14:56:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coga
14:56:11 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-coga-irc
14:56:11 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:56:12 <Zakim> Meeting: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
14:56:21 <julierawe> Meeting: COGA Review of WCAG 3
14:56:31 <julierawe> date: 05 mar 2026
14:56:41 <julierawe> agenda?
14:56:47 <julierawe> zakim, clear agenda
14:56:47 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:57:10 <julierawe> agenda+ Scheduling survey results
14:57:27 <julierawe> agenda+ Filling in the ”COGA member contact info” section of this doc
14:57:41 <julierawe> agenda+ WCAG 3 provision survey 01
14:57:58 <julierawe> agenda+ Scheduling the next guideline
14:58:05 <julierawe> agenda+ Tracker: Are we creating one? As a spreadsheet?
14:58:16 <julierawe> agenda+ Animation and Movement
14:58:30 <julierawe> agenda+ Error Handling
14:58:33 <julierawe> agenda?
15:00:03 <julierawe> agenda+ WCAG 3 overview: Deck and video links added to review doc
15:04:03 <Becca_Monteleone> Becca_Monteleone has joined #coga
15:05:12 <julierawe> Is anyone else having trouble joining the meeting? The "Join the meeting" button is no longer visible in my W3C calendar invite.
15:05:58 <Becca_Monteleone> Lisa, Eric and I are currently in the Zoom
15:06:25 <julierawe> Can you please share the zoom link here in IRC? Or reply to the email I sent to COGA? I can't get in without a zoom link.
15:08:55 <Lisa> Lisa has joined #coga
15:10:17 <julierawe> agenda?
15:10:47 <Lisa> Lisa has joined #coga
15:10:49 <Eric_hind> Eric_hind has joined #coga
15:10:55 <Eric_hind> present+
15:10:56 <julierawe> zakim, next item
15:10:56 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Scheduling survey results -- taken up [from julierawe]
15:11:06 <Lisa> present+
15:11:14 <julierawe> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xibMhwgS1l4101QmtNjM3ZCLF0TNTa_hh2HDzf919z4/edit?gid=0#gid=0
15:13:37 <Lisa> agenda?
15:13:41 <julierawe> Based on the current survey results, looks like the preference is to start at 9am ET.
15:14:22 <julierawe> Action item: julierawe to ask Jan if the 9am start time works for her.
15:14:53 <julierawe> zakim, next item
15:14:53 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Filling in the ”COGA member contact info” section of this doc -- taken up [from julierawe]
15:15:42 <julierawe> I added a section to our planning doc so people can add their contact info:
15:15:43 <julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.uggxirp4slpc#heading=h.sllvpovoqb86
15:16:32 <julierawe> Adding this contact info will make it easy for COGA members to collaborate with each other.
15:16:36 <julierawe> zakim, next item
15:16:36 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- WCAG 3 provision survey 01 -- taken up [from julierawe]
15:16:47 <julierawe> zakim, item 8
15:16:47 <Zakim> I don't understand 'item 8', julierawe
15:17:07 <Lisa> take up item 8
15:17:31 <julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.xugyire72gz6
15:17:50 <julierawe> I added the video link for the presentation so people can watch at any time.
15:18:01 <julierawe> zakim, next item
15:18:01 <Zakim> agendum 8 was just opened, julierawe
15:18:10 <Lisa> close item 8
15:18:16 <julierawe> take up item 3
15:19:27 <julierawe> WCAG 3 provision survey 01
15:19:27 <julierawe> Responses due March 18th
15:19:27 <julierawe> See Alastair’s March 4th email titled “WCAG 3 provision survey 01” for more details
15:19:27 <julierawe> Survey link: https://www.w3.org/wbs/35422/wcag3-provision-survey-01/
15:20:10 <julierawe> The survey asks about three provisions that have been updated (in google docs) since the working draft was published: Flashing, Text detectable, and Custom keys are documented
15:21:04 <julierawe> Lisa I think people will get lost. This is not doable. I don't think we have time to do these monthly surveys at the same we are doing the holistic review of all of WCAG 3.
15:22:46 <julierawe> julierawe Flashing is in the survey and is also in the section that Eric_hind is currently reviewing.
15:23:19 <julierawe> Lisa I think this is a discussion: Do we want to do these surveys as they come out?
15:24:07 <julierawe> Lisa I think it's a good idea to alert Eric that one of the provisions in the survey is in his section.
15:24:23 <julierawe> Eric_hind is not a member of AG and so cannot participate in the survey.
15:24:52 <julierawe> Lisa maybe spend 5 minutes telling people what's in the survey and COGA members can respond if they want to.
15:25:16 <julierawe> Lisa People can go for it or not.
15:25:58 <julierawe> Eric_hind maybe I'll present something next week for 5 minutes.
15:26:07 <julierawe> zakim, next item
15:26:07 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Scheduling the next guideline -- taken up [from julierawe]
15:26:31 <julierawe> scribe+
15:26:33 <julierawe> present+
15:27:11 <julierawe> present+ kirkwood
15:27:43 <julierawe> Lisa There is a lot of overlap between "Error Handling" and "Process and Task Completion."
15:27:48 <Becca_Monteleone> present+
15:27:54 <julierawe> Lisa It made sense to understand both sections.
15:28:07 <Lisa> agenda+
15:28:18 <Lisa> next item
15:28:35 <julierawe> Lisa I don't think we can schedule another section just yet. But we have the next 3 to 4 weeks scheduled.
15:28:52 <julierawe> Lisa We have a COGA label for GitHub.
15:28:57 <julierawe> q?
15:29:31 <Lisa> next item
15:29:35 <julierawe> Lisa In terms of a spreadsheet, I don't think we are ready to discuss a spreadsheet for COGA. Eric and I need another week to work on this and also to work with Jan on this.
15:29:54 <julierawe> ack julierawe
15:30:13 <julierawe> Lisa For the spreadsheet, we need to see what's involved in the review process before we create a tracker spreadsheet for COGA.
15:31:06 <julierawe> Lisa Eric started on "Animation and Movement." I also started on "Error Handling."
15:31:25 <julierawe> Lisa "Animation and Movement" is a short section. "Images and Media" is a much longer section with several subsections.
15:31:50 <julierawe> Lisa "Error Handling" is also short. It's not as short as "Animation and Movement."
15:32:25 <julierawe> Lisa Eric and I did not coordinate, which means we have very different approaches. I think it will be helpful to see the different approaches he and I took.
15:32:32 <julierawe> q+
15:32:49 <julierawe> Lisa I don't know if we want to jump right in or give an overview.
15:33:18 <julierawe> ack julierawe
15:33:32 <julierawe> julierawe Did Eric use AI to help get started on his section review?
15:33:45 <Lisa> notebook LM
15:33:46 <julierawe> Eric_hind Yes, I used NotebookLM to help get started.
15:34:24 <julierawe> Lisa I'll give an overview of my process so people can have it in mind as we do a deep dive on yours.
15:34:40 <julierawe> Lisa I started by looking at the overlap between sections in Julie's presentation.
15:35:17 <julierawe> Lisa is discussing the "Error Handling" tab in our COGA review of WCAG 3 doc: Flashing
15:35:17 <julierawe> Text detectable
15:35:17 <julierawe> Custom keys are documented
15:35:26 <LenB> LenB has joined #coga
15:35:32 <julierawe> oops, wrong thing was pasted into the minutes
15:35:49 <julierawe> Here is the link to the "Error Handling" tab: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.5gxd4veirbbq
15:36:18 <LenB> present+
15:36:22 <julierawe> Lisa made a table for each guideline in her section.
15:36:32 <julierawe> Lisa also separately created a list of user needs in her tab.
15:36:52 <julierawe> q+
15:39:28 <Lisa> ack next
15:40:27 <julierawe> julierawe Did you check the Editor's Draft to see if there are any exploratory provisions that aren't showing up in the working draft, which only shows developing provisions?
15:40:40 <julierawe> Lisa Yes, and I noted there are not exploratory provisions in my section.
15:41:42 <julierawe> Eric_hind I started by looking at Julie's overview presentation.
15:42:14 <julierawe> Eric_hind Wherever I saw a new definition, I noted that in case people may not be expecting that definition.
15:43:01 <julierawe> Eric_hind "Animation and Movement" is all about doing no harm.
15:43:17 <julierawe> Eric_hind It is a small section.
15:44:10 <julierawe> Eric_hind There is a core requirement where flashing is not allowed unless it is essential. There is a supplemental provision where no flashing is allowed at all (no exceptions).
15:44:20 <LenB> LenB has joined #coga
15:44:25 <LenB> q+
15:44:27 <julierawe> Eric_hind All of the provisions in this section are at the developing level, none are at the exploratory level.
15:44:33 <julierawe> Eric_hind I wasn't sure what to do with the assertions.
15:44:47 <julierawe> Lisa I think we should make a GitHub issue about assertions.
15:44:53 <julierawe> q+
15:45:28 <julierawe> Lisa Where is the content you think is missing?
15:45:44 <Lisa> ack next
15:46:19 <julierawe> LenB Something that is missing from this section is something that Tiffany and Charles Hall are asking for, and it's the use of diagnonal lines.
15:46:27 <julierawe> q+
15:46:36 <Lisa> Q+ to ask about safety paper is not  inclusded. AND trigger warning may often be harmful
15:47:12 <julierawe> Eric_hind Maybe diagonal lines should be included in a definition?
15:47:37 <julierawe> LenB The subgroup working on this section was surprised to know that some visuals can cause migraines, etc.
15:48:18 <julierawe> LenB How might we suggest changing the definition?
15:49:03 <julierawe> ack julierawe
15:49:22 <julierawe> julierawe This section includes a provision about visual motion that includes "pseudomotion."
15:49:36 <julierawe> Lisa We could ask for that "pseudomotion" to include diagonal lines.
15:50:09 <julierawe> Lisa If we want to make a practical suggestion, we could suggest expanding the definition of "pseudomotion" to include diagonal lines.
15:50:42 <julierawe> LenB The defintion of "pseudomotion" is exploratory, which means it needs more work.
15:50:52 <julierawe> q?
15:50:56 <julierawe> q+
15:51:13 <Lisa> ack next
15:51:14 <Zakim> Lisa, you wanted to ask about safety paper is not  inclusded. AND trigger warning may often be harmful
15:51:23 <Lisa> photesncity
15:51:31 <julierawe> Lisa Is photosensitivity mentioned?
15:52:36 <julierawe> q+ about the "Visual stimulation" requirement
15:53:46 <julierawe> Lisa I think I was in that group for a while, and I gave them a recommendation about trigger warnings that trigger warnings need to be able to be turned off.
15:55:33 <julierawe> ack julierawe
15:56:20 <julierawe> julierawe suggested that we submit a GitHub issue to make the trigger warning optional and present COGA research that indicates seeing a trigger warning can cause harm to some individuals.
15:57:11 <julierawe> julierawe also noted that there is a "Visual stimulation" provision at the exploratory level that may be getting at the issue of photosensitivity without using that exact term.
15:57:34 <julierawe> Lisa Where are the issue raised in COGA's safety paper about the emotional harm?
15:57:49 <julierawe> Lisa Also what about distractions?
15:58:06 <julierawe> Lisa Talk us through the issues you've found so far with the user needs.
15:58:09 <julierawe> Eric_hind
15:58:39 <julierawe> Eric_hind I asked NotebookLM to suggest issues for us to raise. Julie and Lisa have reviewed the AI suggestions.
15:59:05 <julierawe> Eric_hind The first issue is adding user controls. WCAG 3 has a separate section on "User Controls," which is fairly light right now.
15:59:37 <julierawe> Lisa Where is autoplay?
15:59:37 <julierawe> q+
16:00:48 <julierawe> ack julierawe
16:01:18 <julierawe> Eric_hind It's a little fuzzy to me what are geniune issue vs what are definitions that need improving.
16:01:46 <Jennifer> Jennifer has joined #coga
16:01:47 <julierawe> Eric_hind went through each of the issues raised in his tab of the document.
16:01:55 <Jennifer> present+
16:02:13 <julierawe> Lisa reiterated that trigger warnings should be optional
16:02:49 <julierawe> Lisa We suggested a global one-time setting so users can say whether they do or don't want to see trigger warnings.
16:03:04 <julierawe> Lisa We should share our draft pattern with this WCAG 3 subgroup.
16:03:22 <julierawe> Lisa Our draft pattern about trigger warnings for the next version of Making Content Usable.
16:03:43 <julierawe> +1 to suggesting a global setting
16:04:00 <julierawe> Eric_hind I agree that putting it in one issue will get it on the table.
16:04:01 <julierawe> q+
16:04:14 <julierawe> ack julierawe
16:04:28 <julierawe> ack "visual, stimulation"
16:04:34 <julierawe> q?
16:04:52 <julierawe> Does anyone know how to get rid of this zakim issue about visual stimulation?
16:05:18 <julierawe> Lisa From our initial suggestion, we thought we were missing all the findings in the Safety issue paper.
16:05:34 <julierawe> Lisa That could be an assertion for testing.
16:05:34 <julierawe> q+
16:05:55 <julierawe> Lisa I provided it to the subgroup, I put things in their tabs, it just wasn't done.
16:06:17 <Lisa> ack next
16:07:21 <julierawe> ack ju
16:07:30 <julierawe> zakim, remove he, "Visual, stimulation", requirement on the speaker queue
16:07:30 <Zakim> I don't understand you, julierawe
16:07:48 <julierawe> zakim, erase speaker queue
16:07:48 <Zakim> I don't understand 'erase speaker queue', julierawe
16:07:55 <julierawe> zakkm, delete speaker queue
16:08:13 <julierawe> zakim, delete speaking queue
16:08:13 <Zakim> I don't understand 'delete speaking queue', julierawe
16:08:48 <julierawe> julierawe suggested tailoring GitHub issues for each section that include information about our Safety paper rather than submitting an issue that might apply to many sections.
16:09:00 <julierawe> Lisa There are other ways you can cause physical harm in a website.
16:10:50 <julierawe> Lisa The WCAG 3 section on risks that covers social risks -- that puts kids at physical risk. That's in the risk section (currently titled "Policy and Protection).
16:11:39 <julierawe> Lisa This is why I think the "Animationa and Movement" guidelines is too short. It just says "Prevent physical harm," but it is actually limited to physical harm caused by animation and movement, not by, say, social media that exposes kids to predators.
16:11:55 <julierawe> Lisa The scope should be clear out of context.
16:15:45 <julierawe> Lisa Let's go back and do the cognitive buckets
16:16:23 <Lisa> ack next
16:18:01 <julierawe> Lisa We need to speak with Rachael about how to share information about which user needs are not being addressed.
16:18:25 <julierawe> Lisa What APA asks for is something very concrete, such as I would like to change this definition in this way, and explain why.
16:18:44 <julierawe> Lisa If there is a user need that has not been addressed, we can raise that.
16:20:27 <julierawe> Lisa added a "Missing" section to Eric's tab
16:22:33 <Eric_hind> Reduced distractions only in https://w3c.github.io/wcag3/guidelines/#supported-decision-making-review
16:33:31 <julierawe> q+
16:33:45 <Lisa> ack next
16:34:04 <julierawe> The queue isn't working, by the way.
16:34:04 <Eric_hind> scribe+ Eric_hind
16:35:20 <Eric_hind> Lisa: Perception and Processing would be relevent - speed, pausing and controlling speed.
16:35:46 <Lisa> Q?
16:36:10 <Eric_hind> Lisa: How do we then draft this?  Julierawe mentioned that we need to strongly differentiate little issue, major concerns
16:37:22 <Eric_hind> Lisa: Issue templates - either per Eric's issue generation or via Template for issues in github.
16:38:08 <Eric_hind> Lisa: Next, work on issues, margin comments.
16:41:10 <Eric_hind> Eric_hind: may be a few minutes late to the rejoining of the meeting
16:42:11 <Jennifer> q+ Is the plan now to finish reviewing error handling by next week instead of March 19th? I had signed up to review error handling as well so wanted to confirm deadlines based on the comments made right before the break.
16:55:08 <Lisa> reviced templayte
16:55:09 <Lisa> Issue short name:  (Try and make this unique and descriptive.)  Cognitive Accessibility for -----
16:55:09 <Lisa> Issue 1: →
16:55:09 <Lisa>  NOTE:
16:55:09 <Lisa> Issue Description:
16:55:10 <Lisa> User Story:
16:55:10 <Lisa> About the user:
16:55:10 <Lisa> Acceptance Criteria:
16:55:11 <Lisa> 1
16:55:11 <Lisa> See also  (include research)
16:59:37 <Eric_hind> Lisa: Not every issue will have a user story.
17:00:34 <Jennifer> q+
17:01:19 <jamesn> jamesn has joined #COGA
17:02:28 <Eric_hind> julierawe: We will use the term Recommendations rather than Acceptance Criteria
17:03:29 <Eric_hind> julierawe: We can add better heading structure to help search as well
17:12:37 <Eric_hind> Jennifer: Suggest change of section header to Why the user finds this inaccessible.  julierawae suggests updating User Need to User Need Missing or Not Adequately Addressed
17:13:35 <Eric_hind> Lisa: Suggests an issue flow of "User need missing or not adequately addressed, then followed by More Details.  julierawe agrees for now and we may fill this out or change in the future.
17:16:16 <Eric_hind> julierawe: Ideally we will use the Issue Short Name as the github issue title and the rest of the text will be the issue content
17:17:51 <Eric_hind> julierawe: a note section would be useful to account for our thoughts on where things could/should be
17:21:14 <Eric_hind> julierawe: Recommends always including links where they exist - specific anchors/relevent sections
17:22:14 <Eric_hind> julierawe: Review of issues to make them follow the template
17:26:46 <julierawe> rrsagent, make minutes
17:26:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/03/05-coga-minutes.html julierawe
17:33:21 <jcraig> jcraig has joined #coga