13:13:06 RRSAgent has joined #coga 13:13:06 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/06/02-coga-irc 13:13:08 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:13:08 Zakim has joined #coga 13:13:10 Meeting: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference 13:13:10 Date: 02 June 2022 13:13:35 agenda+ updates and actions https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#heading=h.1bvszq5s0esc 13:15:29 agenda+ subgroups https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups also See timeline at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JXa94s2lbzJ0v9FHasxxws3CsOcljHHBdlQ2VOxYqAQ/edit 13:15:56 agenda+ We will cancel the July 14 meeting because of the FTF on July 12 - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Meetings/June-2022#Coga_TF_F2F_Meeting 13:16:25 agenda+ What meetings do we want at FTF? Clear Language And :) mental health Note: mental health has its own meeting on Friday - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Meetings/June-2022#Coga_TF_F2F_Meeting 13:17:29 agenda+ stakeholder feedback survey questions . See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lW-ds-UJkQU_SR0RXA9dnR7tjWlLkzPGQC_RBA0S5Vc/edit#heading=h.k2uu05tz7cki and survey at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_pV-lbgorW2oihIB4EdONOFN0EcRmBAkmUEEPdTAEw/edit#heading=h.jsq2b4dfhi5h and 13:17:52 agenda+ functional needs review - see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ndRziXRfnyAgDaL8ctByQagDdM36H8QxV44lO3u8zgc/edit# 13:18:11 Scribe+ Jennie, Rain, Lisa 13:18:31 Regrets+ EA, anyone from the UK 13:50:53 lisa has joined #coga 13:54:40 agenda? 13:54:58 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:55:07 RRSAgent, publish minutes 13:55:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/02-coga-minutes.html lisa 13:57:58 Jennie has joined #coga 13:58:05 present+ 13:59:08 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribing_Commands_and_Related_Info 14:00:22 Le has joined #coga 14:00:23 Rain has joined #coga 14:00:40 present+ 14:00:50 present+ 14:01:04 present+ 14:01:11 krisanne has joined #coga 14:02:09 julierawe has joined #coga 14:02:09 zakim, next item 14:02:09 agendum 1 -- updates and actions https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HtPkkYx1CIl6bAwP2nsSZKhqTVbqcuMDRz5RmtmvXg/edit#heading=h.1bvszq5s0esc -- taken up [from Lisa] 14:02:14 present+ 14:02:48 Lisa: We will cover functional needs later today. 14:02:56 ...EO update? 14:03:17 Julie: I had an interaction with Kris Anne. She helped me understand the best way to give feedback. 14:03:27 ...I haven't finished that Google Doc yet, but that is the next step. 14:03:55 ...This includes how they revised the User Stories. This will help us state how we specifically would like things reworded. 14:04:21 Lisa: Guardianship draft? 14:04:53 Michael: It is on my to-do list to schedule a meeting. 14:05:06 Lisa: Images? 14:05:47 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups 14:06:06 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/Images 14:06:40 Jennie: We have added the meeting minutes to our subgroup wiki page 14:06:54 ...I would like to update the KPIs with suggestions - is that ok? 14:06:56 Lisa: yes 14:07:05 Rain: The group is on the agenda for June 16 14:07:07 present+ 14:07:23 present+ 14:07:30 Rain: I think Rachael was interested in meeting with us regarding testing. 14:07:36 ...for Clear Language 14:07:50 ...Rachael had written to us. The Silver group would like to work with us on a test 14:07:56 ...This may be a good time to schedule that. 14:08:07 John K and I seem to be in a different meeting space. Is there a new zoom link? 14:08:13 Rachael: I think you are well on your way after reviewing the document - nice job! 14:08:41 ...In the next 2-3 weeks, if we could meet. If we could develop a few examples of what a contextual or conditional test would look like. 14:08:53 q? 14:08:56 ...This would be a different test in different languages. This would be a good example. 14:09:05 ...When can I meet with you, and how can I help? 14:09:26 q+ 14:09:28 ...Also, I am trying to put a group together for Visible Controls. I think this is also a good example of a conditional or contextual test. 14:09:37 Lisa: Timeline for group on visual controls? 14:10:12 Rachael: It is not a timeline for 2.2 - no urgency. But it is a good example of something for 3.0 to explore test types that may address COGA related success criteria. 14:10:19 q+ 14:10:20 ...I defer to you on schedule. 14:10:33 Lisa: You would like something in a month? 14:10:37 Rachael: Correct. 14:10:46 Lisa: Our submeeting after this is a subgroup on testing. 14:11:12 q+ 14:11:15 ...We normally will have it at the same time as plain language. Sometimes we will be together, but this week is just the testing. 14:11:34 ...I think that would be a good time for you to attend, even if it is just to get the scope defined. 14:11:51 ...Beyond that, the input of "these are the kinds of tests we need" 14:12:05 ...I think that will be helpful for us. Using the right terminology, and the right concepts. 14:12:16 q? 14:12:31 ...Can you add the different tests you want? The terminology you want for visual controls? 14:12:39 ack next 14:12:44 Julie: I have 2 questions for Rachael: 14:12:50 present+ 14:13:01 ...1: should we follow the template that has been used that other groups have sent around for CFC? 14:13:12 ...The template for methods and testing seems to have been updated. 14:13:25 Rachael: Yes, there is an updated template for methods 14:13:46 Lisa: To help reference them after the meeting to post them are the subgroup page for clear language 14:13:53 Exploratory test section: https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#types-of-tests 14:13:53 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/WCAG_3_Coordination 14:13:53 ...and the subgroups page for testing. 14:14:07 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/Testing 14:14:21 Lisa: I need the links to the different forms of tests 14:14:24 sorry was in wrong room 14:14:27 ...That would be useful in both places 14:14:27 present+ 14:14:44 present+ 14:14:46 Julie: Rachael - I believe the group worked last week on avoiding double negatives 14:14:55 ...We thought that would be easier for developing tests. 14:15:23 ...It is not easy, but may be less challenging. Do you agree with this approach? Starting with something less subjective, and dependent on user testing. 14:15:42 ...These could potentially be automated. 14:15:48 Rachael: I think that is a great approach. 14:16:15 ...We get push back about Clear Language. I think having a conditional test, with a pre-requesite (language) 14:16:23 ...then yes, creating objective check points. 14:16:30 ...It would move us forward in a productive way. 14:16:48 ...It does fit in with trying to get this kind of test visible to the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group 14:16:55 ...It is in line with a protocol test. 14:17:19 ...Having a couple of different conditional tests in terms of Clear Language would help address something we have struggled with 14:17:33 ...and if it demonstrates we need to try something else, that would be helpful too. 14:17:43 That is fine. 14:17:53 Lisa: I would like to make this an agenda item next week or the week after. 14:18:06 ack next 14:18:29 Rain: On June 30, we had planned to have the subgroup meeting be combined Clear Language and Testing. 14:18:39 Lisa: I think it needs to be in the main group. It reaches everything. 14:18:52 Rain: ok 14:19:09 Lisa: reminder to mark yourself present in IRC 14:19:18 I was on queue to say that I have a conflict directly after the meeting so we'll have to find a different approach. 14:19:20 q- 14:19:34 Lisa: Le - are you ok with accessing the research paper? 14:19:41 Le: I hadn't seen that, but thank you. 14:19:59 Lisa: John K? 14:20:14 John K: yes, all has been reported already 14:20:34 q? 14:20:45 zakim, next item 14:20:45 agendum 2 -- subgroups https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups also See timeline at 14:20:47 ... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JXa94s2lbzJ0v9FHasxxws3CsOcljHHBdlQ2VOxYqAQ/edit -- taken up [from Lisa] 14:21:00 Lisa: Reminder - we have new subgroups. 14:21:04 ...To help us meet our timelines 14:21:08 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups 14:21:13 ...People have signed up for the new subgroups 14:21:33 ...We don't want more subgroups until we close some of the existing ones 14:22:03 ...If you would like to be on more, please let us know. 14:22:26 ...We had a subgroup meeting that clashed with Language, but we sent the meeting minutes to the list. 14:22:27 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups 14:22:34 reserch plan https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Subgroups/ResearchPlan#Conference_Call_Information 14:22:49 Lisa: hopefully more people can attend. 14:23:02 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XEd6CaM2PVe2NVMmylCGwpSRmaIZPBGeM5CyJxkswFQ/edit#heading=h.97tpbedk61ek 14:23:12 ...The most interesting bit: the research questions we would like to add to Rain's work. 14:23:26 ...The issue papers, the research modules, and the gap analysis 14:23:37 ...We know we want to update the mental health 14:23:52 ...Deciding to have things on the wiki, vs W3C publications 14:24:02 ...How important is it that they get updated? 14:24:18 Q? 14:24:20 ...I know people missed that meeting, but if anyone feels there is another question to be added, please comment on this list or now 14:24:32 ...Any other subgroup updates? 14:24:32 zakim, next item 14:24:33 agendum 3 -- We will cancel the July 14 meeting because of the FTF on July 12 - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Meetings/June-2022#Coga_TF_F2F_Meeting -- taken up 14:24:33 ... [from Lisa] 14:24:46 Lisa: July 14 - we have a hybrid face to face. 14:25:05 zakim, next item 14:25:05 agendum 3 was just opened, lisa 14:25:06 ...The meeting will officially be on July 12, so we won't be meeting on July 14 14:25:20 zakim, next item 14:25:20 agendum 3 was just opened, lisa 14:25:28 Lisa: what topics should we discuss at the face to face? 14:25:28 close item 3 14:25:42 zakim, next item 14:25:42 agendum 4 -- What meetings do we want at FTF? Clear Language And :) mental health Note: mental health has its own meeting on Friday - 14:25:44 ... https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Meetings/June-2022#Coga_TF_F2F_Meeting -- taken up [from Lisa] 14:26:02 Lisa: We already had a request from Rain to discuss Clear Language and the tests 14:26:30 q+ to add data analysis for structure 14:26:38 ...We are starting the analysis on mental health, so if there are proposals for new patterns 14:26:51 ...The research plan might be good to do face to face 14:26:52 zakim, next item 14:26:52 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, lisa 14:27:03 ack next 14:27:04 Rain, you wanted to add data analysis for structure 14:27:25 Rain: If we are able to succeed in getting the survey out in the next week or so, then it might be good to have the structure group to do an analysis based on the feedback 14:27:30 Lisa: yes 14:27:47 ...We also asked Michael if there is any analytical data that would be available to us. 14:27:52 zakim, next item 14:27:52 agendum 5 -- stakeholder feedback survey questions . See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lW-ds-UJkQU_SR0RXA9dnR7tjWlLkzPGQC_RBA0S5Vc/edit#heading=h.k2uu05tz7cki and survey at 14:27:56 ... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_pV-lbgorW2oihIB4EdONOFN0EcRmBAkmUEEPdTAEw/edit#heading=h.jsq2b4dfhi5h and -- taken up [from Lisa] 14:28:43 Rain: The structure subgroup came up with a data collection plan to try to understand how well Content Usable is working, and the barriers to use 14:28:52 ...A quantitative survey 14:29:05 ...The COGA community group has been great coming up with what that survey will contain 14:29:12 ...I was advised to keep it as concise as we can 14:29:22 ...Attrition falls intensely when it is long 14:29:39 ...Ask a question at the end, asking if they would be willing to follow up in a more qualitative form 14:29:49 Great feedback from the community group! 14:29:51 Survey draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n_pV-lbgorW2oihIB4EdONOFN0EcRmBAkmUEEPdTAEw/edit# 14:29:53 ...The survey in its current state - with huge input from the community group 14:30:00 ...This is a draft of what will be in the survey 14:30:17 ...I have also asked a quantitative research to review it with me next week 14:30:24 ...To make sure we are not leading people 14:30:34 ...That we are not violating ethical rules, etc. 14:30:52 Q? 14:31:11 How would you like feedback? 14:31:14 Rain: Lisa has also suggested questions about research. 14:31:21 ...Very curious to get input from this group. 14:31:31 q+ 14:31:32 q+ 14:31:51 Lisa: We need the same kind of questions for the research documents. 14:32:09 ...Maybe we could have one question, such as "do you use other COGA documents?" 14:32:22 ...Then if they say they are available for follow up, we can connect with them about the other documents. 14:32:25 Rain: Great idea 14:32:30 ...I'm adding that right now. 14:32:52 Lisa: "And which ones?" Then we know what to ask when we follow up. 14:32:56 Rain: I am adding that right now 14:33:11 Lisa: I think we need a 2nd survey then, possibly to other groups. Example: developers 14:33:25 ack next 14:33:27 ...so we can focus our efforts where they are most useful 14:33:28 ack next 14:33:44 Julie: Rain - I am looking at this - how would you like us to give you feedback? 14:34:01 Rain: Comments in the Google doc is probably easiest - it would be in context. 14:34:07 ...Then I can convey that to the subgroup 14:34:20 ...You can also add suggestions in suggestion mode. 14:34:34 ...This will identify you, then we can follow up if we have questions. 14:34:45 Julie: There are a lot of demographic questions. 14:34:59 Rain: Most were added today on the community group call - they felt it would be helpful. 14:35:18 ...The roles, and how often do you use Content Usable were there before the Community Group call. 14:35:28 ...we added them for now, and can pare them down later. 14:35:55 Julie: I see there are a lot of yes or no about people's experience with Content Usable. 14:36:19 ...I wonder if "how easy" or choices with a 1 through 5 on how easy it was to find specific things would be helpful 14:36:22 Rain: that's a good idea. 14:36:29 q+ 14:36:33 ack next 14:36:45 Lisa: I don't think we need the age. 14:37:21 ...I think the demographic is not as important as the research questions. If we can add 2 questions about research papers, this may mean we don't need to do another survey. 14:37:24 can we move demographic to the end? 14:37:26 q+ 14:37:45 Lisa: Some people may find the age questions offensive. 14:37:57 Le: I agree. Sometimes demographic questions can be overdone 14:38:12 Rain: I want to represent the Community Group on why they suggested the demographic questions 14:38:38 ...I am in favor of removing some of these questions 14:39:00 agenda? 14:39:06 ...One member felt that if we are seeing responses under roles that say "yes I am an individual with life experience" and they are indicating they are over 65 14:39:22 ...We now have some understanding of where there could be barriers within the document itself 14:39:28 q+ 14:39:35 ack next 14:40:08 +1 to Jennie's comment! 14:40:54 well said 14:40:56 ack next 14:41:00 +1 14:41:11 Jennie: I vote for 2 surveys to keep the research question get a separate focus 14:41:24 q+ 14:41:38 ack next 14:41:41 ...And I think that asking the question about the demographics + lived experience can be asked a different way, and will address those that may not self identify as having lived experience 14:41:47 Lisa: Ok 14:42:13 +1 to Kris Anne's comment 14:42:16 q+ 14:42:18 +1 to moving to end 14:42:22 +1 14:42:28 Kris Anne: I recently have seen some surveys where they have you answer their main questions first, and then they ask the other questions later. 14:42:48 +1 that's a great idea! 14:42:54 ...Example: we would be interested in asking questions about who you are, would you be interested in continuing yes or no. 14:43:02 ack next 14:43:21 Lisa: On the same lines we could do the same with the research questions 14:43:30 ...Then we haven't lost so many people 14:43:56 ...With surveys, they should be able to end at any time, or save their responses to finish later. 14:44:18 (Jennie is +1 to being able to end at any time and submit, but finishing later too if possible) 14:44:20 ack next 14:44:30 Thank you, everyone, for great notes! 14:44:30 zakim, next item 14:44:30 agendum 6 -- functional needs review - see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ndRziXRfnyAgDaL8ctByQagDdM36H8QxV44lO3u8zgc/edit# -- taken up [from Lisa] 14:45:14 Lisa: this is being made by APA. We weren't very happy with their functional needs. 14:45:31 ...Julie's idea was to start with a table so people don't have to look at multiple documents 14:45:42 ...FAST is the group making these user needs. 14:45:44 q+ 14:46:01 FAST? 14:46:05 Lisa: the first column is the big group, then what they have included, then what we feel is missing 14:46:23 ...If there are items we haven't seen at all, we can add a new row 14:46:40 zakim, next item 14:46:40 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, lisa 14:47:32 ack Jennie 14:47:49 Lisa: I have added the information and link for FAST 14:48:14 ...I will read out what is in each row. 14:48:30 ...Before we leave we need to decide if we are comfortable, or need more time. 14:49:16 (Lisa reads from the document) 14:50:03 q+ 14:51:11 ack next 14:51:37 Julie: I would strongly recommend that if they split language and communication in 2 buckets, and I think we should explain why to prevent a lengthy back and forth 14:52:22 ...Lisa - is it because you think it gets so long that people cannot focus on the information? 14:52:38 Lisa: I think when you say language and communication, people just see language 14:52:49 John: I think communication is problematic. 14:52:50 q+ 14:53:16 Julie: I think having a separate non language communication would be helpful 14:53:33 +1 non language communication 14:53:37 ...Having it as a separate category 14:54:04 ack next 14:55:08 Jennie: Receptive vs productive communication is important 14:55:23 ...what we do to communicate back, compared to our understanding of information 14:55:37 Lisa: yes. I think we need more time, and to have members to add information in 14:55:45 ...But we also need more discussion 14:55:55 ...We have a subgroup meeting in 5 minutes. 14:55:56 break time!! 14:56:02 ;) 14:56:19 RRSAgent, publish minutes 14:56:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/06/02-coga-minutes.html lisa 14:56:37 Topic: Testing sub group 14:57:07 Rain and lisa did you see my email about translating Making Content Usable in French? 15:06:05 Lisa: We have the KPIs of making an initial exploratory draft. 15:06:11 ...And feedback from stakeholders. 15:06:22 ...In this context: places like Silver and the rules working group 15:06:26 ...I also think testers 15:06:33 ...What's our plan? schedule? 15:06:39 ...This works a lot with what Silver is doing 15:06:54 ...Scope can be Content Usable, Silver, or both 15:06:59 ...We have our own subgroup page 15:07:18 ...I copied (on the Wiki page) the KPI/measurable goals 15:07:25 ...We need a task leader 15:07:40 ...We need to think about the scope, timeline, what questions we would want to ask about stakeholders. 15:07:56 ...We don't have to do the same stakeholders as other groups 15:08:05 ...We can make an example, and get feedback on that example. 15:08:20 ...My first question: comments or thoughts? 15:08:20 q? 15:08:23 q+ 15:09:08 Jennie: I have access to testers we could get feedback from 15:09:16 ack Jennie 15:09:29 Lisa: Aaron said that clarity is important 15:09:50 ...Having the wording from Silver about the different types of tests 15:10:06 https://rawgit.com/w3c/silver/update_test_section/guidelines/index.html#types-of-tests 15:10:27 (the link Rachael shared during the COGA main meeting today) 15:10:37 Lisa: there are different types of tests. 15:10:48 ...See section 4 - testing 15:11:01 ...I will start building a matrix. 15:11:37 ...(Lisa drafts in a Google Doc) 15:12:27 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Otsl4HTCvpQj63xYVKzOVkulf6o75dWEthu6WI9Vtj8/edit?usp=sharing 15:12:37 q+ 15:12:43 (above is the document that Lisa is drafting) 15:13:57 Lisa: We have a section on testing in Content Usable 15:14:25 ...It is in the "How to use this document" 15:14:32 ...There is a section on testing 15:14:51 ...This is a rough testing plan 15:15:00 ..."Use" and "avoid" is testable 15:15:20 ...Sometimes an explanation would be helpful 15:15:33 ...We also have the testable statements that we made for each pattern 15:17:35 ...(reads from the Testing Each pattern section of Content Usable) 15:18:20 ack next 15:18:23 I'm getting 404 on those links... 15:18:29 https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/Testable_Statements_for_Each_Pattern 15:18:52 Julie: I am wondering if one group could focus on procedural testing, and the other focuses on conditional testing 15:19:08 * I was looking for it too ShawnT! 15:19:49 Julie: I think building out the procedure for testing something out - I am wondering how many will be similar for testing different COGA pieces 15:19:59 ...It may need to be adapted for different methods 15:20:25 ...When I asked Rachael earlier about the double negatives would be more similar to the previous 2x series 15:20:57 ...This group focusing on those procedural methods may be helpful while the other groups focus on the more familiar style of tests 15:21:09 ack next 15:21:36 Lisa: Going back to our KPIs - we want an initial draft of what we are doing, get stakeholder feedback, and make a plan 15:21:44 ...You are suggesting that there are the Silver group 15:21:59 +1 to Julie… i think its valid to essentially break up policy and procedure to make managable 15:22:00 ...doing the work per pattern 15:22:09 ...and we focus on conventional testing 15:22:37 John K: I thought that was an extremely good point there. And I view this in that umbrella of policy and procedure. 15:22:55 ...Policy is one thing, but I think people are looking to us to get procedures, I think focusing on that would be good. 15:22:59 q+ 15:23:16 Lisa: I have an additional option 15:23:26 ...do we want per pattern? Or procedures? 15:23:34 ...We have a whole section on user testing 15:23:53 ...This should be part of our background reading (added link into the Google Doc) 15:24:22 ...Julie is suggesting procedural tests in Content Usable 15:24:35 ....The conditional tests are more in Silver, but may be linked 15:24:46 Julie: I think that everything might eventually be in Content Usable as a whole 15:24:57 ...It might end up being that for different patterns, or methods in Silver 15:25:07 ...We would have conditional and conventional tests in both Content Usable and in Silver 15:25:11 ...They would be specific 15:25:15 ...For a specific method 15:25:40 ...If we focus a bit on the procedural testing - how do you do testing with a diverse group, enough of which have cognitive and learning disabilities 15:25:51 ...You may not need a different procedural test for each one 15:25:59 ...It may be the same kind of advice 15:26:21 ...On the whole, when looking at user testing, it may apply to everything 15:26:26 Lisa: It kind of makes sense 15:26:47 ...I think we should look at what we already have 15:27:02 ...we made a developer resource page 15:27:16 ack next 15:27:17 q- 15:27:23 ...We even provided a sample consent form people can adapt 15:29:12 +1 to Jennie as good first step in our plan 15:29:41 Jennie: I propose ensuring we example what can be done (even pieces of a test) as more traditional testing, and document when this cannot be addressed any other way 15:31:41 Lisa: I see that subgroups working with Silver can work on conditional and conventional more than the procedural. We would work on the procedural. But Content usable has both - is that correct Julie? 15:32:12 Julie: I think seeing if we can follow some of Silver's procedural information for Content Usable. I think that will be a big chunk of work. 15:32:24 ...I like Jennie's idea - either while starting this work, not sure how to map this out 15:32:51 ...Figuring out what we can break off as conditional testing, and what needs to be procedural testing, is a good start 15:33:04 ...I think it will be a lot of work to getting it into the Silver process 15:33:11 Lisa: their formats are not finished. 15:33:33 ...Are their formats completed? 15:33:46 ...We made several extensions. 15:33:52 ...And there have been changes 15:35:09 Jennie: I heard Rachael say earlier that if the procedural pieces are not working for some of these components, that will be important to share 15:35:33 Lisa: I don't think that plain language is a good example to be working on for that. I think familiar things will be better. 15:35:53 ...I think languageis much easier than Clearly Identify Controls and Their Use 15:36:10 ...We can also test language, but this may be a good one to start. 15:36:12 q+ 15:36:27 Julie: I think the one you identified - that is a great one for talking about procedural test. 15:36:46 ...The diverse group of testers - how do you test with people with cognitive disabilities, with people with dementia. 15:36:53 ...More detail to build out there 15:37:03 ...Some of this in Content Usable, and maybe expanding it. 15:37:12 ...We did actually have things you can use. 15:37:26 Lisa: Yes, there are examples in there. 15:37:36 ...We have got part of it. 15:37:55 ack Jennie 15:38:01 ...Then we have section 5 15:38:11 ...Do I understand what things are, and then we have a procedure 15:38:40 Julie: That procedure there - does the user know what the page is about? What do we consider informs what is diverse? How many? 15:38:44 ...We have some good questions? 15:38:53 Lisa: It is complicated. 15:38:58 ...The answer depends a lot. 15:39:46 ...While this is informative, we may be expecting people to put it into a procedure. 15:39:46 q+ 15:39:58 ...It is important that big companies that pay for testing, that they include this. 15:40:11 ...For smaller app developers, then can be other ways to complete this 15:40:25 ...We should grapple with them 15:40:44 Julie: Looking at this page, at the end of the second paragraph, it says "try to build a group of users who..." 15:40:51 ...A procedure could include flexibility 15:41:17 ...If this is about user testing: are you doing user testing? As part of your recruiting are you asking about - then including questions about functional issues 15:41:32 Lisa: yes, like "do you give up when a website is getting too difficult for you" 15:41:45 Julie: From a procedural perspective - it is putting guardrails. 15:42:03