Meeting minutes
<Lisa> agebda?
<Lisa> close item 3
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: new tabs on COGA action item document, including agendas so that people can find info all in one place
Lisa: Orientation training, key links, instructions for using documents also included
<Gareth> +1
<Becca_Monteleone> +1
<Charli> It seems helpful to have it all here
<EA> +present
Lisa: Are people happy with agendas included on this document?
<Jan> +1
<Charu> +present
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: proposal for two subgroup tracks discussed last week: Guidance and Advice as subgroup track #1, Research as subgroup track #2
Lisa: both on Thursdays. Research at 9 am EST, Guidance at 11 am EST (for now)
<kirkwood> +preset+
Lisa: Mondays would review what is covered in Thursday groups and calls for consensus
<julierawe> Charu present+
Lisa: Are people comfortable with those two tracks?
<Rain> +1
<Becca_Monteleone> +1
<Gareth> +1
Charli: Would there be a 3rd group for Editorial as discussed last week?
Lisa: Editorial is usually with Research - but there may be a need for additional calls to be scheduled when certain projects are in process
Julierawe: There may be some editors focused on issue papers so they go to Research. Editors focused on Guidance would go to Guidance calls
Lisa: This would also help because some of the subgroups currently are very small, so this restructure would mean more people would be present
<Lisa> any objecttions
<Jan> +1
<EA> +1
<julierawe> _1
<Charu> +1
<julierawe> +1
<Lisa> next item
<Rain> End of September
Lisa: Schedule for restructure in COGA action items document
*new structure for Making Content Usabel
Rain: Plan to have it coded in Github by end of September
Rain: will not include the final text, will use current text as placeholder text; plan to include the icon draft
Julierawe: would call for consensus for new patterns be before or after it goes into template?
Lisa: Suggests calls for consensus as they are completed
Lisa: will need to put them on the Monday agendas, but current deadline is for drafting only
julierawe: asking about process - draft a pattern, share with internationalization, incorporate internationalization feedback, then share with the wider group for consensus?
Lisa: Added process to document for clarity
julierawe: which subgroup would review?
Lisa: suggest keeping with Tuesday subgroup since they are already familiar with everything
julierawe: after the first 5 patterns, then eventually this is something guidance subgroup would be more involved in
Lisa: Splitting action items in document to clarify what is necessary for next draft vs. following draft(s)
Lisa: Objections or comments?
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> Subscribe with this link: https://
Lisa: on W3C calendar page, scroll to bottom of page, there is header labeled "Export Options" where you can subscribe with a link.
Lisa: In your personal calendar, you can then add this link and it will update it with your w3c events
Lisa: There is also an option to download as ics
Charli: Some of the monday and thursday meetings already populate in Outlook calendar
Lisa: Roy may be able to help with a walkthrough
Julierawe: on W3C website, if you go to the calendar, do all the meetings show up there?
<Lisa> next item
Julie will provide walkthrough of W3C calendar after today's meeting
Lisa: at the beginning of each document, we want a comprehensive statement about who is included
<Lisa> Users with disabilities that impact cognitive accessibility include people with:
<Lisa> cognitive, developmental, intellectual, learning, and specific learning disabilities,
<Lisa> language and communication disorders,
<Lisa> neurodivergence,
<Lisa> traumatic brain injury,
<Lisa> mental health impairments, and
<Lisa> temporary impairments that affect cognitive function, such as extreme anxiety, illness and others.
Lisa: better to be redundant and lengthy than to not include certain groups in this statement
EA: do we need to include "people with" in that first line since we already call them users?
<Gareth> +1
<kirkwood> i would want to include aging, or aging related cognitive decline?
julierawe: "those with" can sound othering
stil agree with EA
<julierawe> Alternate wording: "Disabilities that can impact cognitive accessibility include:"
<kirkwood> agreed it doesn’t read correctly
<Rain> Noting that in the age of AI, users are no longer necessarily "people"
<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to julierawe's suggestion
<Rain> +1 to Julie's suggestion
<Jan> I like what Lisa just said: "Users who need cognitive accessibility include people with:
<Rachael> possible wording: "Disabilities that may require cognitive and learning centered accessibility support:"
<Gareth> +1
<Charu> +1
<julierawe> Should we consider rewording in a way to include some "such as" examples? Like "neurodivergence, such as autism" and "learning differences or specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia and dyscalculia"
Lisa: hesitant to add examples because they may be nested under several different bullet points. Maybe a sentence at the end?
Becca_Monteleone: suggest striking "extreme" from qualifying anxiety
julierawe: "anxiety" seems to be the only specific in the list - so maybe there's a separate bulleted list with more specifics for someone scanning or searching the document
Lisa: Asking for comments in document
EA: impact vs. affect - commented onto docuemnt
EA: "affect" suggests on-going, more nuanced
Gareth: Suggest list should be in one place with a link to it so that we can easily cite it across documents
<Jan> +1 to Gareth's comment about having one universal list
<Jan> Have to drop
<julierawe> +1 to Charli's comment about all mental health impairments affecting cognitive function
Charli: may not need to qualify "mental health impairments" with "that affect cognitive function"
Charli: +1 to having a laundry list of specific examples so people know they are included
Need to drop - sorry!