't be removed, they will be prioritized to have research done first

Julie: There will be plenty of time for COGA to provide input and refining.

Julie: Five drafts nearly ready that COGA will have chance to review in January - listed in Google doc

Julie: Several drafts could use more COGA input - Consistent Design (meets Fridays); Control Semantics (meets Mondays); Non-Visual Alternatives

Lisa: Someone from ADAPT would be good for control semantics as well

Lisa: listed as belonging to Cognitive Load group, but has not received emails about it - how do we know when our group is meeting or if we're missing communication?

Tiffany: Been a part of prevent harm; could join consistent design too, but I need to be careful about the number of hours.

Lisa: the reason non-visual alternatives needs COGA rep is because, for example, COGA users who use screen readers or other assistive tech use them very differently than other users with sensory disabilities

Rachael: Non-vis alt is also pretty far along as well - COGA perspective might be limited to just reviewing the outcomes and providing feedback. Rachael can meet and walk through

Tiffany was active in non-vis alt as well

Tiffany, Lisa, and Rachael can meet on this. Perhaps include EA as well

Julie reviewing teams that have COGA members

Document with WCAG 3 updates: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8Z2DFd5HNCxNuw94izHfuS8RQBvAda1yC7yiLc3eVc/edit#heading=h.xh5qrkgp6x1d

Lisa: Internationalization meeting on Wednesday

David: no immediate APA updates but will have updates on Github issues next week

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wu0WYcvCpp-zIz2NzPk2AuTJOrzgh3T4sKQgzCa10ps/edit#heading=h.jhgeh79yam7t

<Lisa> next item

<Eric_hind> https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen

<Eric_hind> w3c/coga#305

Eric: Issues to address: 305; 303, and 302

Eric: Issue 305 - use of term "high potential" in content usable

Eric: does this refer to high-level person or anyone in a company/customer?

<kirkwood> should we simply add aging?

Lisa: Could refer to both; trying to deconstruct the stereotype that people with LD/ID are everywhere, including high value customers, decision-makers, etc.

Eric: Julie's suggested wording on Github seems to address this

CORRECTION: Lisa: Could refer to both; trying to deconstruct the stereotype that people with LD/ID are NOT everywhere, including high value customers, decision-makers, etc.

Lisa: Other bullet point in this section addresses aging.

<Lisa> Julies wording +1

<julierawe> +1

<katyb_> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

+1

<DavidSwallow> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Rain> +1

<EA> +1

<tburtin> +1

Eric: next item is Issue 303 on Github

Eric: Correction, Issue 304

Eric: issue - The last bullet reads "Confirm that when feedback is given, a process is in place for acting on it!" Could you please give us concrete example of "a process is in place for acting on it"?

Rain: Agree that language is hard to understand. Suggests adding "and document the steps that will be taken on the feedback"

<kirkwood> +1

<katyb_> +1

<Rain> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Lisa> +1

+1 to add example and reword

<julierawe> ?

<EA> +1

<tburtin> +1

<Lisa> agree with julie. the point is to deal with it!

Julie: is the goal to let the person submitting the feedback know that someone has viewed that feedback or is "documenting the steps" referring to what the organization will do internally about the feedback?

<EA> Should it be both?

Lisa: suggest documenting internally next steps and making publicly available?

John K: so it's about accountability on acting on feedback?

Lisa: Yes, we want to know that something happens with feedback and what happens next is publicly available

<EA> Both need help and needs to be accountable +1

<kirkwood> +1

<DavidSwallow> +1

+1

<katyb_> +1

<Rain> +1

<julierawe> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

Eric: Issue 302 - use of term "general population;" seems to exclude people with cognitive disabilities are not part of the general population

Rain: I'd recommend not using neurotypical because of feedback from community groups; many people with cognitive and learning disabilities also might consider themselves "general population"

<kirkwood> +1 to Rain

Julie: What is the context for this statement?

Julie: Could we reword that header?

<Rain> +1 to Julie's suggestion

<Lisa> +1 julie

<DavidSwallow> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

Julie: "Additional Consideration for User Testing with People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities"

<kirkwood> +1to “considerations” per Julie

<katyb_> +1

<julierawe> +11

"Additional Considerations for User Testing with People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities"

<julierawe> oops, +1

+1

<Lisa> +1

<kirkwood> +1 to conitnuing

Eric: Issue closed and moved to "review for next version" - issue 237

<Lisa> https://github.com/w3c/coga/labels/review%20for%20next%20version

Eric: will review the 14 open issues tagged "review for next version" and will bring for discussion in December

<Lisa> next item

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: Need to update research on user groups and functional needs; would it be better to create a subgroup than to assign individuals?

Lisa: Abbi James has asked about including papers without peer review, such as an organization's internal review

Lisa: Would be helpful to include, but taffed as non-peer reviewed

*tagged

<Lisa> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

+1

<katyb_> +1

<Rain> +1

<kirkwood> +1 with very clear labeling

<EA> Abi has a very good point but need to know how to reference these papers or articles

Lisa: Does anyone want to take on one of these user groups?

Lisa: Will create a subgroup to better divide up this labor

Lisa: Will need at least 5 people in this subgroup

Tiffany: Coworker interested in assisting with this as a guest to COGA

Rachael: Should join COGA to contribute to it

<Jennie> * Have to drop. Have a good week!

<EA> Can we finish our issue paper and then take the research around Aphasia or Dyslexia later next year... bit much on at the moment