Meeting minutes
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> close item 2
<Lisa> next item
TPAC aschedule has been posted here https://
Rachael- session breakouts can be sent up to October 8.
Rachael we are doing WCAG 3 on Monday and Tuesday of TPAC - if we can get COGA TF representation on the calls that would help very helpful .
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: Tomorrow's research call will focus on our process. We've updated it with AI and we've gotten out of sync a bit. If we have time we'll get to issues.
… I can't make Thursday's COGA call and Lisa won't be there either. We may need to cancel.
… I'll send email to see if we can get a reasonably sized group and then we'll plan from there. Holidays usually disrupt August. September will be better.
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: We published first working draft of our research modules at the beginning of the year. These are for researchers and other W3C groups. These are not guidance-focused documents. These are background info on a topic.
… We shared them with the COGA Community Group and received feedback.
… Some of their feedback will affect all of our papers going forward. We want to sync our terms between the groups and to refine our terms where we need to.
<Lisa> feedback from the comunity at https://
Lisa: we had previously decided to use the phrase "people with disabilities that may require cognitive accessibility supports" in addition to bullet list of disabilities as tools for reference and context. However, the COGA CG didn't like this approach.
… They preferred a functional list and not a 'conditions' list.
<Lisa> for discusion see https://
<Lisa> Disabilities that may require cognitive accessibility support include:
<Lisa> cognitive, developmental, intellectual, learning, and specific learning disabilities,
<Lisa> language and communication disorders,
<Lisa> neurodivergence,
<Lisa> traumatic brain injury,
<Lisa> age-related cognitive decline,
<Lisa> mental health disabilities, and
<Lisa> temporary impairments that affect cognitive function, such as anxiety, illness, effects of medication, treatments such as chemotherapy, and others.
<Lisa> Examples of specific disabilities include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia and dyscalculia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Down syndrome, aphasia, and others.
Lisa reviewed the aims section of the document (linked previously)
Lisa: COGA CG wanted to make sure we also focused younger people (and not be so older people focused), a bigger focus on functional needs and not 'conditions', to see more social disability in the paper.
… my proposal is that we replace the introduction text with some new text you can see here: https://
… much of this was taken from our glossary.
… tried to merge some of the functional needs into our definitions.
Lisa: could this be a replacement for waht we've done in the past?
LenB: I think this could start the bridging our work with COGA CG's work. We can't just replace our intro (see Aims in this same doc).
kirkwood: I see gaps in direction I am not fully grasping - but it seems to be generally correct,
Lisa: Next steps I'm proposing is to send the wording to our list and to the community group. But is it ready for the CG, yet or do we need to work it a but more?
charli: I think it could use some more work before it is shared with CG. I think we can make it more clear. It feels stirred together - but I think we can work on showing better connections between all the words.
@kirkwood: I agree with that.
Lisa: the 3 bullets describe how we've historically thought about functional needs. The following paragraphs were written to help people see themselves in the list (by listing conditions like age, ADHD, etc - phrases they could relate to). The cognitive community might find themselves describing functional needs in the social model where others
will approach this from a condition mindset.
… I've tried to add their feedback into this proposal while preserving our Aims.
charli: I don't think it's overwhelming I think it could be more clear to help people who do not have the depth and knowledge.
Lisa: I'll bold some phrases to help show where things are (functional and disabilities)
charli: do we address 'visual processing' in our list?
@kirkwood and Lisa: we should - and we've said 'visual thinking'.
We wordsmithed it some since 'visual thinking' and 'visual processing' are different.
charli: we might want to add 'auditory processing' to the 3 bullet.
It was agreed and added.
charli: the word reduced in the last bullet doesn't now. Things aren't really 'reduced' when processing doesn't work 'right'.
<Lisa> https://
Lisa: let's come back to that. We should give it the right space for us to think about. Please add comments to the document.
<Lisa> next item
<Lisa> next item
<kirkwood> clinincai term “disorder” lsa visual processing “disorder”
<Lisa> next item
Lisa: our Research group has identified issue paper gap between WCAG 3 and our research module list (like typeface selections). We'd like to hear about these gaps so that we can discuss which modules we should focus on.
… another one is user testing and how we'd recommend approaching them.
charli: Something I've been asked is 'which fonts are accessible?' There's been a ton of research on legibility but I can't point to anything 'official'.
kirkwood: yeah - there's nothing official with recommendations.
charli: my son has different 'best fonts' based on his platform (ex: paper, digital).
Action Items
Rachael: Forward the call for TPAC breakout proposals to the COGA list.
Lisa: Send an email regarding the status of the Thursday WCAG guidance call.
All: Review the proposed introduction text for research modules and provide feedback on clarity in the IRC/document link.
All: Identify additional research gaps (like the typeface issue) that need to be addressed for WCAG 3.
Lisa: Add TPAC breakout session proposals to next week's agenda.