– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cu_qVP1WBz2TbsrAjLbbeb55RAlJmu9kfHamriL1Ocs/edit?gid=1686096268#gid=1686096268

* I can scribe if one is still needed.

<lisa> next item

<lisa> thank you Jennie

Lisa: There will be a working meeting for supported decision making after this call

<lisa> next item

Lisa: If we finish this call's agenda early, we can start at that point

<lisa> next item

Lisa: general updates
… We are taking 2 weeks off
… Next week and the week after
… David shared an email about CTAUR
… This is the work by APA - Janina's group on collaborative environments
… This includes Google docs, Github...where people work together
… They have put together user needs, which some vendors will be reviewing
… They (APA) made some changes, which they feel should address our needs

<lisa> ctaur document is at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2024Aug/0040.html

Lisa: That is David's email

<lisa> I've put together a Google Doc for this purpose. Please leave any comments about CTAUR here:

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dFjMfobPdWUz0a-wm6NQKN_nRXVjSLvJlHcgFF0SnHc/edit?usp=sharing

Lisa: David would like us to comment on the latest draft
… Does anyone feel they will have time to review in the next 2 weeks?

Len: I can help

Lisa: I will try as well.

Jan: Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG) is working on sprints
… Julie is leading one group - and shared with the group the card sort
… AG is trying to determine write an assertion, and see what that could look like
… the subgroup sprints is not during the main group - they are at their own times
… The implied meaning is the group Julie is leading
… The assertions work is during the main AG group

Lisa: Joining the meetings is good if people are available.
… They meet tomorrow

Jan: Internationalization - the community group, had been working on feedback on the WCAG 3.0 outcomes
… They came up with a few additional methods for feedback for plain language
… This is their primary concern - the language is difficult to understand.
… Especially for people which speak different languages
… We will send information to AG chairs to ask if the feedback methodology is sufficient
… And to ask if they would like us to give feedback in this way

Lisa: What happened to our request to make a note?

Jan: I sent it over to Rain, and I thought it was going to be included, based on our last meeting.
… But I have not been at the structure meeting
… I will forward the email to you

Len: Who leads the internationalization group?

Jan: Julie leads the implied meaning and clear language subgroups
… Lisa and I co-chair the internationalization community group

Lisa: I am a placeholder

Len: I have someone who may want to join. I will send the name to Jan by email

Jan: currently most of our members are from Japan
… The meeting time will switch in October

<lisa> next item

Lisa: We are taking 2 weeks off
… 1st editor's draft is for user testing - a structured proposal
… It will be finished in the next few days

<lisa> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/Roy-prototype/usable-prototype/index-prototype2.html

Lisa: It will get feedback on the new structure
… It will start in August
… There are still a few changes
… I would like feedback from the group - ok moving forward with user testing?
… We are looking for findability
… Rain is heading the group having users review this new structure for the document (user testing)
… We are working on the remaining issues to address the "look and feel"

<lisa> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/Roy-prototype/usable-prototype/index-prototype2.html#use-icons-that-help-the-user

Lisa: Do we feel we need (as a group) to review before it goes to user testing?
… I think it would be difficult to change at this point in time, even if we had feedback.
… Are we comfortable letting Rain progress to the next stage?

<lisa> +1

Jennie: +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to move to user testing

<tburtin> +1

<LenB> +1

<Jan> +1

<lisa> any objections?

<lisa> next item

Lisa: Issue papers
… Context: we write issue papers on sub-topics like Supported Decision Making
… We were to have an editor's draft
… Editor's draft: not a wide publication. We don't have to show people if we are not ready.
… We have a module up

<lisa> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/issue-papers-v2/issue-papers/index.html

Lisa: We would like 1. For those we are publishing as new modules to be in a slightly better state
… They have had a lot of changes which make it easier to read
… And 2. We would like to add Supported Decision Making to this list
… It won't be edited
… I don't know what is possible if we want to keep to the deadline
… Deadline rationale: to show people in September - have breakout sessions at TPAC
… We might decide it is not ready, at the 1st meeting in September

<lisa> Ed note: This is an early draft The task force intends to add

<lisa> -more research

<lisa> -increased and improved discussion

<lisa> -significant editorial changes including for citations and to be inline with our style guided

<lisa> Please feel free to let us know any research we should be looking at as well as other comments etc.

Lisa: I think we should publish them as an editor's draft and get an editor's note ready - to put at the beginning
… Edits to this editor's note are welcome
… I think we should try to do what we can by the end of the week, add the note, then start the process
… getting it onto people's agenda to look at it (APA and AG)
… and get approval to publish as an editor's draft
… The process to updating it, if this was the path, would be easier
… Option 2: is say we are not ready, and get it out at a later stage
… What do you think?
… I would also send this out

Becca: Can you clarify what the pros and cons of having it ready for TPAC?
… What is the consequence for holding back?

Lisa: If we have the editor's draft, we can do that
… Then we can talk about it in breakout sessions
… We may decide we don't want to if the papers don't look serious enough yet
… I think the deadline for breakouts is the 15th of September
… about 2 weeks before TPAC
… We can decide the first week of September

Lisa: We can also just do editor's draft for the 3 documents we have
… Only the safety one will change significantly
… We can work on that one during the editor's call

Len: Which documents are we discussing?

<Becca_Monteleone> I actually can't attend the editor's meeting this week due to travel for work. My thought is that the drafts will not be ready in time for TPAC, given the conversation from last editor's meeting.

Lisa: "Cognitive Accessibility Issue Papers" gets a lot of views, but is out of date
… In the modules section - these are the papers we are workin gon
… We not the old ones here as well, clearly labeled
… We want to add (potentially) supported, online, decision making, but that is the least mature
… The 3 listed are in Github
… We can add an improved editor's note

<Becca_Monteleone> Google doc version of Safety and Wellbeing paper currently being edited: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VxJ0X8dC6dtL3Fm26_8XsuscGaSRR2Hr2YFgMaQeD0k/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=102321809599068419955

Lisa: If we decide to publish we would ask Roy to publish it, publish it to TR - provides one web address
… Right now: we are discussing this cover document
… Editor's notes are for early stage comments from AG, APA, anyone else inside the WAI who wants to look at it
… proposal: get in the changes we can
… I can add the editor's notes when necessary
… Send to Roy on Friday
… Then ask APA and AG to get it on their agendas
… Other option: wait until it is better, and take our time
… Maybe in a month

Becca: I won't be at the call on Thursday

Lisa: Could you put your changes into Github? Or would we leave it as is for now

Becca: I don't know how
… and may need to have a conversation about potential changes
… We need to have this before the changes were implemented

Lisa: There are substantive changes and editorial changes
… We could ask to publish with those changes
… We could say including moving sentences so it reads better
… Then we can have an editor's call when you get back
… Do we want to try to push forward with these 3 papers?

<lisa> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/issue-papers-v2/issue-papers/index.html#modules

Jennie: 0, and I won't be able to attend the first few meetings in September

<lisa> +1

<LenB> +1

<tburtin> +1

<lisa> any objections?

<Becca_Monteleone> +1 with caveat that there is a note about editorial v. substantive changes

<Jan> 0 - same as Jennie, I won't have bandwidth until October 1

Lisa: Note re the concern: we would ask for approval, but let them know there will be editorial changes

Becca: thank you for clarifying

Lisa: I see a consensus, but not a strong consensus
… I will also send this to the list

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g9N-_3l-d6t0ppZcIIZ98k00x7ZE7h3ayq0OCX9Ycu4/edit

Lisa: Next - decide what to do with supported decision making
… There won't be time to have done even the 1st editorial pass
… I can put it into Github
… Option 1: We could leave it out, and it won't be in TPAC break out sessions
… Option 2: say these are in early stages, and you can review in Google docs
… Option 3: changes that are achieved by the end of week could get into Github with a note - "This is a very early draft" and put it in editor's note for sections needing discussion
… I can send this to the list on Thursday, then on Tuesday move it into Github
… I like to get things out there so people can start saying why they agree or disagree
… What do you think?

Jennie: I have concerns that others may find the document on the internet and not notice or understand that the language is not totally agreed upon, and this may impact other related areas

Becca: I agree with Jennie - I think having more consensus around it is probably the best call

Lisa: Those aren't strong -1s but some suggestions to wait for publishing it
… This and the safety paper would be the interesting ones to bring to TPAC
… Do we want a note in the issue paper, saying that early drafts can be seen in the Google docs?
… It does not look authorative
… People would be welcome to add comments
… Or, should we just leave it

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g9N-_3l-d6t0ppZcIIZ98k00x7ZE7h3ayq0OCX9Ycu4/edit

Jennie: It could be put into a different format, like a PowerPoint, might be a way to distinguish it's state
… That could be presented at TPAC
… If sharing the Google doc broader, just make sure nothing should be included that is identifiable

Lisa: Sounds like we should remove the appendix
… Sounds like we should wait on this
… Decision: let's wait on this
… We will try to publish in the next editor's draft - scheduled for October

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

Lisa: So we are on schedule, by moving forward with 3 papers
… The July 2024 section - this is what we are doing right now
… In September (which will most likely move to October) we are to have 4-5 papers to review, feedback on structure
… end of September, but probably October
… So we will make the editor's draft with 3 papers
… And maybe tidy it up
… And ask that we can incrementally make editorial changes
… Any objections?
… I may put in to the editor's note that more papers will be coming in the next editor's draft (without naming or linking to them)

<lisa> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Becca_Monteleone> +1

<lisa> next item

Lisa: structure, editor's, and mental health - all on Thursday
… Also the standard AG meeting on Tuesday (tomorrow)

Jan: Will you send out the new schedule for subgroup meetings?

Lisa: Yes, I will do that
… Please send dates for the next quarter through end of year, that would be great.

Jan: I can start a thread with subgroup leaders to ask for that

Lisa: Thank you Jan!

<lisa> next item

<lisa> close item 6

<Becca_Monteleone> I also have to drop for another meeting!

<lisa> next item

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wu0WYcvCpp-zIz2NzPk2AuTJOrzgh3T4sKQgzCa10ps/edit

<lisa> reserch plan at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wu0WYcvCpp-zIz2NzPk2AuTJOrzgh3T4sKQgzCa10ps/edit

<lisa> litary review instuctions and apendix of sear terms used

<lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g9N-_3l-d6t0ppZcIIZ98k00x7ZE7h3ayq0OCX9Ycu4/edit#heading=h.e3xgrrovlb45