Meeting minutes
<lisa> clear q
<lisa> https://
<lisa> next item
<Jennie> * Nice job on recruitment!
<lisa> thanks Becca
Rain: 65 sign ups for research recruitment. Likely sufficient. Will probably start studies late next week. Set up to have data for TPAC
<kirkwood> wow
Jennie: Should we close recruitment?
Rain: Leave open until tomorrow per info that has already been shared
John: What do you think led to great recruitment results?
Rain: Not sure, may ask respondents. We worked to make sure that the text was very accessible. Had a lot of great feedback from COGA and think that made a difference
tburtin: Could share on neurodivergent discord channel if needed.
Rain: responses are probably already sufficient now
tburtin: suggest leaving open till 14th for 13th deadline
Julie: conversations in AG about assertions. Will be having a conversation about AI after our concerns about authors v. assistive tech
<kirkwood> +1
<lisa> next item
Lisa: Working on editor's drafts still in progress. Issue papers are close to ready. Want to do one last push for supported decision-making, but may not finish by august holiday.
Lisa: If presenting on something related to AG or COGA work at CSUN, AG is collected a related panel wiki
JeanneEC: possible related panels
<lisa> next item
kirkwood: cannot log into wiki page
Lisa: Will get correct wiki link from AG
<lisa> next item
Lisa: Internationalization and Github editors calls this Thursday
<lisa> scedule : https://
Lisa: please complete attached to schedule supported decision-making call
<lisa> next item
<lisa> take up item 4
<lisa> We are using the term , [cognitive and learning disabilities] for many reasons, including as a phrase it covers the same group in different locations even when the sub terms means different things.
<lisa> However, some people still think it is education related or does not include the groups we have clearly said it includes.
<lisa> Any fix suggestions?
<lisa> comunity responces https://
Lisa: some challenges - meaning of terms changes dependent on geographic location (e.g. learning disability); assumptions about who is included in a term and who isn't (e.g. neurodiversity).
Lisa: one option to move toward "cognitive accessibility" rather than a specific user group
<lisa> with cognitive and (specific) learning challenges and disabilities
<kirkwood> +1 to cognitive accessibility!
<julierawe> I love love love love this suggestion to switch to "cognitive accessibility" rather than list several user groups--very helpful to have a short "umbrella" phrase
<kirkwood> against LD
Lisa: retaining the word "disability" has legal weight because of anti-discrimination legislation
<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to cognitive accessibility
<kirkwood> +1 to cognitive accessibillity
<Jennie> +1 to cognitive accessibility
<Justine> +1 to cognitive accessibility
<Rain> +1 to cognitive accessibility as well
<tburtin> +1 to cognitive accessibillity
julierawe: support a short phrase and then where needed we can have a bulleted list of example user groups - to include disability
kirkwood: people have already taken up the language of cognitive accessibility
<julierawe> +1 to Kirkwood's comment that people are already thinking COGA is short for cognitive accessibility
<julierawe> +1 to Becca on how the phrase shifts away from limitations
Becca: cognitive accessibility also shifts away from functional limitation language
<kirkwood> LD is edu space
<julierawe> https://
julierawe: EO has a definition for cognitive and learning disability - we'd need to ensure continuity across w3c
Lisa: will need to disseminate new phrase across w3c
<kirkwood> cognitive impairment “impairment “ memory, attention, problem-solving, and decision-making”
<kirkwood> becomes a disability “ more difficult for someone to complet life activities or interact with the world around them”
Rain: like cognitive accessibility with a clarifying longer phrase. would be hesitant to remove diagnostic language because it may weaken the ability to implement the document where it is most needed. E.g. the word "disability" is needed to justify accommodations
<Jennie> +1 to Rain - supports the rationale for laws, supports accommodation requests, etc.
<tburtin> +1 Rain
<Becca_Monteleone> +1 to more "vague" language like universal design as being insufficient. We don't want to lose our target user groups who have already been marginalized in accessibility initiatives.
<lisa> Making content for cognitive accessibility (including people with cognitive and (specific) learning challenges and disabilities)
kirkwood: including LD has pushed things more into the education space, making it harder to get into the political/legal space, which cognitive disability does more.
Lisa: two issues: the title and the phrase that we use in paragraphs.
<kirkwood> cognitive impairments may or may not be a disability
<kirkwood> +1 to list after
<Rain> +1 I love Julie's suggestion as it gives us a lot of flexibility to cover needs
<kirkwood> & keep it simple COGA “cognitive accessibility”
julierawe: could list user groups - "removing barriers to cognitive accessibility means removing barriers for people with [bulleted list, glossary entry, etc]" could then retain diagnostic language without long phrase in paragraphs
<Rain> +1
Jennie: in future conversation, think of business requirements for our architecture. The need we address we the title; the need we address with the first paragraph, etc.
<julierawe> +1 to Jennie idea
<kirkwood> +1
<JeanneEC> +1
Lisa: could add note in editors draft
Lisa: propose that we go through document and replace "people with cog and LD" with "cognitive accessibility" where possible. Link in glossary.
<kirkwood> people with cognitive impairments?
<kirkwood> I’d like to propose the title “Cognitive Accessibility”
<lisa> replave long phrase in the document with Cognitive Accessibility not the title
Lisa: would still include all the places where we define who we are including - diagnostic and disability language would be retained in glossary, introduction, etc.
<kirkwood> +1
Jennie: recommend changing proposal to not change the first few sections (Section 1: Summary, Section 2: Introduction)
Lisa: "cognitive accessibility" wouldn't work in user stories anyway. Would be easier to implement in design guide
<kirkwood> users with cognitive impairments, i’ve used in legal docs
julierawe: How we adjust those first few sections would also influence if we change the title (e.g. Section 2.2 is currently Background About People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities)
kirkwood: legal approach has been to use "cognitive impairment" that becomes "disability" when it impedes life activities. We should be careful of using legal language, societal language, etc.
<kirkwood> agree
<lisa> stonger langwage is importanrt
<kirkwood> +1
julierawe: tension between wanting to meet legal requirements and wanting to focus on strengths-based approaches. If we can get the approach right, "cognitive accessibility" has a positive connotation - though we need to make sure that address the deficits because that is where the legal protections are
Lisa: probably should also include "inclusion"
Lisa: proposal - finding examples in the document where we would want to convert "people with cognitive and learning disabilities" to "cognitive accessibility" and places where we wouldn't.
<julierawe> Possible new title: "Removing barriers to cognitive accessibility"
Lisa: we need another phrase for the title (maybe what we already have) and a long phrase for "cognitive and learning disabilities" that includes specific LDs and mental health.
Lisa: we probably need a number of phrases that we will use in different places.
<julierawe> +1
<kirkwood> why not right in beginning?
<lisa> cognitive accessibility used in the design guide were it makes sences and other simlare topic
<kirkwood> +1
<Becca_Monteleone> +1
julierawe: I think we can consider alternative ways to do the top of the document. For example, 2.2 could be "disabilities covered in this document"
<julierawe> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Rain> +1