– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<julierawe> Link to scheduling tab for COGA review of WCAG 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jLkvaCNxpk1xJ-yuyTWciizRe3GkGWPc-3yu6ZJLIqg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.uggxirp4slpc

<julierawe> Link to April summary of COGA community group feedback:https://docs.google.com/document/d/19iZvagIvmVzmQfL4RZz1XTDLP1QXud8oVR8K4eSY9D8/edit?tab=t.5bog5qwsh0q2

<julierawe> Link to Core structural pivot: Core Structural Pivot: Functional Needs vs. Demographics

<julierawe> Link to Core structural pivot: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19iZvagIvmVzmQfL4RZz1XTDLP1QXud8oVR8K4eSY9D8/edit?tab=t.5bog5qwsh0q2#heading=h.u05263iw5a5s

<julierawe> Link to introduction of the COGA research modules: https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-research-modules/#introduction

Scribe needed

Update on COGA review of WCAG 3

<julierawe> We'd love to have more people join us in the Thursday meetings and/or asynchronously.

<julierawe> Reviews of 6 of the 12 sections are under way. We need people to sign up to review additional sections.

<julierawe> We're getting ready to have the task force vote on several GitHub issues that our Thursday group has aligned on.

Julie: WCAG 3 review - of the 6 sections that are underway, we are working to get those out to the larger task force. The next one we are sending is animations. We are about to send 9 GitHub issues out to the group to vote on. Those will go out this week.

<kirkwood> present

Julie: We are also about to send out GitHub issues on Error Handling. There are other sections where we are about at a half-way point. John K and I have been working on Interactive Components. The same is true for Help and Feedback and Text and Wording. Julie will attend the global-inclusion meeting this week to think about how to incorporate

international feedback into other feedback.

Julie: This Thursday, Julie and Len are not able to be at the Thursday meeting. Because of that, we may use that time asynchronously to vote on other issues or sections. I will send out an email after huddling with Lisa.

Tiffany: Len and I have plans to work together to help Tiffany provide support asynchronously.

Julie: It takes a little bit of effort to get oriented to the feedback process. While looking at sections, you might realize that something is missing, but it could be in other sections, so you have to learn to search all of the sections before submitting a GitHub issue. Sometimes things are grouped intuitively, but other times things might be

where you would not necessarily expect them to be.

Rachael: Are you noting when you are looking for something and don't find it where you expect it to be?

Julie: I have a deck that I put together that flags some things.

<julierawe> Overview deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XtRTBHt4YGkwpjVFMinyIPsefjGzXLn2WXC-rYss-qg/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p

Julie: The key thing from the table of content is how WCAG 3 is organized. It shows what the 12 sections are and then an overview of the sections is provided. In the section introduction, there is a list of related provisions that live elsewhere in WCAG 3.

Julie: For example, white space is in the layout section and not in the text and wording section.

Julie: John K and Julie will finish interactive components on June 25th. Text and wording's second discussion needs to be scheduled.

Quorum for July 6th COGA meeting?

Julie: Consistency across view only has 3 provisions, so that might be a good one for a new person to start with.

<Jennie> -1 for July 6

Julie: Looking forward to July 4th week. We have a meeting on July 6th - will you be available to meet on July 6ht?

<Rachael> I am out

Jan: I will be at the NFB convention.

<kirkwood> unlikely

Feedback from the COGA Community Group on COGA documents

Julie: Feedback that we have gotten from the COGA Community Group that Rain lead and now Kiki is leading. We asked them to look at the COGA research modules that were recently published and they gave some interesting feedback.

<julierawe> Link to COGA community group feedback: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XtRTBHt4YGkwpjVFMinyIPsefjGzXLn2WXC-rYss-qg/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p

<julierawe> Wrong link! Here's the right link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19iZvagIvmVzmQfL4RZz1XTDLP1QXud8oVR8K4eSY9D8/edit?tab=t.5bog5qwsh0q2#heading=h.gnq63e513lzp

Julie: Research Modules Feedback - In the Summary tab, you will find the feedback from the COGA Community Group. This is helpful for all COGA publications.

<julierawe> https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-research-modules/#introduction

Julie: There are 3 issues that could apply to all COGA Documents. The first one is Core Structural Pivot - the community group noted that we start about different types of disabilities - we list several nouns and then we get into a paragraph with examples of disabilities. We set this up this way because we thought people might be searching for

specific types of disabilities. In section 1.2, we go deeper into the need for cognitive accessibility support. We start getting into functional needs. The Community Group felt like we got this backward. They felt that more emphasis should be on functional needs and less on demographic groups (e.g. older adults) and more into functional needs (e.g.

memory issues).

Julie: By focusing on functional needs, you can better address overlap between different groups with the same functional needs.

Julie: Their proposal is that we swap functional needs with types of disabilities.

John K: I agree with that - I think we should be up front about functional needs. I think it's easier to access for people who want to design. The framing isn't quite right and needs some work to better define what disabilities are.

Jan: CORRECTION - the community group wants to swap the order. So we would address functional needs first and then address the different types of disabilities.

<Rachael> https://accessiblecommunity.github.io/useable/

Rachael: It's hard to have a standardized list, but I don't think the W3C has one. The list provided in the previous link provides functional needs related to different types of disabilities. It might be something that would be helpful.

Julie: Does it help to have mention of a specific type of disability? Should we link out to something instead?

<Rachael> +1 to may include

John K: I think a list is a little bit dangerous - having neurodivergence on the list can be problematic. I think the list should be something that is not prescriptive ... something like, "may include ....."

Julie: The proposal would be that we start with functional needs. We do that already, but it would just highlight them more toward the top.

Julie: We are not using the phrase, "Functional Needs" to call them out. We could frame it better.

Julie: The COGA Community Group talks about demographics and they call out older adults. The Community Group is noting that we have too much of an emphasis on older people.

<Rachael> Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting providing a central list. I was suggesting using someone's centralized list (doesn't have to be that one) to standardize the needs listed across documents. I agree with John's point of including, but not limited to.

Jan: The global-inclusion group has pointed out the overemphasis on older adults as well.

<Jennie> mic stuck

<Jennie> trying

<Jennie> Will type

<Jennie> Found it!

<kirkwood> good point about not in disablity about aging

Jennie: Regarding the issue of aging being written out specifically. Lisa has strong feelings about this, but in the past, we have discussed that some people who are aging may not identify as a person with a disability, so mentioning them was a way to bring awareness of the issues related to this group. That was the spirit for why it was included.

John K: The aging community does not sit within disability law and disability protection, so that might be why it's being called out.

Julie: someone has pointed out that we may add a few too many examples of age-related impairments so the balance felt off. We want to find a way that we are surfacing issues without over indexing or leaving out other groups.

Julie: COGA Community Group - content and the framing. We are missing sourcing (e.g. in the research modules, it started off with "introduction" where it says, "Source to be added" - the community group said that the draft should not be published without the source.

Julie: The COGA Community Group made a comment about age and cognition. They provided sources for COGA to consider adding to the research modules.

Julie: The COGA Community Group mentioned poverty and cognitive load. Poverty can have a constant mental tax - the constant stress that can impact cognitive function. Has COGA talked about this in the past?

John K: It's been discussed related to the availability of access to technology. For example, libraries have older technology with lower bandwidth and all of that may impact equity and access to resources.

Julie: I thought we had mentioned chronic stress. As we go through functional needs, maybe there is a way to mention chronic stress and mention poverty under that context.

Jennie: To build on what John was saying, there were conversations about computer literacy and the awareness of the social network systems that are available to them. People may not know what resources are available to them. The other issue is access to broadband. It's not necessarily one thing. Acquiring disabilities later in life, combined with

other socioeconomic issues can move you away from finding resources.

<Jan> +1 to Jennie's comments

Tiffany: "socioeconomic status" would be a preferable term to "poverty" - poverty implies a certain thing, but you can be a working person who has a lot of bills related to medical issues or other things that limit their access to funds.

Julie: The COGA Community calls out the term, "neuroethics" (e.g. slot machine mechanics, endless scrolls) - we don't necessarily use this term. We use other terms (predatory, deceptive practices, etc.). COGA should probably look into this kind of terminology. Has anyone else come across the term "neuroethics"?

Julie: There's a balance for us to find the terms that are common and current.

Jan: we need to consider translation in the terms we use.

John K: We definitely need to mention predatory behavior - this is especially true for the aging community.

Julie: I think we all feel like it's a good idea to have functional needs be our starting point and our main emphasis. Is that a fair summary?

<Jan> +1

<julierawe> Kirkwood says +1

rrsagent generate minutes