15:48:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coga
15:48:58 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/09-coga-irc
15:48:58 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:48:59 <Zakim> Meeting: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
15:49:12 <julierawe> date: 9 feb 2026
15:49:19 <julierawe> present+
15:49:23 <julierawe> chair: julierawe
15:49:28 <julierawe> agenda?
15:49:36 <julierawe> zakim, clear agenda
15:49:36 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:53:04 <julierawe> agenda+ AG's AccessU survey closes tomorrow, February 10th
15:53:37 <julierawe> agenda+ Next COGA task force meeting
15:54:39 <julierawe> agenda+ COGA style guide: What spacing to use with slashes? "and/or" or "and / or"?
15:55:01 <julierawe> agenda+ COGA style guide: Change to ADHD or stick with AD(H)D?
15:55:28 <julierawe> agenda+ COGA style guide: "users" vs "people"
15:59:05 <Justine> Justine has joined #coga
16:01:03 <Jennie> Jennie has joined #coga
16:01:15 <Eric_hind> Eric_hind has joined #coga
16:01:19 <Eric_hind> present+
16:02:19 <Jennie> present+
16:03:08 <Jennifer0> Jennifer0 has joined #coga
16:03:17 <Jennifer0> present+
16:04:18 <Abi> Abi has joined #coga
16:04:22 <Abi> present+
16:04:24 <Justine> present+
16:04:31 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA
16:04:45 <Eric_hind> scribe+ Eric_hind
16:04:51 <julierawe> regrets+ Lisa
16:04:59 <julierawe> regrets+ Charli
16:05:08 <julierawe> zakim, next item
16:05:08 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- AG's AccessU survey closes tomorrow, February 10th -- taken up [from julierawe]
16:05:17 <kirkwood> present+
16:05:24 <julierawe> https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/accessu-2026/
16:05:51 <Eric_hind> julierawe: reminder around the AccessU survey - looking for a sense of who might be going for logistics purposes
16:06:10 <julierawe> zakim, next item
16:06:10 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Next COGA task force meeting -- taken up [from julierawe]
16:06:57 <kirkwood> agenda?
16:07:07 <Jennie> Can't attend Monday
16:07:09 <Eric_hind> julierawe: given that next monday is a US holiday, who is planning to be available?
16:07:19 <Abi> -1
16:07:20 <Jennifer0> -1
16:07:23 <Jennie> -1
16:07:26 <julierawe> -1
16:07:28 <Justine> +1
16:07:28 <Eric_hind> Plus 1 if yes, -1 if not
16:07:32 <Eric_hind> +1
16:07:37 <julierawe> Len +1 (can attend)
16:07:42 <LenB> LenB has joined #coga
16:07:45 <kirkwood> 0
16:07:48 <LenB> present+
16:08:19 <Eric_hind> julierawe: will update Lisa to see if she wants to have and run the meeting
16:08:30 <julierawe> zakim, next item
16:08:30 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- COGA style guide: What spacing to use with slashes? "and/or" or "and / or"? -- taken up [from julierawe]
16:09:01 <julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18rqamyGgYF1DAUHLhsXmR20FtN9AQSaPc9zpFNN1xgM/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#heading=h.527yvnol81gl
16:09:59 <julierawe> slash section: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18rqamyGgYF1DAUHLhsXmR20FtN9AQSaPc9zpFNN1xgM/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#heading=h.hbqgluk92tx0
16:10:14 <Eric_hind> julierawe: Originally, in Making Content Usable, we were inconsistent about how and when we used slashes (with spaces)
16:10:59 <Jennie> q+
16:11:03 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #coga
16:11:16 <Jan> Jan has joined #coga
16:11:19 <tiffanyburtin> present+
16:11:25 <kirkwood> no spaces “conventional use”
16:11:44 <julierawe> ack Jennie
16:11:48 <Eric_hind> julierawe: What should we do in the next version?  Examples include and/or versus and / or, if/then versus if / then, etc.  From a cognitive accessibility standpoint, what perspectives do we have?
16:12:34 <kirkwood> keep with conventional use
16:12:44 <julierawe> Example of how we use "if/then": https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#examples-19
16:12:51 <Eric_hind> Jennie: For if/then especially, it would ideally be expanded.
16:12:55 <Jan> present+
16:13:26 <Jennifer0> q+ relevant resource: https://apvschicago.com/2011/06/slashes-uses-and-restrictions.html#:~:text=It%20may%20surprise%20you%20to%20learn%20that,of%20alternatives/options/choices%2C%20has%20been%20barred%20in%20AP
16:13:30 <kirkwood> “if” should not be in cells of table
16:14:05 <Eric_hind> julierawe: We might show if/then as a way to make content in something like a table - as a way to map some content
16:14:44 <Eric_hind> jennie: The use of a symbol like / may be cognitively confusing.
16:15:58 <LenB> I've worked with several people with dyslexia who told me that spaces on either side of the slashes is better for them and their reading experiences
16:16:08 <Eric_hind> julierawe: For if/then at least, this is intended for a developer and designer instruction on how to deal with an if and then result
16:16:46 <kirkwood> not confusing if used properly
16:16:48 <Jennie> Other possible terms: decision table, conditional logic table, rule table, flow logic
16:16:50 <Jennifer0> q+
16:17:17 <tiffanyburtin> q+
16:17:36 <julierawe> q?
16:17:39 <Eric_hind> julierawe: Is this confusing for the designers?
16:17:42 <julierawe> q?
16:17:50 <kirkwood> q?
16:17:51 <julierawe> ack jen
16:17:56 <julierawe> ack jennifer0
16:18:56 <Eric_hind> Jennifer0: We could write around the if/then, but on a higher level, the use of a / could feel legal-sistic
16:19:23 <julierawe> Action item: Consider if there is a different way to refer to "if/then" tables or statements that does not have to use a slash.
16:19:30 <Jennie> Other possible terms: decision table, conditional logic table, rule table, flow logic
16:19:46 <julierawe> ack tiffanyburtin
16:19:54 <LenB> q+
16:20:14 <julierawe> ack relevant, resource
16:20:25 <julierawe> zakim, ack relevant, resource
16:20:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'ack relevant, resource', julierawe
16:20:39 <kirkwood> ai response\: While "and/or" is common in legal or technical writing, it creates significant hurdles for people with cognitive or learning disabilities, such as dyslexia or ADHD, and for those who use screen readers.
16:20:57 <Eric_hind> tiffanyburtin: I tend to use a space on each site of the slash as a general practice, otherwise, no space can flag code or an operational effect
16:22:03 <kirkwood> we may want to check with screen reader users
16:23:28 <LenB> q?
16:23:29 <Eric_hind> julierawe: lenb: the space does help differentiate, notably in dyslexia
16:23:32 <tiffanyburtin> Thank you Len, well said
16:24:03 <Jennie> Proposed process: can the slash be removed by how the sentence is written? If yes, remove.
16:24:06 <Eric_hind> lenb: we could rewrite the sentence for most instances
16:25:09 <Jennie> Proposed process part 2: if the slash is part of a typical format used by the specific audience for that section: use a lead in sentence without a slash, then use the slash as appropriate.
16:25:39 <Jennie> q+
16:25:45 <Eric_hind> julierawe: From making content usable, the and/or instances could be changed to spaces without any loss of context.  Alterntiavely, could we drop one of and, or or to avoid the need for slash marks
16:25:55 <Eric_hind> q+
16:25:56 <Jennie> q?
16:26:46 <julierawe> q?
16:26:58 <Jennie> q is me then Eric?
16:27:00 <Eric_hind> kirkwood: the '/' methodology is a known artifact style, it may make it more difficult for those who are used to it.
16:27:51 <julierawe> kirkwood Are you arguing against "and/or," regardless of spacing?
16:28:41 <julierawe> kirkwood You are arguing in favor of judicious use of "and/or"? That this is a helpful phrase?
16:28:43 <Eric_hind> kirkwood: point of view is that in some cases the technical stuff will need it (keeping the / as in and/or) - minimal but helpful
16:29:14 <Eric_hind> abi: if not acceptable, just removing one of the and versus or can be problematic
16:29:37 <julierawe> q?
16:29:48 <Eric_hind> q-
16:30:13 <julierawe> ack jennie
16:30:43 <Jennie> Proposed process: can the slash be removed by how the sentence is written? If yes, remove.
16:30:50 <Jennie> if the slash is part of a typical format used by the specific audience for that section: use a lead in sentence without a slash, then use the slash as appropriate.
16:31:22 <julierawe> zakim, remove https://apvschicago.com/2011/06/slashes-uses-and-restrictions.html#:~:text=It%20may%20surprise%20you%20to%20learn%20that
16:31:22 <Zakim> I don't understand you, julierawe
16:31:37 <Rachael> q?
16:32:12 <Eric_hind> jennie: as far as the style guide, should we have a workflow based on removing slash when possible, if when used typically for a specific group like developers, then a sentence to give context before might be useful.
16:32:43 <Rachael> q- https://apvschicago.com/2011/06/slashes-uses-and-restrictions.html#:~:text=It%20may%20surprise%20you%20to%20learn%20that,
16:33:04 <Rachael> q- of%20alternatives/options/choices%2C%20has%20been%20barred%20in%20AP
16:33:08 <Rachael> q- relevant
16:33:11 <Rachael> q- resource
16:33:38 <julierawe> thank you, Rachael!
16:35:27 <julierawe> ack LenB
16:35:30 <julierawe> q?
16:35:30 <Eric_hind> jennie: if / is not required for the audience, don't use it, if it need for a specific audience, explain in lead in sentence - meaning the explanatory text before something like a table would be in plain language
16:35:35 <kirkwood> “people with cognitve disabilites and ADHD or people with cognitive disabilites and ADHD” as opposed to “people with cognitive disabilites and/or learning disabiliteis”
16:35:51 <kirkwood> example^^
16:36:25 <Justine> We can leave text spacing to the user rather than forcing a single presentation on people in cases where the slash is absolutely necessary. There are browser-based methods of expanding text spacing.
16:36:37 <Jennie> Proposed process: can the slash be removed by how the sentence is written? If yes, remove.
16:36:49 <Jennie> if the slash is part of a typical format used by the specific audience for that section: use a lead in sentence without a slash, then use the slash as appropriate.
16:37:02 <kirkwood> (sorry my example isn’t correctly writtten)
16:37:02 <Jennie> Add lead in sentence then use where required
16:37:03 <Eric_hind> jennie: Ultimately this is making sure we have a process or workflow for anyone writing content
16:37:43 <kirkwood> q+
16:38:22 <julierawe> ack kirkwood
16:38:56 <LenB> q+
16:39:07 <Eric_hind> kirkwood: we should be wary of removing and/or constructs, it will expand the content and make it more difficult to absorb the extended content
16:39:15 <Jennifer0> q+
16:39:41 <julierawe> ack LenB
16:39:47 <julierawe> q?
16:40:15 <Jennie> Any method, device or application that can be used to help those who cannot use spoken language and need additional support by means of at least one of the following: symbols, images, text.
16:40:21 <Abi> Q+
16:40:40 <Eric_hind> lenb: the previous , in the glossary instances of and/or, will make rewriting awkward
16:40:42 <julierawe> ack Jennifer0
16:41:31 <Eric_hind> Jennifer0: propose that /'s are jargony - maybe bulletted lists would be an alternative
16:41:31 <julierawe> ack Abi
16:41:55 <Eric_hind> Abi: Maybe switching to 'such as' would reduce the instances too
16:42:55 <Eric_hind> julierawe: There will be some occasional to use it, but if there's a clear way to express the thought without using it, we should consider doing that; alternatives, lists, etc.
16:43:04 <kirkwood> what if we say and/or significantly simplifies the sentence?
16:43:35 <Jennie> q+
16:43:47 <julierawe> q?
16:43:50 <LenB> that falls in the 'occassional use' category
16:44:04 <julierawe> ack Jennifer0
16:44:12 <julierawe> ack Jennie
16:45:11 <kirkwood> +1 to Jennie
16:45:12 <Eric_hind> Jennie: Our glossary may not be done with good process - the text looks like it could be made easier to use if we had lists or were able to use plain language practices
16:45:21 <Jennifer0> +1 to Jennie's comment and adding bullets to the glossary
16:45:42 <Eric_hind> julierawe: We aren't sure how the glossary was modelled in 2021.
16:46:26 <Justine> If I recall, we had not considered the use of bullets when the glossary was created in 2021. I do not think excluding bullets was intentional.
16:46:45 <Jennie> ack me
16:47:31 <Rachael> q+
16:47:48 <Eric_hind> julierawe: we may want to go with the technique where there's a short sentence, then notes and examples (as with the wcag 3 technique).  Our existing glossary is oriented to paragraph explanation.
16:48:06 <julierawe> https://deploy-preview-414--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/#glossary
16:48:07 <julierawe> q?
16:48:14 <julierawe> ack Jennifer0
16:48:35 <julierawe> ack Rachael
16:48:54 <Jennie> +1000 to Rachel
16:49:01 <Eric_hind> Rachael: Support using WCAG 3 format - consistency and all.
16:49:25 <Eric_hind> Support that future Making content usable, we use the WCAG 3 format?
16:49:25 <LenB> +1
16:49:25 <Jennifer0> +1
16:49:26 <Justine> +1
16:49:28 <Eric_hind> +1
16:49:29 <Jennie> +1
16:49:33 <Abi> +1
16:49:35 <julierawe> +1
16:49:39 <Jan> +1
16:50:16 <Eric_hind> q+
16:50:25 <julierawe> ack Jennifer0
16:50:53 <Rachael> ack Jenifer
16:50:59 <Rachael> ack Jennifer
16:51:02 <julierawe> ack Eric_hind
16:51:24 <julierawe> Eric_hind: If we're updating the content now, is there a recommendation for what to do right now?
16:52:30 <Eric_hind> julierawe: An update to the glossary would be good - but not sure if anyone has the bandwidth?
16:53:31 <Eric_hind> Eric_hind: Will try to do a page worth and present to meeting later
16:53:40 <julierawe> Action item: Eric_hind to try converting one-page's worth of glossary entries in a googel doc and then the guidance subgroup will review
16:53:59 <julierawe> zakim, next item
16:53:59 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- COGA style guide: Change to ADHD or stick with AD(H)D? -- taken up [from julierawe]
16:54:24 <julierawe> https://deploy-preview-414--wcag3.netlify.app/guidelines/#glossary
16:55:24 <Eric_hind> julierawe: In the past, we had (hyperactivity) in parenthesis as a COGA decision.
16:56:25 <Eric_hind> julierawe: Concern is that the DSM, WHO, other orgs, don't use this format (hyperactivity) - should we move to the more standardized ADHD?
16:56:32 <julierawe> q?
16:56:55 <Abi> +1
16:56:56 <Justine> +1 to removing
16:57:06 <Eric_hind> julierawe: Remove with +1, keep with -1
16:57:07 <Jan> +1 to removing
16:57:08 <Eric_hind> +1
16:57:11 <Jennie> trying to remember why it was there
16:57:14 <LenB> +1 to removing (after all we no loger see (COVID-19)
16:57:40 <kirkwood> ADD vs. ADHD: What's the Difference?
16:57:41 <kirkwood> ADD (Outdated): Previously used for individuals who struggled with inattention and distractibility but not hyperactivity.
16:57:42 <kirkwood> ADHD (Current): The official diagnosis (since 1987) that covers three subtypes: Primarily Inattentive, Primarily Hyperactive-Impulsive, and Combined Type.
16:57:44 <kirkwood> Commonality: Child Mind Institute states that many still use "ADD" colloquially, but it is not a current medical diagnosis.
16:57:45 <kirkwood> WebMD
16:57:47 <kirkwood> WebMD
16:57:48 <kirkwood>  +4
16:57:49 <kirkwood> Is ADD/ADHD a Disability?
16:57:50 <kirkwood> Legal Status: Yes, ADHD can be recognized as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
16:57:51 <kirkwood> Understanding ADHD’s Disability Status - Clive Behavioral Health
16:57:52 <kirkwood> Jennie is correct
16:58:46 <Eric_hind> Jennie: Thought that at the time of writing, there was this categorization (years ago).  This may now be deprecated or out of style
16:58:48 <Jennifer0> +1 to removing. (Interestingly, I see a lot of sites seem to style as Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder -- hard to avoid that slash!)
16:59:19 <Jennie> q+
16:59:27 <Eric_hind> julierawe: UK is now using the same styling as US, ADHD, no parenthesis
16:59:27 <julierawe> ack Jennie
16:59:53 <Rachael> q+
16:59:56 <julierawe> ack Rachael
16:59:59 <Eric_hind> Jennie: Is there a main diagnostic list that we can use - a composite list
17:00:17 <Eric_hind> Rachael: Not one yet but worth having the conversation
17:01:08 <julierawe> Action item: The AG will consider an agreed-upon diagnostic list
17:01:20 <julierawe> q?
17:01:33 <julierawe> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/09-coga-minutes.html julierawe
17:26:08 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA
18:04:35 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA
19:25:09 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA
23:01:12 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA