Meeting minutes
<matatk> present!
Welcomes & introductions
Intros in progress ...
Reminder to have people type in "present+" for the sake of logging participation on this call
Also invites people to use "q+" to raise hand when desiring to speak
Accessibility for Children Community Group
SuzanneTaylor: Notes wish to establish communications between their CG and Adapt TF; what feedback mechanism
SuzanneTaylor: Notes our spec has been reviewed in the CG
SuzanneTaylor: notes 'simplification' as particularly interesting
SuzanneTaylor: Having an additional simplification related tag for content vs. UI would be helpful
SuzanneTaylor: wondering whether it's time to build a browser extension to test approaches
SuzanneTaylor: recalls Bob's presentation in the CG on the 19th
SuzanneTaylor: even an svg image set of alternatives
bob: Yes, a demo of a several year old NSF funded research project looking at ways of marking ed content based on learner need; select, sequence, and render to best learning needs plus a11y
bob: Now dusting that work off to see where there may be opportunities
bob: Most important aspect of our work was to establish an ontology based on what we know both about a11y and about pedagogy
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to respond on feedback and on our taxonomy
<Maud> Here are the summary notes (minutes) of our last accessibility for children meeting with Bob's presentation) https://
janina: Notes that PRs to Explainer with exampfles would be great
janina: Also, don't trip over current adapt-* names; we may generalize
matatk: Notes discussions from TPAC relating to what content you want, and whalt you don't
matatk: notes the shopping example is hard coded, not based on our thinking
matatk: what is hard coded in that example certainly meets certain needs; but may not be the need in all situations, i.e. the content exluded on one viewing may be the desired content in the next viewing
matatk: Would be good to be able to encode based on a specific user profile/needs list
SuzanneTaylor: Yes, we looked at shopping ...
SuzanneTaylor: initial comment was "how do we know?"
SuzanneTaylor: abut thinking about user control, it could exemplify tech helping users chunk content for easier comprehension which could eventually make the unsimplified UI alone OK
SuzanneTaylor: chunking could give us opportunity to explain what's shown and how to relate to it
SuzanneTaylor: asks whether they should take next step, or us look at Bob's ontology
janina: Invites CG to add to Explainer; meanwhile Adapt should look at Bob's ontology
SuzanneTaylor: Will advise when CG takes this up
SuzanneTaylor: We have productive mtgs--next this Thursday with Adapt followup, will try for early draft
SuzanneTaylor: will ask group re next steps in that mtg as well
bob: Will take this opportunity to shore up old NSF documentation and provide Adapt an ontology to study
bob: Notes it's hard, because cognitive is a challenge--everything seems important!
Maud: We also try to look at stats and research re chil.dren in our CG
Maud: Notes it's sometimes difficult to justify a choice
janina: notes teaching music by learning ernding first, then the section before it, etc., in order to always be moving to something familiar
SuzanneTaylor: notes a similar approachbeing overwhelmed by too many steps in math, so chunking the math could avoid intimidation and work toward the whole
SuzanneTaylor: sounds like we have excellent next steps
matatk: don't want to say much until seeing Bob's ontology, but thinking about different criteria may in fact not be "simplification," or whatever
matatk: But also a lot of data on people's interests and needs; probably standard formats and systems
matatk: might give us a path back to their content
matatk: will be interesting to see what they've done
Sharon: Noted Matthew's question on search; doesn't take the place of what you can, and can't pick. It doesn't make the page easier to read even when you pick
janina: notes it's too easy to buy the wrong thing in a shopping cart that doesn't actually restrict rendering to choices user has indicated
janina: why would they? they want the revenue
matatk: so it's a definitional question, what constitutes the simplified
matatk: it's not just simple to complex linearly
matatk: also, is this UI or content?
matatk: We'll want a follow-on conversation once we've looked at the ontoloty
Sharon: also where the use cases will help
Sharon: often it's both because they come out of a db
Sharon: seems with enough knowledge about a particular user, you could build a more effective UI/content digestion approach
matatk: Glad we enforced that we need to classify properties of content -- that may, or may not actually be a 'distraction.'
matatk: there's nothing intrinsic that's always 'distraction.'
matatk: it just depends on what one is after
matatk: adapt-simplification may just be the wrong name
Sharon: believe we discussedd when deciding on adapt-symbol
Sharon: so what's the unique value add we offer?
matatk: notes lots of work on appropriate classification -- we can draw on to decide how to define buckets
matatk: but there will be people who just need the bare minimum q+