12:59:50 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coga
12:59:54 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/16-coga-irc
12:59:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
12:59:55 <Zakim> Meeting: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
13:00:01 <julierawe> Meeting: COGA review of WCAG 3
13:00:08 <julierawe> date: 16 apr 2026
13:00:09 <Lisa> Lisa has joined #coga
13:00:14 <julierawe> agenda?
13:00:20 <julierawe> zakim, clear agenda
13:00:20 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:00:33 <Lisa3> Lisa3 has joined #coga
13:01:25 <julierawe> present+
13:02:14 <julierawe> agenda+ Scheduling update
13:02:35 <julierawe> agenda+ Review of general issues
13:02:47 <julierawe> zakim, next item
13:02:47 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Scheduling update -- taken up [from julierawe]
13:03:08 <julierawe> chair: lisa
13:03:15 <julierawe> Lisa: We'll do general issues today
13:03:30 <julierawe> Lisa: We'll do Interactive Components on April 23.
13:03:51 <julierawe> julierawe John and I will be ready to send the pre-read for Interactive Components by tomorrow or by Monday at the latest.
13:04:04 <julierawe> Lisa: On April 30, we'll discuss Text and Wording.
13:04:13 <julierawe> present+ LenB
13:04:21 <julierawe> LenB: We'll send our pre-read on April 23.
13:04:53 <julierawe> It takes at least 3 weeks to do an initial review. Maybe we should try to recruit more people to do this work.
13:05:09 <julierawe> LenB: It's worth a try to recruit more people.
13:05:39 <julierawe> Lisa: I don't think it's realistic for someone to have less than 2 weeks.
13:05:59 <julierawe> Lisa: I could put off finishing error handling and start reviewing a new section.
13:06:08 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA
13:06:22 <julierawe> Lisa: That would still give me only two weeks to review Process and Task Completion.
13:06:43 <julierawe> Lisa: If Jan and Len were each taking one separately, that would be two separate sections.
13:06:57 <julierawe> Lisa: We could ask Jennifer to review a section on her own.
13:07:23 <julierawe> Action item: Julie to ask Jennifer to review a section.
13:07:47 <julierawe> Lisa: Is it significantly easier for you to work with Jan?
13:08:45 <julierawe> LenB: I think it's significantly easier and better to have a thought partner.
13:09:12 <julierawe> Action item: Julie to ask Eric if he's ready to take on a new section.
13:10:27 <julierawe> Lisa: If we do ask people to do another section, we need to be kind in the scheduling, such as giving a full month to review.
13:10:27 <kirkwood> present+
13:11:19 <julierawe> Lisa: I'm not promising on when to do Process and Task Completion because we haven't finished doing Error Handling.
13:11:40 <julierawe> Lisa: John, you're going to partner with me on Process and Task Completion. I can do a first run-through and share it with you.
13:11:45 <julierawe> zakim, next item
13:11:45 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Review of general issues -- taken up [from julierawe]
13:12:04 <julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.xhbqn69zszr5
13:12:27 <julierawe> 1st general issue: What are some things core and some things supplemental? Is it equitable?
13:12:54 <julierawe> Link to 1st issue: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.xhbqn69zszr5#heading=h.893gyvzag5qf
13:14:01 <julierawe> Lisa: 1st bullet in definition of core requirment is about assistant technology, such as screen readers.
13:15:01 <julierawe> Lisa is going through each of the bullets in the definition.
13:15:10 <julierawe> Lisa: Very little here has to do with COGA.
13:16:26 <julierawe> julierawe flagged that the fourth bullet about "necessary support" is vaguely worded but in a way that could be helpful to COGA.
13:17:28 <julierawe> Lisa: It could be interpreted that way. Something like "findability," that design is clear--is that a necessary support? Or is that good design? It's not clear that any of our stuff is here.
13:18:11 <julierawe> Lisa: The definition of supplemental requirement notes that some things don't apply all in all situtations or that are difficult to implement.
13:18:32 <julierawe> Lisa: I don't think we should use wiggle room. It would make it possible for them to downgrade to supplemental at the last minute.
13:18:44 <julierawe> Lisa: I don't want us to lose the vote. It's not what we should want.
13:19:16 <julierawe> Lisa: My proposal is that core requirements should be "items that are essential to the user."
13:19:35 <julierawe> Lisa: "Essential to the user" means they can't independently use the content without this requirement.
13:19:47 <julierawe> Lisa: It's good that we're clarifying what is meant by "essential to the user."
13:28:07 <julierawe> Lisa added more paragraphs to the draft issue.
14:04:36 <Lisa3> do we agee to send this to the coga list and if there are no substantive disagreement or objections, to send it to AG?
14:04:38 <Lisa3> +1
14:04:40 <julierawe> +1
14:04:48 <kirkwood> +1
14:05:48 <Lisa3> Len is also happy
14:06:26 <LenB> LenB has joined #coga
14:06:50 <julierawe> Lisa moved on to general issue #2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.xhbqn69zszr5#heading=h.97qbn8g09194
14:07:02 <julierawe> Issue #2: Why aren't assertions at the core level?
14:07:20 <julierawe> Lisa: Assertions seem the least important, like AAA.
14:07:31 <julierawe> Lisa: I think the term "assertion" makes it look less important.
14:13:02 <LenB> present+
14:18:37 <LenB> how does this issue help us with assertions that include core AND supplemental requirements?
14:21:12 <LenB> reco - make two different assertions to address provision type
14:25:35 <Lisa3> do we agee to send g2 to the coga list and if there are no substantive disagreement or objections, to send it to AG?
14:25:38 <Lisa3> +1
14:25:41 <kirkwood> +1
14:25:49 <julierawe> +1
14:26:05 <Lisa3> Len also agrees
14:26:36 <julierawe> Taking a 5 minute break, back at 10:31
14:33:56 <julierawe> Lisa is moving on to the 3rd general issue about how assertions are written: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.xhbqn69zszr5#heading=h.luspgrq7hf
14:47:44 <Lisa3> do we agee to send g3 to the coga list and if there are no substantive disagreement or objections, to send it to AG?
14:48:10 <Lisa3> +1
14:48:10 <kirkwood> +
14:48:14 <kirkwood> +1
14:48:22 <julierawe> +1
14:48:43 <LenB> LenB has joined #coga
14:48:45 <LenB> +1
14:55:56 <julierawe> LenB: When we do the pre-reads, should we send draft github issues as part of the pre-read?
14:56:03 <julierawe> julierawe: Yes
14:56:31 <julierawe> LenB: What do we do if we're reviewing a provision and we don't have research that supports the user need?
15:03:40 <Jennifer> Jennifer has joined #coga
15:03:44 <Jennifer> present+
15:04:14 <julierawe> LenB: Text style readable is an example. There are not COGA user needs about font face, character spacing, etc.
15:05:31 <julierawe> LenB: I don't see any COGA research on user needs about font face, etc.
15:07:18 <julierawe> present+ tburtin
15:09:23 <julierawe> LenB: We will mark it as a gap in user-needs research.
15:10:40 <julierawe> LenB: Jan and I want to raise with the task force how to address this gap in COGA research.
15:12:18 <julierawe> julierawe: Include the problem in the pre-read so people can think about it about beforehand.
15:12:57 <tiffanyburtin> tiffanyburtin has joined #coga
15:13:08 <tiffanyburtin> present+
15:13:48 <julierawe> Link to scheduling tab, which has many unclaimed sections: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.uggxirp4slpc#heading=h.xvuinihmbhgv
15:13:49 <LenB> LenB has joined #coga
15:14:14 <LenB> been kicked out of IRC a couple of times today - not a good scribe candidate today.
15:16:07 <julierawe> Jennifer volunteered to review Help and Feedback
15:16:56 <julierawe> Lisa3 asked to aim for discussing on May 14, so would need to send the pre-read by May 11.
15:17:27 <julierawe> Jennifer: I will aim for May 14 but may need more time.
15:17:43 <julierawe> agenda?
15:17:53 <julierawe> zakim, next item
15:17:53 <Zakim> I do not see any more non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, julierawe
15:18:05 <julierawe> We already discussed general issues—sorry I didn't do zakim correctly.
15:18:51 <julierawe> Action item: Julie and Lisa to discuss at Monday's task force if more people can volunteer.
15:18:52 <julierawe> agenda+ Voting on updated issues for Animation and Movement section
15:20:44 <julierawe> julierawe: Is the current voting system usable? Do people know where to vote?
15:21:31 <julierawe> Lisa3: I don't like spreadsheets. I prefer to look at the draft github issues in the google doc.
15:21:42 <julierawe> julierawe: Maybe people should vote right in the google doc?
15:23:32 <julierawe> Lisa3 added voting table to the general issues tab.
15:23:52 <julierawe> Group agreed this seems like a simpler system.
15:26:12 <julierawe> julierawe: What is my comment makes the draft not work for other people?
15:27:25 <julierawe> julierawe: I'm not going to +1 a draft issue that I don't understand.
15:27:47 <julierawe> Lisa3: Some people might put in a 0 if they don't understand but don't want to stop people from going ahead.
15:28:21 <julierawe> Lisa3: If a lot of people put in 0 saying they don't understand, then we may need to discuss it again.
15:30:07 <julierawe> Lisa3: If you use tracked changes, then I am no longer sure what I am voting on.
15:30:41 <julierawe> Lisa3: What happens to my vote if you put in track changes?
15:38:53 <Jennifer> q+
15:41:05 <Lisa3> ack next
15:41:14 <julierawe> Jennifer Should we vote now?
15:41:33 <julierawe> The group is going through Eric's updated draft issues.
15:41:46 <julierawe> Jennifer: Are we suggesting that trigger warnings should be removeable?
15:42:02 <julierawe> Lisa3: The proposal is that settings should give more control to users about trigger warnings.
15:42:25 <julierawe> Lisa3: It also could allow time of day, I want to allow trigger warnings between 8pm and 9pm
15:42:55 <julierawe> Lisa3: I can control when I get trigger warnings, like choosing to get them when I am after home, winding down after work,
15:43:08 <julierawe> kirkwood: Maybe we should be clearer that our goal is to support personalization.
15:45:37 <julierawe> This is a separate issue about trigger warnings that is lower down in the tab: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.7btf7qjplo1i#heading=h.too1w7fcqw58
15:47:06 <julierawe> Lisa3: If changes need to be made, we need to discuss as a group and get to consensus.
15:48:47 <julierawe> Lisa3: Here's a different approach we could try: People could put in their comments, Eric can incorporate, then he resubmits.
15:49:23 <julierawe> Lisa3: If you update the draft, then you have a new version that no one has voted on it.
15:52:40 <julierawe> Lisa3: For Eric's issues, everyone needs to put in their comments. Then Eric can try to resolve. If he's comfortable, then he'll send to the group for another vote and flag the group on which changes have been made.
15:54:44 <julierawe> julierawe: Do we need to align on the Thursday calls before we ask the task force to vote, like we did today with the general issues tab?
15:55:49 <julierawe> kirkwood: I agree with Julie
15:57:20 <julierawe> Lisa3: I've been asked to write a new issue for Error Handling. So probably if I send it to the list, you're not going to be happy.
15:57:46 <julierawe> Lisa3: Maybe I should schedule more time for it in the Thursday calls.
15:58:06 <julierawe> kirkwood: Is there a way we can time-bound the commenting in the google docs?
15:59:20 <julierawe> julierawe: Asynchrous comments are really important. We need synchronous time to align.
15:59:50 <julierawe> Lisa3: I think it's good Julie read my drafts ahead of time and put in comments so we could focus our discussion today.
16:00:02 <julierawe> Lisa3: I think we need to schedule another discussion of Eric's drafts.
16:01:37 <julierawe> Action item: Schedule a discussion of the updated Animation issues.
16:01:52 <julierawe> rrsagent, make minutes
16:01:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/16-coga-minutes.html julierawe
17:07:57 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA
18:27:12 <kirkwood> kirkwood has joined #COGA