– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<lisa> next item

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Covering the Task for the Whole Group: We are currently working on an editor's draft for user testing of the new structure for Making Content Usable. The second thing we're focusing on are issue papers.

<JMcSorley> Rain: Sent new structure draft to Roy - waiting to hear back from him.

<JMcSorley> Rain: Assuming that we're not going to get the more idealized revision, but one of Rain's colleague is going to work on the new design in the next two weeks.

<JMcSorley> Rain: Reminder - our next structure subgroup meeting is July 25th and by then, we will have a draft of the research protocol so that we can move forward with the research in August.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: I may not be able to be able to attend July 25th, but can provide feedback on the protocol if it's emailed.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We can get structure on the agenda for the 29th.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Issue papers: We are just doing a module - we won't be able to get all of them done, but that is okay because this is just the first editor's draft. We have 2 drafts done. I am trying to get information on how to handle citations. Shawn Henry said that it was not necessary to follow the W3C style in an editor's draft and just add a note that

<JMcSorley> we're going to fix the formatting before the paper is finalized.

<Bmonteleone> I can definitely do some editorial clean up!

<JMcSorley> Lisa: The clean-up and editorial thing - Lisa can do technical clean up, but we need others to do a language review. Julie will do some of it, but we need to ensure that we have two people reviewing each document. We make changes in a Google Doc and then in the Thursday editorial calls, we go over the changes.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: The safety paper would be a good one for Becca to review.

<lisa> Online Safety and Wellbeing (Algorithms and Data)

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We need an editor's review and an accuracy review to catch things like reciting blog posts as research, which we cannot do.

<lisa> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/issue-papers-v2/issue-papers/Online-Safety-and-Wellbeing.html

<JMcSorley> Becca: What is the timeline?

<JMcSorley> Lisa: First week of August.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Should have an editor's call every Thursday at 9:00 EDT?

<JMcSorley> Eric: I would like to do it every week.

<JMcSorley> Julie: If we're going to be meeting every Thursday, it would be very helpful to have calendar invites.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Supported Decision Making, Len, Frankie, and Becca are working on sections so there's a good chance we will get it done this month.

<lisa> next item

<julierawe> Becca: For editing an issue paper, we recommend copying into a google doc so you can track the changes you're suggesting

<Bmonteleone> Got it, thanks Julie!

<lisa> next item

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Update on TPAC - we decided that we are interested in meeting - APA and AG are meeting as well. It's officially too late for us to observe, specifically for COGA, but I have sent an email to the events team to see if we can get one anyway. We want to do some breakout sessions, but may not get permission from the W3C to do so because we are

<JMcSorley> past the deadline. Lisa has put in a request, but does not know if we'll have an official room.

<lisa> close item 4

<lisa> next item

<lisa> next item

<lisa> next item

<lisa> close item 3

<JMcSorley> Julie: Update on AG - there are 6 subgroups starting up to work on WCAG 3 outcomes and we want to make sure that all 6 of those groups have relevant resources from COGA.

<julierawe> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BA4s0xLhg6wrhaogHUBtAMQ9RspbivgNmvHgoOJSyL0/edit

<JMcSorley> Julie: Would like to run through all 6 subgroups to see if there are COGA resources we should add to this list.

<JMcSorley> Julie: Color, I put a link to the new pattern we have written - is there anything else that we should add for color?

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Will it be clear that we have research attached to our papers?

<JMcSorley> Julie: The purpose of the WCAG 3 Color outcome is to give the user the ability to adjust color, so it may be different than what we have addressed in the past.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We might want to look at the Mental Health Literary Review to see if we have some additional color resources.

<kirkwood> is it about personalization?

<JMcSorley> Julie: The next topic is Haptic Stimulation - we are looking at being able to control when it is on or off.

<JMcSorley> John: For example - a vibration on a phone as a reminder or a vibration if you've done something wrong.

<JMcSorley> Julie: I put in a resource on haptics and another one on gaming.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: I think haptics can be a strong form of distraction, so all of the advice on helping the user focus is relevant.

<kirkwood> conversely, also a very good for reminders/memory too.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Personally, I think it's much more intrusive than a beep in terms of being disorienting. Unwanted haptic stimulation can be very unsettling for some people with high sensory sensitivity.

<JMcSorley> John: I agree with what you're saying. One positive thing that haptics does is that it can help people with memory, so it's a good tool to grab attention and so it's a powerful tool for personalization.

<JMcSorley> Tiffany: I want to support both sides of the coin - it's a bad sensory experience for some. Personally, I have pain associated with touch, so it's good to be able to turn them off. It can be really good and really bad - depending on the user.

<kirkwood> speaks to importance for personalization

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Personalization is only going to be helpful if it's really easy to implement.

<kirkwood> even used while driving for lane awareness

<JMcSorley> Lisa: It needs to managed carefully because it can be harmful.

<JMcSorley> John: It's being used often in cars for lane awareness - where if you're moving out of your lane, the steering wheel may vibrate.

<kirkwood> +1 to Rain

<Bmonteleone> +1 to Rain's point. Pressure in addition to vibration is identified in the research

<JMcSorley> Rain: I think we need to be careful about how we advise on this because haptics have the potential to be very beneficial for certain people within the population we are representing through COGA. I just think we need to be careful not to miss out on the valuable opportunities. We need to support both sides.

<JMcSorley> +1 to Rain's comment

<JMcSorley> Julie: The next topic is keyboard only access.

<kirkwood> seeing the heirarchy, structure for keyboard?

<tburtin> +1 to Rain for the benefit of haptics for those who chose to use them. Absolutely agree that haptics can be great. But letting the user decide if they want to encounter them.

<JMcSorley> Julie: Section Labels - I found the different patterns with sections. The last one is Voice Interaction - I found a paper COGA had written on this.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Proposal 11 - Make labels explicit from the Mental Health Subgroup. There was something else about labels, but it would be worth reviewing the mental health research.

<lisa> next item

<JMcSorley> Eric: The last time we had a chat about GitHub issue was May 20th - I think we have a couple of meetings left to address existing issues.

<JMcSorley> Eric: First issue: 317 Link text for user stories - it's basically saying that where ever there's a link, it should have a pointer to the heading point, rather than just the text.

<JMcSorley> Eric: Under 4.2.1.1 Clear purpose link doesn't have the number 4.2.1.1 - do we think this is helpful?

<JMcSorley> Lisa: The number itself doesn't necessarily create meeting - I personally don't like it, but maybe it's something we should take to the community.

<JMcSorley> Rain: I don't know if it makes sense to spend a lot of time on this because the new structure is going to change this and it's about to go into user testing. I think we could respond that we are in the process of taking this into consideration in the new structure.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Any objections to that?

<kirkwood> no

<lisa> any objections to taking it to user testing?

<JMcSorley> Eric: 319 - User need is the next one - the feedback is this is a bad link

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Yes, we need to go through all of our links and check them.

<JMcSorley> Eric: Use tapered prompts - 4.7.4.4

<kirkwood> +1 there is an explantion, seems clear

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We are doing what he is asking. We use a technical term and then explain it. Maybe we should point out to the person that the explanation is in the paragraph and see if that is clear. "The rest of the paragraph is the explanation. We will try to make that more clear." Maybe this could be our response, but then we need to track it and do it.

<JMcSorley> Eric: 322 - another bad link for 4.8.2.1

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We just need to double check the bad link feedback to make sure they are indeed bad.

<JMcSorley> Eric: 325 and 326 are pretty long pieces of feedback - 5-6 paragraphs - asking about the role of user agents. I am not sure that this is something we can discuss on the fly, or if there's a better way to present this.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We have these labeled as a discussion, so normally when something is labeled as a discussion, it should have time on the agenda.

<JMcSorley> Eric: Maybe we could carve out 15-20 minutes in our agenda to discuss these two pieces of feedback.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We will put this down for August 5th.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We can also slot it in if we have other agenda items that can't be addressed.

<JMcSorley> Julie: I think the conversation about user agents is a big deal.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Some of the user agents that are AI-based may not be mature enough yet. I think we need to discuss this and give our opinion.

<JMcSorley> Eric: 326 - not take into consideration levels of difficulty

<JMcSorley> Eric: 332 - research document alignment - difficult to understand large tables

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We don't want to fix this now because we're building a new structure. We should capture this in our testing - maybe capture it in the suggestions document.

<lisa> make a heading of things to double check in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CeqiSy3tVDoeBzCG8LpkyFT1fvugGk86JuT6NvfSiAA/edit

<JMcSorley> Lisa: provided the document in the previous link for adding this

<JMcSorley> Eric 343 - cognitive and learning disabilities as the title

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We could kick this discussion now.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: The reason we are using all of these words is that they mean different things in different regions

<JMcSorley> EA: The problem is that things are changing and we're lumping a lot into neurodiversity, which is very broad.

<JMcSorley> EA: I think we need to add some information in the glossary about neurodiversity. We will need more discussion.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: We have neurodiversity defined well in the glossary.

<JMcSorley> Lisa: Sometimes, people will use our documentation for legal protections

<JMcSorley> John: "Disability" is a legal term in the US, which is why the standards and guidelines we're writing are being implemented in the US.

<JMcSorley> John: I think it's important for us to have some clarity around this. Integration of "learning" is a question, but we need further discussion.

<EA> +1 to checking updates on the language

<kirkwood> cognitive impairment may result in a cognitive disaiblity (not sure we can judge that)

<JMcSorley> Julie: Is there any way we could simplify it to just cognitive disabilities instead of adding additional disability categories to the name?

<julierawe> Correction to the minutes: That we refer to is as "cognitive accessibility" instead of trying to name all the types of disabilities