– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<Lisa> take up item 7

<julierawe> scribe?

<julierawe> I cannot attend on Memorial Day

Lisa: Memorial Day holiday - no meeting. We will send out a meeting cancellation

<Lisa> next item

<Lisa> close item 1

<Lisa> next item

<julierawe> The calls last week were the AG conformance calls on May 11 and May 12

Rachael: Conformance subgroup meeting recently, focus on proposals over two day. We will add usability testing as a procedure for end user validation (WCAG 3). Another new idea is small teams of 3-4 people will review scoring, levels and bring them back to the main group - less conceptual. E.g. Multiple levels will try to assign provisions to

levels.

Rachael: That is the next step for the coming weeks.

Rachael: Clarification, scoring levels is a graduated kind of success or meeting a requirement.

Rachael: We are looking for volunteers over the coming weeks - this will be an intense request, please be available for the required period.

julierawe: How do we get people involed. Rachael mentioned emails went out - write to the chairs as a whole to get placed if interested.

<Rachael> group-ag-chairs@w3.org

Lisa: If not sure, just write to Rachael, Julie, Lisa.

julierawe: Clarity that this is not a full subcommittee - Rachael mentions spike just means short exploratory

<Lisa> next item

ACTION: item: julierawe to email the COGA task force about how to get involved in these short-term conformance exploratory work, also known as "spike"

Lisa cannot make this Thursday - may be able make it for a bit.

Lisa: Help and Feedback pre-read has been emailed out - please do make comments if you can't make the meeting.

<Lisa> draft github issues on support are at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?tab=t.uubdkgkddw8k

julierawe prefers next Thursday to focus on Jennifer work when Jennifer is available

Jennifer: Mentions that Help is just available, maybe not so easy to find and use - which is a concern from COGA perspective.

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#objective-7-provide-help-and-support

<Lisa> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#objective-7-provide-help-and-support-0

Lisa notes that Making Content Usable has a section related to patterns that can be adapted - they were written to facilitate WCAG 2.1 application.

Lisa also notes the links provided in IRC might be applicable to help comprehension, feedback, etc.

<Lisa> next item

Lisa: Research call proposed to be focused on issues that have been brought up from each issue paper. When time permits, we would work on research top ups - additional research since the point of the original research.

<Lisa> next item

LenB: Would be helpful to schedule individuals during longer calls - so individuals can make particular timeframes that suit them.

<Lisa> next item

<Lisa> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d2Hpn3iXgI8v_bDzmH4yoICQy9e2OtOtucxcb6CKbbU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.m9qjkzt2aaut -- taken up [from Lisa]

Lisa: From our extensive plan on next version of Making Content Usable - we have delayed to do the WCAG 3 review (we have another 2 months of WCAG 3 review). We can plan forward for Making Content Usable v2 - we have new material that isn't been shown anywhere, yet.

Lisa: Should we change course on it? Lisa presented an Updated Plans for Making Content Useable v2 which includes Background, Current Proposal work, Strategy Moving Forward and New Plans.

Lisa: We have new template which involves a lot of rewriting - there are 38 templates needed and we have 2 done so far.

Lisa: The new version's UI/UX also requires some reprogramming of whatever we fit into the new templates.

Lisa: So we need to consider our forward strategy, mapping out the scope of updating and rewrite versus time required.

Lisa: We also need to consider the use of AI as an assist on fitting into the new templates - as content generation that would cut down the time required per pattern.

Lisa: Propose to experiement with various AIs to see if it can be helpful - Some AIs can look at Github which would help.

Lisa: Spending some effort now on AI to understand where our time and effort saving could be, would let us do a better estimate of completion.

Rachael: Propose keeping same structure and just incorporate new guideance. Ken is available to steward the migration towards a fully updated site.

Rachael: See Proposal 3 content

<Rachael> Proposal: Step 1: Update the Note keeping the same structure and focusing on the design guide Step 2: Ask Ken to use the current design work to create the web site Step 3: Build out the website content Step 4: Update the Note to better integrate with the website

Eric_Hind asks about W3C experiences with AI for these kinds of proposals

Lisa mentions that experiences have shown that expertise in the subject area makes a big difference in how useful AI is.

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to say I am not sure what W3c's stance on AI is at this time

<kirkwood> apologies could note link to google doc (again)?

<julierawe> kirkwood: We are looking at "Proposal 3" tab of this google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d2Hpn3iXgI8v_bDzmH4yoICQy9e2OtOtucxcb6CKbbU/edit?tab=t.i0ghxth87wlq#heading=h.13p9x5ftmhzs

Rachael notes that her proposal is around mostly updating content that we have updated first, then Ken create a new site in the new format/web site in parallel

<julierawe> kirkwood (I may have misunderstood your comment above--were you asking for the link we're currently discussing?)

Rachael clarifies that by doing this, we can get updated content out fast.

Rachael: so we stick with the format we have now, but update the content.

julierawe: Clarity, a note would make it clear that a new site is being developed with new format.

Rachael: At some point, the Note would point to the new version.

Lisa: We can consider all this to determine our next steps. First, we should go over original plan and scope out the time and effort so we have our base timeline.

julierawe: Jan might be a good invite on our options.