Meeting minutes
Continue replacing the phrase "cognitive and learning disabilities" in Making Content Usable
Look for 343 in the document
julierawe: Reviewing issue 343 around language for what we are now calling Cognitive and learning disabilities.
julierawe: There are legal considerations around switching out any words such as 'disabilities'.
Charli: "Cognitive Disabilities/Conditions" or neurodivergent disabilities can work in some jurisdictions but maybe some expanded text/references would be useful?
julierawe: Maybe the intro to next Making Content Usable could be the expanded list and then within the document, we reference the simplified phrasing.?
julierawe: Maybe we can work with structure group to understand how often we might have to reference the simplified phrasing?
<tiffanyburtin> Cognitive Considerations?
julierawe: Important to have disability in the phrasing - again, legal considerations.
<Jan> I agree with John's comment that "differences" might be too broad and it's often negatively received by people who have disabilities.
<julierawe> Cognitive disabilities and neurodiversity?
Charlie: Imperative to use term 'disabilities'
<Jan> +1 to Charli - disability is not a bad word
Jennie_Delisi: Cognitive disabilities and neurodiversity terminology is good - we should also check other locales to see if the meaning works for other locales.
Charli: Cognitive includes mental health disabilities as far as what we can do to support.
tiffanyburtin: Maybe we could use a simplified phrase if we have wider context explanation at the start of the doc (intro/abstract)
<tiffanyburtin> Very good summary Eric.
julierawe: Doc also has points around the use of "Cognitive Disabilities", there are some collective memories around other higher level phrasing and then secondary explanations.
julierawe: Early note was "Cognitive Accessibility Guidance", then "Making Content usable for people with ... <list>", then in Intro section use the umbrella phrase that links to main explanation or pops up same list.
<Jan> Here's a short article with a link to a paper on "SayTheWord" that Charli mentioned earlier: https://
<Jan> +1 to Jennie's comment that mental health be called out specifically
Jennie_Delisi: Moving to that style makes some sense, but including Mental Health can give content viewers more context of the list of inclusion for Making Content Usable.
Charli: Attention and attention regulation would help with how people reflect on their inclusion
Jennie_Delisi: Note that some terminology describing the same thing can vary quite a bit.
julierawe: An appendix or bullet list later on to show culture/local differences would definitely help too.
Charli: question on intellectual disabilities and how we include them in making content usable. We do have user stories that account from some perspectives
julierawe: Do we think that examples like processing are good for the sample list (when expanded Cognitive and Neurodivergent disabilities) - along with learning, attention, memory or mental health?
Jennie_Delisi: Should we make our business requirements as our third (full) explainer? To help us understand the audience and requirement for each?
<Jan> Jennie: Title's purpose is to communicate the purpose of the document. The length of the title supports what people will see when they do a search - we want it to express enough for way finding, but not too much. The same thing for the abstract - we want to limit it to some degree so that we can use it as needed when we have a limitation on
<Jan> characters. The third thing we need is a detailed list of cognitive disabilities. We need three things: Title, Abstract, Detailed List. We just need to keep the purpose of these three things in mind.
Julierawe: Title, abstract and links - we should get the audience and requirements for each level
<Jan> Jennie: The abstract is where SEO is pulled from - some people may need to have the word "autism" in the abstract if that is what they need to see themselves in the document. We just need to make a decision about how to manage the abstract.
Jennie_Delisi: W3C may or may not let us have bulleted lists in abstracts?
<Jan> Julie: The W3C may have some rules about what can go into an abstract - we might not be able to have a bulleted list.
Julierawe: Should we mention things like autism at a higher tier Description?
<Jan> Jennie: If the subtitle could be the plain language, inclusive piece.
<Jan> Julie: We need a phrase in a subtitle that gives some key terms and then link to more detail in a bulleted list.
Julierawe: Adding some examples in the abstract-level paragraph would potentially be useful?
tiffanyburtin: Adding phrasing like comorbidities might expand the scope of the abstract?
julierawe: A short list would give a sense of the range - with links to deeper explanation?
Charli: "One or more" or some variant might be helpful too.
<Jennie_Delisi> Document needs: key words (to add into search engine optimization areas of the document), vocabulary to include in long definition areas
julierawe: If we show our umbrella term and then a such-as list would that help?
julierawe: Propose showing the group our main discussed table cell (Title: Cognitive accessibility guidance")
<Jennie_Delisi> Great job leading today julierawe!
<Jan> Thanks for leading today, Julie!
Thank you Julie
<julierawe> rssagent, make minutes