14:57:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coga
14:57:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/10/27-coga-irc
14:57:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:57:19 <Zakim> Meeting: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:57:33 <julierawe> chair: julierawe
14:57:43 <julierawe> date: 27 oct 2025
14:57:46 <julierawe> present+
14:58:26 <julierawe> regrets: Jan, Rain, Eric
14:58:34 <julierawe> agenda+ WCAG 3 conformance survey
14:58:41 <Lisa> Lisa has joined #coga
14:59:25 <julierawe> agenda+ New title needed to replace "Cognitive Accessibility Guidance" — the last word is problematic
15:00:32 <Lisa> present+
15:00:39 <gareth> gareth has joined #coga
15:00:44 <gareth> present +
15:00:58 <kirkwood> present+
15:01:16 <Charli> Charli has joined #coga
15:01:22 <Charli> present +
15:01:30 <Becca_Monteleone> Becca_Monteleone has joined #coga
15:01:40 <Becca_Monteleone> present+
15:02:10 <gareth> scribe+
15:02:17 <Charli> present+
15:02:46 <julierawe> zakim, next item
15:02:46 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, julierawe
15:02:48 <Abi> Abi has joined #coga
15:03:00 <julierawe> zakim, clear agenda
15:03:00 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:03:12 <Abi> present+
15:03:12 <julierawe> agenda+ WCAG 3 conformance survey
15:03:17 <gareth> Julie to clear the speaker cue
15:03:21 <LenB> LenB has joined #coga
15:03:25 <LenB> present+
15:03:29 <julierawe> agenda+ New title needed to replace "Cognitive Accessibility Guidance" — the last word is problematic
15:03:35 <julierawe> zakim, next item
15:03:35 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- WCAG 3 conformance survey -- taken up [from julierawe]
15:03:47 <julierawe> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conf_20_oct_25/?login=
15:03:57 <kirkwood> present+
15:04:07 <gareth> Survey about wcag 3 conformance models
15:04:21 <gareth> we are debating 2 right now
15:04:51 <julierawe> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlDxp8MCYXj3RWnFCCz13zsmM2fV4Wf8NbECKogdul8/edit?slide=id.g39bba20ca27_0_0#slide=id.g39bba20ca27_0_0
15:05:01 <julierawe> Slides 15-23 are especially helpful
15:05:08 <gareth> Rachael to cover context about conformance model 15-23 are especially helpful
15:05:50 <gareth> On slide deck starting with Types of provisions
15:06:48 <gareth> outlining the terminology
15:07:15 <julierawe> Slide 4 explains the types of possible provisions—foundational, supplemental, assertions, and best practices. One possible alternative to "foundational requirements" is the term "prerequisites."
15:08:00 <Jennie_Delisi> Jennie_Delisi has joined #coga
15:08:06 <Jennie_Delisi> present+
15:08:42 <julierawe> Jennie_Delisi: We're looking at Slide 7 of this deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlDxp8MCYXj3RWnFCCz13zsmM2fV4Wf8NbECKogdul8/edit?slide=id.g385cbdb7058_0_223#slide=id.g385cbdb7058_0_223
15:08:54 <Jennie_Delisi> Thank you Julie!
15:08:56 <gareth> slide 7 levels of conformance Bronze, Silver and Gold
15:10:11 <julierawe> q+
15:10:28 <gareth> Slide 22 is a visual representative of the Comparison options.
15:10:39 <Rachael> ack Lisa
15:10:43 <Rachael> ack julierawe
15:12:10 <gareth> Julie: one thing helpful, darkblue bin is no choice - requires all requirements.  Light blue areas, some choice meaning the organisation get the choose but would requires some equity.
15:12:43 <gareth> Bin = Foundational Requirements
15:13:33 <EA> EA has joined #coga
15:13:47 <EA> present+
15:14:15 <julierawe> EA: We're looking at Slide 23 in this deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1DlDxp8MCYXj3RWnFCCz13zsmM2fV4Wf8NbECKogdul8/edit?slide=id.g397c6041dea_9_14#slide=id.g397c6041dea_9_14
15:14:44 <EA> Thank you so much - apologies for being late.
15:14:44 <Lisa> q+
15:14:56 <julierawe> ack Lisa
15:15:27 <kirkwood> +1 to Lisa
15:15:28 <gareth> Lisa: Could we end up with people doing a bronze % but the submit being inaccessible ?
15:16:07 <kirkwood> Is that a yes/no to Lisa. I’m curious too
15:16:16 <gareth> Racheal: relates back to the model slide 22.
15:17:06 <kirkwood> {above was my question} think the submit example is a good one
15:17:21 <kirkwood> we got caught legally by that one
15:17:51 <Rachael> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WoD4uacTfmT6qDU5OaofgrMuW1LDZcA90_Y_MF2Ll30/edit?usp=sharing
15:17:55 <gareth> ^^^ acknowledged your response John
15:20:50 <julierawe> q+
15:22:51 <gareth> Julie: group to think about. marked as foundational part of the plain language group.  We have tried to add as many things into this from COGA.  Do you see there being a battle of foundational vs supplimental in the future?
15:23:31 <gareth> (if we go with option 2)
15:23:59 <gareth> Racheal: foresees battles for both.
15:24:17 <julierawe> q+
15:24:33 <Lisa> Q+
15:24:39 <gareth> Racheal reframes "battles" to "guidance"
15:25:03 <julierawe> q-
15:25:05 <julierawe> ack lisa
15:25:07 <gareth> Lisa steps in for Racheal
15:25:28 <julierawe> q+
15:25:32 <Rachael> q+
15:26:19 <gareth> Lisa points out bias to screen readers as likely to go into as foundational compared to COGA, this is her concern.
15:26:26 <julierawe> Lisa Is your fear that Option 2 will be worse for COGA than Option 1?
15:28:01 <julierawe> I agree with Lisa that Option 1 seems like it will be easier/less hard to decide what counts as prerequisites rather than years-long battle with Option 2 to decide what counts as Foundational
15:28:45 <gareth> I agree also with Lisa / Julie
15:30:14 <julierawe> ack julierawe
15:30:27 <julierawe> Rachael do you see Option 1 as being better for COGA than Option 2?
15:30:28 <gareth> Julie to Racheal? If option1 better than option2?
15:30:32 <julierawe> ack Rachael
15:30:42 <julierawe> q+
15:30:47 <gareth> *is
15:31:04 <kirkwood> aAdditionall are we concerned that the term supplemental will mean that it doesn’t need to be done. Correct? Is it supplemental for all categories of disability? Nothing supplemental will be adopted in legal regs. Outside of specific category/type of disability law suits. Feel bad, especially for the aging in this, then.
15:31:23 <Charli> q+
15:31:27 <gareth> Racheal: predicts 2 years to completion
15:31:48 <julierawe> kirkwood: "Supplemental" as a term is likely to change. You must do some percentage of "supplemental" to reach even the lowest conformance level.
15:34:28 <julierawe> ack julierawe
15:34:30 <gareth> No final decision on conformance models
15:35:01 <gareth> Julie: "Supplemental" likely to change
15:38:02 <gareth> Racheal: We can't write the laws but we can build in flexibility and recommend.
15:38:07 <julierawe> ack charli
15:39:01 <gareth> Charli: comments that she thinks this is about framing or how we frame this...
15:39:29 <EA> +1 to what Charlie is saying
15:39:38 <kirkwood> Based on experience, (as a former regulator) concerned about adoption into regs (+ policy & procedures)? Having written them it doesn’t seem possible for me at this point…just trying to vision it at this point. Just don’t want to eliminate that possibility.  But do appreciate the effort.
15:39:46 <gareth> +1 charli
15:40:25 <kirkwood> Plain language is in NYS Law
15:40:40 <kirkwood> and Federal Requirements
15:41:54 <Lisa> Q+
15:42:02 <Jennie_Delisi> q+ re cognitive load for training large orgs
15:42:27 <julierawe> ack lisa
15:42:41 <kirkwood> Federal plain language requires clarity in documents related to government benefits, taxes, and requirements, whereas New York's law focuses on specific areas like consumer contracts and agency communication for its diverse population.
15:43:30 <Rachael> q+
15:45:59 <julierawe> ack Jennie_Delisi
15:45:59 <Zakim> Jennie_Delisi, you wanted to discuss cognitive load for training large orgs
15:47:45 <kirkwood> +1 to Jennie
15:47:49 <julierawe> ack Rachael
15:47:52 <gareth> Jennie: Share some of groups concerns.. i think the user in both senarios would be options 2 due to cognitive load - easier for training - multiple vendors reporting would be similar.
15:47:52 <Charli> +1 to Jennie
15:48:49 <kirkwood> Works will with meeting the law
15:48:50 <julierawe> I am asking Rachael to walk us through the possible responses to the conformance survey, which must be submitted by the end of today: https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conf_20_oct_25/?login=
15:50:03 <kirkwood> Well said, Jennie
15:50:37 <Rachael> Survey: https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/conf_20_oct_25/?login=
15:51:08 <gareth> December draft
15:53:02 <julierawe> q?
15:53:38 <Jennie_Delisi> Thank you for having this discussion today, Lisa, Julie, Rachel - really helpful to prepare to vote.
15:53:47 <kirkwood> Can i ask what Jennie’s concerns are with option 2?
15:54:29 <kirkwood> (even though she picked it)
15:54:38 <kirkwood> yes!
15:55:05 <julierawe> q+
15:55:36 <Rachael> q+
15:55:44 <kirkwood> thank you
15:57:44 <julierawe> Use the "Comments" box to express your concerns about specific aspects of Option 1 or 2
15:57:53 <Lisa> Q+
15:57:55 <gareth> Thank you Racheal
15:57:59 <Rachael> ack julierawe
15:58:00 <Rachael> ack Rachael
15:59:31 <kirkwood> This has been very very good to get a better understanding (of the thoughts behind the survey). Thanks Rachael!
16:01:30 <Rachael> q+
16:02:11 <Rachael> ack Lisa
16:02:15 <Rachael> q-
16:03:32 <Rachael> q+
16:03:54 <julierawe> ack Rachael
16:04:53 <Rachael> Thank you all for taking the time!
16:04:59 <EA> Yes the term supplemental tends to mean it is an extra.... thank you so much for explaining it all.
16:04:59 <kirkwood> Thank you Rachael and all
16:05:03 <julierawe> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:05:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/10/27-coga-minutes.html julierawe
18:06:52 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA
22:22:01 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA