16:46:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #coga
16:46:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-coga-irc
16:47:40 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, what is this
16:47:40 <Zakim> I don't understand 'what is this', Lisa_Seeman
16:47:51 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, what meeting is this?
16:47:51 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Lisa_Seeman.
16:48:57 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, list conferences
16:48:57 <Zakim> I see SW_HCLS(BioRDF)11:00AM, DPUB_DPUBIG()11:00AM, AB_ABW3()10:00AM active
16:48:59 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are T&S_Team()12:00PM, WAI_CogTF()12:00PM, Team_JEFF()11:00AM, WAI_PFWG(ARIA)10:00AM
16:49:17 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, this is WAI_CogTF
16:49:17 <Zakim> Lisa_Seeman, I see WAI_CogTF()12:00PM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be WAI_CogTF".
16:49:34 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, this will be WAI_CogTF
16:49:34 <Zakim> ok, Lisa_Seeman; I see WAI_CogTF()12:00PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
16:50:58 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2014Feb/0017.html
16:52:06 <Liddy> Liddy has joined #coga
16:52:12 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda?
16:53:05 <Zakim> WAI_CogTF()12:00PM has now started
16:53:10 <Barry_Johnson> Barry_Johnson has joined #coga
16:53:12 <Zakim> +??P1
16:54:29 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, P1++ is me
16:54:29 <Zakim> sorry, Lisa_Seeman, I do not recognize a party named 'P1++'
16:54:54 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, ??P1 is me
16:54:54 <Zakim> +Lisa_Seeman; got it
16:55:31 <JohnRochford> JohnRochford has joined #coga
16:55:48 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+ Any new introductions or issues
16:56:05 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+ thanks from UAAG 2.0
16:56:20 <Zakim> +John_Rochford
16:56:54 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+ When to build in user group research
16:57:21 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+ Review of user goals
16:57:31 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+ Table of content for gap analysis
16:57:41 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+ Table of content for roadmap
16:58:05 <Lisa_Seeman> agenda+ Actions
16:59:21 <Zakim> +Kinshuk
16:59:49 <Zakim> + +1.502.802.aaaa
17:00:18 <richardschwerdtfeger> richardschwerdtfeger has joined #coga
17:00:38 <Zakim> +Barry_Johnson
17:01:35 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:01:38 <ddahl_> ddahl_ has joined #coga
17:02:15 <Zakim> +Debbie_Dahl
17:02:27 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim,  +[IPcaller] is Liddy
17:02:27 <Zakim> sorry, Lisa_Seeman, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
17:02:38 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim,  [IPcaller] is Liddy
17:02:38 <Zakim> +Liddy; got it
17:02:51 <Zakim> -Kinshuk
17:02:53 <Kinshuk> Kinshuk has joined #coga
17:03:17 <Zakim> +Michel_Fitos
17:03:22 <Michel> Michel has joined #coga
17:03:28 <Zakim> +Kinshuk
17:03:31 <Zakim> +Rich_Schwerdtfeger
17:04:37 <Zakim> -Kinshuk
17:04:48 <ddahl_> scribe:ddahl
17:05:34 <richardschwerdtfeger> RRSAgent, make log public
17:06:16 <ddahl_> lisa: is there anyone who hasn't been on the call before?
17:06:33 <ddahl_> barry: I've been on the call
17:06:58 <ddahl_> lisa: do you want to introduce yourself
17:07:04 <Zakim> +Neil_Milliken
17:07:24 <Lisa_Seeman> scribe: ddahl_
17:07:27 <ddahl_> barry: work for deque system, responsible for ?? at the US Department of Education
17:07:30 <MaryJo> MaryJo has joined #coga
17:07:38 <ddahl_> lisa: anyone else new?
17:07:42 <Zakim> +Mary_Jo_Mueller
17:08:18 <ddahl_> topic: agenda
17:08:42 <ddahl_> lisa: any new agenda topics?
17:09:10 <neilmilliken> neilmilliken has joined #coga
17:09:12 <Liddy> thank you - ok
17:09:34 <ddahl_> topic: thanks for UAAG 2.0 review
17:09:36 <Barry_Johnson> Sorry - Senior Accessibility COnsultant at Deque assigned as Lead 508 Tester at US Dept of Education
17:10:12 <ddahl_> lisa: if anyone wants to join UAAG call they're welcom, let me know and I'll introduce you
17:10:25 <ddahl_> topic: when to build in user group research?
17:11:09 <ddahl_> john: we should be involving our target populations and set up criteria for who we could be recruiting to help us
17:11:34 <ddahl_> ...should we include sensory or physical disabilities as well, do they need to have web experience?
17:12:11 <ddahl_> ...Neil and I have access to people, what do people think the criteria are that we should be recruiting.
17:12:25 <ddahl_> lisa: a difficult question
17:12:45 <ddahl_> ??: i was going to ask about new research vs. literature review
17:13:02 <ddahl_> ...there's probably a lot of earlier research
17:13:25 <ddahl_> ...how do we approach the body of existing research
17:14:02 <ddahl_> lisa: the gap analysis so far is mostly literature research, so when do we want to augment that with new user group research
17:14:26 <ddahl_> ...obviously we want to use as much earlier research as possible and not reinvent the wheel.
17:14:37 <ddahl_> ...but we can't only rely on that
17:14:41 <neilmilliken> Given the relative lack of literature on my topic (Dyscalculia) relating to the web contact with real live people is key
17:15:33 <ddahl_> lisa: we might be coming up with new techniques that need to be backed by research
17:16:18 <ddahl_> ...we're definitely going to need user group research, but do we also want redundancy, to retest important things that are already out three.
17:16:27 <ddahl_> s/three/there
17:16:41 <neilmilliken> I have contacts with UK and Denmark support groups
17:16:47 <JohnRochford> http://clearhelper.org/Resources/
17:16:57 <ddahl_> john: has been collecting a lot of resources, would be happy to share
17:17:08 <ddahl_> lisa: please put it on the wiki
17:17:23 <ddahl_> ??: can you tell us more about this research?
17:17:48 <ddahl_> john: dates include about 1999-2010
17:18:00 <ddahl_> ...have published a lot of this
17:18:20 <ddahl_> lisa: there's going to be a lot of related research that isn't about web accessibility.
17:18:56 <ddahl_> ??: a lot of information I have is about seniors and their use of the web, that would be a good place to start
17:19:11 <ddahl_> john: also included research that involves seniors as well
17:20:04 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
17:20:08 <ddahl_> john: also did some research trying to find a common definition of cognitive accessibility, will share that shortly
17:20:15 <JohnRochford> http://clearhelper.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/definitions-of-cognitive-disability/
17:20:16 <Lisa_Seeman> q?
17:21:04 <Ryladog> Ryladog has joined #coga
17:21:08 <ddahl_> lisa: to summarize -- we want to back up what we're doing, we want to include relevant literature but that's not extensive enough, so we'll be doing user group research
17:21:36 <ddahl_> ....we don't have to worry about excluding techniques because they're few and far between
17:21:39 <neilmilliken> agree
17:21:50 <ddahl_> ...let's go back to criteria for building user groups
17:21:50 <Barry_Johnson> Agree
17:21:55 <richardschwerdtfeger> Agree
17:22:26 <ddahl_> lisa: we want to make things achievable, and we want to add people who haven't been online yet
17:22:48 <ddahl_> ...one criterion should be some level of exposure to the internet, say for a year or so.
17:23:17 <ddahl_> john: that's what I was thinking as well, we should have a criterion for experience on the internet for a defined period
17:23:29 <ddahl_> (no disagreement)
17:24:28 <ddahl_> katie: basically, by default, as we move along the web is going to be everywhere, we don't want to go back in the past, but cover the present and the future
17:24:40 <neilmilliken> q+
17:25:06 <ddahl_> lisa: we should also say what kind of interaction -- looking at news, interacting with an application
17:25:47 <ddahl_> ...we may need to consider what kind of exposure they have -- tablets, news feed, going to website
17:26:33 <ddahl_> ...we're more interested in accessing a site than generally accessing the web
17:27:02 <ddahl_> john: do we want to exclude people who also have sensory or physical disabiliites?
17:27:09 <Ryladog> q+
17:27:19 <ddahl_> s/disabiliites/disabilities
17:27:42 <ddahl_> rich: is there something that's not covered in current WCAG guidelines for those users
17:27:52 <ddahl_> s/users/users?
17:28:37 <ddahl_> john: It seems that it would be simpler to exclude people with sensory or physical disabilities
17:28:48 <neilmilliken> they should not be excluded
17:29:01 <neilmilliken> we need to address the totality of the spectrum
17:29:23 <ddahl_> some people with cognitive disabilities often have related physical disabilities, for example people with aphasia often have hemiplegia
17:29:25 <neilmilliken> and we need to understand the effects of comorbidity
17:30:26 <Zakim> -Lisa_Seeman
17:30:28 <ddahl_> katie: what we want to talk about cognitive issues, we shouldn't talk about excluding people with other issues
17:30:45 <ddahl_> john: I think we're saying the same thing
17:31:04 <Barry_Johnson> Yes Neil, comorbidity can be important
17:31:05 <Zakim> +??P1
17:32:18 <ddahl_> lisa: the argument against comorbidity is the complexity that's being added by a screen reader, where the assistive technology plus the cognitive disability is compounding the issue
17:33:12 <ddahl_> ...if our user groups have a combination of disabilities it might be hard to decide what techniques are working
17:33:14 <neilmilliken> I understand the argument that Lisa is making - and agree that the primary focus should not necessarily be on this subset of users
17:33:31 <ddahl_> ...we could treat pople with compound disabilities as separate user groups
17:34:07 <Lisa_Seeman> q?
17:34:40 <ddahl_> ??: what about an autistic user that uses a screen reader?
17:35:26 <ddahl_> lisa: my proposal was that we could have one group with autism, and another group that has autism along with someone else. that will be a smaller group
17:36:31 <ddahl_> neil: let's achieve the achievable first. let's look at the distinct ones and get the material collected. comorbidity is important
17:36:58 <ddahl_> ...some of our techniques may actually run counter to some of the stuff that we've done before.
17:37:31 <ddahl_> ...we're working in a world where there are lots of different needs, but we need to concentrate on the distinct areas of cognitive disabilities first
17:37:38 <ddahl_> lisa: is that part of phase 2?
17:37:45 <Ryladog> q+
17:37:58 <ddahl_> neil: yes
17:38:08 <Lisa_Seeman> ack neilmilliken
17:38:26 <ddahl_> katie: that's what I was going to say
17:38:46 <ddahl_> ...we don't want that in a 1.0 WD but we could say that's something we'll do late
17:38:51 <ddahl_> s/late/later
17:39:57 <ddahl_> lisa: with aging, people will have low vision or minor motor problems, but we're interested in people who need additional assistance
17:40:27 <ddahl_> john: should not exclude people who are using assistive technology because of their cognitive disability
17:40:55 <neilmilliken> i am dyslexic and use AT and  use text to speech feedback but it's not a screenreader like JAWS
17:41:13 <ddahl_> ...we might exclude them because they're blind, but not because of a cognitive disability
17:41:24 <neilmilliken> AT is definitely part of the equation
17:41:42 <Ryladog> My suggestion is to identify in the beginning drafts that we will address comorbidity in a later phase but recommend in the meantime that people use current COGNITIVE techniques with the relevant WCAG 2 techniques
17:42:00 <Ryladog> to achieve a solution
17:42:07 <ddahl_> lisa: are we confortable that addressing people with a severe physical disability at a later phase
17:42:10 <Ryladog> 1+
17:42:20 <ddahl_> (no disagreement)
17:42:24 <richardschwerdtfeger> +1
17:42:25 <neilmilliken> no disagreement
17:43:15 <ddahl_> john: in order to recruit people we should have an idea about what we want them to do, so that we can recruit people well.
17:43:34 <neilmilliken> got to run
17:43:44 <ddahl_> ...both in terms of the effort involved and what we're trying to achieve
17:43:47 <Zakim> -Neil_Milliken
17:44:16 <ddahl_> lisa: what kinds of usability tests will we do?
17:45:42 <ddahl_> debbie: what kind of testing would we want to do? would it be a formal experiment or more like a focus group?
17:46:18 <ddahl_> john: could we even recruit developers and ask them to build things that people could try?
17:46:46 <ddahl_> lisa: I think that's essential
17:46:51 <ddahl_> topic: goals
17:47:25 <ddahl_> lisa: setting goals will help with the answer to what we're doing
17:47:40 <Lisa_Seeman> Q?
17:48:39 <ddahl_> katie: later on some improved version of WCAG will be available
17:48:41 <Lisa_Seeman> ack k
17:48:47 <Lisa_Seeman> ack ry
17:49:17 <ddahl_> lisa: looking at goals will feed into defining what we'll be testing in user groups
17:49:47 <ddahl_> john: it's reasonable to wait until goals are defined until we start recruiting people
17:50:09 <ddahl_> topic: user goals
17:50:14 <Lisa_Seeman> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2014Feb/0004.html
17:51:48 <ddahl_> lisa: what are the specific activities that people will be doing?
17:52:30 <ddahl_> ...for example, with educational software, you want to make sure that person has learned something. I thought that was overreach for what we're doing.
17:54:03 <ddahl_> l: i wanted to make sure that we had a final defined end
17:54:51 <ddahl_> lisa: can someone summarize what Suzanne's saying?
17:55:57 <ddahl_> l: I would like to understand our goals, want to distinguish what the task is vs. how the user is accomplishing their task.
17:56:21 <ddahl_> ...for example, "fill out a web form" vs. "open a bank account"
17:56:55 <ddahl_> ...not sure that we con distinguish between communication and social media
17:57:00 <Lisa_Seeman> Q?
17:58:01 <ddahl_> lisa: communication might be a task, but social media might be a context
17:58:20 <ddahl_> ...being in a specific context might add something that we need to think about
17:59:26 <ddahl_> l: we should not limit context, for example, to something that implies a desktop context
18:00:20 <Zakim> -Rich_Schwerdtfeger
18:01:25 <ddahl_> l: user goals should be higher level, for example play a game. should start at the highest level, in case the context doesn't apply in five years
18:02:03 <ddahl_> ...for example, what if the way that opening a bank account switches to all voice in five years
18:02:15 <Barry_Johnson> The higher goal is filling out a form.
18:02:45 <Barry_Johnson> the detail is opening a bank account.
18:03:02 <ddahl_> lisa: we can revisit this next week
18:03:15 <Zakim> -Barry_Johnson
18:03:28 <ddahl_> ...techniques and recommendations will be abstract.
18:03:45 <ddahl_> ...are we talking about user goals or testing goals?
18:03:51 <ddahl_> john: agrees
18:04:22 <ddahl_> rrsagent, format minutes
18:04:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/02/10-coga-minutes.html ddahl_
18:04:37 <Zakim> -John_Rochford
18:04:42 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
18:04:56 <Zakim> -Michel_Fitos
18:04:58 <Lisa_Seeman> zakim, bye
18:04:58 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Lisa_Seeman, John_Rochford, Kinshuk, +1.502.802.aaaa, Barry_Johnson, Debbie_Dahl, Liddy, Michel_Fitos, Rich_Schwerdtfeger,
18:04:58 <Zakim> Zakim has left #coga
18:05:01 <Zakim> ... Neil_Milliken, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Katie_Haritos-Shea
18:05:11 <Lisa_Seeman> rssagent, bye
18:06:00 <Lisa_Seeman> ok
18:06:04 <Lisa_Seeman> thanks
18:59:43 <ddahl_> ddahl_ has left #coga