– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<lisa> read agenda from https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2024Jan/0030.html

<lisa> read agenda from <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2024Jan/0030.html>

<lisa_> next item

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Next weeks agenda includes mix discussion between content usable and WCAG 3

<lisa_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UAFHZuxmyhYAjZZyWxp_rvhIHuXmeWQosgVZD5LcxmM/edit#heading=h.kv0usnbv00t

<julierawe> Is this during our regular COGA meeting next week?

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Topics include Subgroups, WCAG 3, outcomes, AG terminology coherence

<Rain> confirming that the plan sounds good to me

<Eric_hind> Lisa: All COGA are invited to next meeting where this will be discussed (next week)

<Eric_hind> Julie: Good conversation to have on Clear language from our perspective versus WCAG 3

<lisa_> next item

<julierawe> https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-8173714

<lisa_> take up item 5

<Eric_hind> Julie: Note currently there is voting on discussion Github; publishing starting point from links. What's new versus picking up from 2.2, guidelines, conformance model, etc. Github issues can be voted on.

<julierawe> AG debate about how to approach publishing WCAG 3: Here is a link to a summary of the Jan 16th discussion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-8173714

<julierawe> There are 4 main debates. Each one has its own GitHub comment that you can thumbs up or thumbs down. I am highlighting two of these debates:

<julierawe> The starting point should be the WCAG 3 outcomes. If you think the starting point should be publishing new WCAG 3 outcomes, then click thumbs up in this comment. If you think the starting point should be showing how WCAG 3 is compatible with WCAG 2.2, click thumbs down. https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-8173718

<julierawe> We should focus on guidelines (rather than conformance) for a while, then come back to conformance / structural updates. Thumbs up for "yes", down for "no, we should keep working on conformance / structure at the same time". https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-8173720

<Eric_hind> Rachael: Read the issues at a summary level if you can as a starting point.

<Eric_hind> Rachael: Two ways to move forward; take WCAG 2.2 and make changes and republish. Not from Silver. Other option is start from Silver and work from fall efforts.

<Rachael> This is the direct link to the comment that is most impactful. https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-8173718

<Rachael> When you click the link, wait for the page to fully load and the comment at the top is the one to focus on.

<Eric_hind> John: Fundamentally huge question with a lot of positive and negative for either choice.

<julierawe> Add a thumbs up to this comment: https://github.com/w3c/wcag3/discussions/33#discussioncomment-8173718

<Eric_hind> Julie: Link provided is main thumbs up/down perspective

<Eric_hind> Rachael: Can offer a call to discuss the complexities; which she will (tomorrow) and will email COGA on meeting availability

<lisa_> take up item 2

<lisa_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K4tI9SV4lsDXzCdaEAXExeL3f061__Sy06lfGV9mLvY/edit#heading=h.lhdm88jj5cym

<Eric_hind> Rashmi: Proposal 8 discussion New Pattern, Make it easy to return to the starting point (of a site hierarchy or multistep process)

<Eric_hind> Rashmi: Losing track of home page can be aggravated by stress, mental health and cognitive overload - disorienting. Reorientation can be assisted by providing affordances related to helping

<kirkwood> +1 to Rain, re: homepage vs start of process

<lisa_> ?

<Eric_hind> Rain: Concern on differentiation of home page and start of a flow - perhaps they need to be split up in complex sites.

<Eric_hind> Lisa: We do have Making Step Clear already; could add further clarity related to this? We may also want to split home page/start of flow in other sections. Propose drafting this as a note.

<lisa_> proposal we put it in with a note that they split and / or also get meged into other patterns

<Rain> +1 that makes sense for the current setup

<lisa_> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<JustineP> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Vote to include editors note on splitting this as a future instruction; voted positively by those present

<Eric_hind> Rashmi: Proposal 10, make Simplify complex purchasing processes (adding to current 4.6.2 Short Critical Path)

<lisa_> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<JMcSorley> +1

<lisa_> any objections?

<lisa_> or more time to think

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Voted to include as example, no objections.

<Eric_hind> Rain: Concern on how to act on it - not as prescriptive as it might be.

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Clarify that this part of a set of examples

<Eric_hind> John: Recommend adding more text here around reduce cognitive load - Lisa added to proposal

<lisa_> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<rashmi> +1

<lisa_> any objections? or more time to think

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Voted to include additional text, no objections.

<Eric_hind> Rashmi: Proposal 11: Clearly identify controls and their use or Make the relationship clear between controls and the content they affect. Make links and controls explicit; less/no inference required

<Eric_hind> Lisa: proposal is to add this text suggestion to 4.2.6.2 What to do as part of existing; 4.2.5 Make the relationship clear between controls and the content they affect (pattern).

<lisa_> happy with the edits?

<lisa_> +1

<Eric_hind> +1

<JMcSorley> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<rashmi> +1

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Voted to include adjusted text, no objections.

<lisa_> next item

<Eric_hind> Lisa: How to put changes in the next draft of content usable - discussion

<Eric_hind> Lisa: github folder structure review/branches.. proposes regular pull request.

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Proposal: Merge and resynch much more regularly.

<Eric_hind> Rain: This does make sense; I could plan out the larger change over to content usable in a few months.

<Eric_hind> Rashmi: Will need some help/experience with pull requests, Jan can help with the process, but there should be a coordinated effort to know/learn about branch process.

<kirkwood> interersted in attending

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Jan to create some written process and work with someone from W3C

<Rain> +1 sounds good

<lisa_> next item

<Eric_hind> Lisa: We can plan out a code freeze (more or less) when Rain is ready to do the large merge.

<lisa_> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XBu9OhGoMG4lLDBRaRFZZxGoNWW-aDkKkVKrypfPvVc/edit#heading=h.ykqwx9vsxdya

<kirkwood> “Timeline for v3 of Content Usable”

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Topic, timeline to take pressure off, new structure, mental health, placeholders, images, etc and literary reviews. (Phase 1 Jan-April 2024)

<JustineP> where do editorial reviews fit in the schedule?

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Looking to get local (docs) style drafts, we can have lightweight placeholders, and similar draft level items as a way to remove pressure from the formal draft.

<julierawe> Have to drop, thanks!

<Eric_hind> Lisa: Do people want scheduled working meeting where we do literary reviews together?

<Eric_hind> +1

<lisa_> do we want a working meeting for lit reviews?

<JustineP> would be helpful

<DavidSwallow> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> I could do it if it was at the time of this meeting

<Becca_Monteleone> And it would be helpful!

<JMcSorley> I could do either during this meeting or after this meeting.

<tburtin> Same, I could do at this time of the meeting.

<Eric_hind> Mornings EST fine by me