RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: COGA summary, key questions, and minutes for March 31st meeting

I would like to add a possible addition.
Julie summarized the areas of discussion as:

  *   Title
  *   Subtitle
  *   Abstract/introduction first sentence
  *   Link or pop-up list
Proposal: add to the above

  *   Keywords, terms (for use in the document’s properties when a PDF, and metadata when a webpage).
     *   Purpose: support search engine optimization.
     *   Include: keywords and terms used throughout the document (and not necessarily in those areas Julie included).
     *   Supports: findability by people searching using other terms the group decides not to explicitly include, but may be searched by some people.
This might provide us some additional options as we consider vocabulary in the areas Julie identified.
Jennie

Jennie Delisi, MA, CPWA
Enterprise IT Governance Coordinator | Customer Service Management
Minnesota IT Services | Partners in Performance
600 N Robert Street, Suite 2800
St. Paul, MN, 55146
O: 651-201-1135
Information Technology for Minnesota Government | mn.gov/mnit<http://mn.gov/mnit>
[Minnesota I T Services logo]

From: Julie Rawe <jrawe@understood.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 7:51 AM
To: Monteleone, Rebecca <Rebecca.Monteleone@utoledo.edu>
Cc: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>; Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: COGA summary, key questions, and minutes for March 31st meeting

This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center.

________________________________
Hi all, keeping in mind previous conversations about the importance of using the word "disabilities," please consider the following approach, which incorporates:

  *   the subtitle that Rain suggested this morning
  *   a linkable umbrella phrase in the abstract: "disabilities and differences that impact cognitive accessibility"
  *   repeated emphasis on "cognitive accessibility" from the title, "disabilities" needed for legal protections, and "differences" that covers neurodivergence in a non-offensive way
If we go this route, the top of the document could look like this:

Title:
Cognitive accessibility guidance


Subtitle:
Making content usable for people who experience barriers to technology related to cognitive, learning, intellectual, and developmental disabilities, as well as neurodivergence and mental health

Abstract/introduction first sentence:
This document explains how to make content usable for people with [disabilities and differences that impact cognitive accessibility ( ← link to resource that we need to create)] including cognitive, learning, intellectual, and developmental disabilities, as well as neurodivergence and mental health

Link or pop-up list for "disabilities and differences that impact cognitive accessibility":
This link or pop-up list is where we will discuss the full bulleted list of disabilities covered, including making clear that "learning disabilities" means one thing in the UK and a very different thing in the U.S.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 8:41 AM Monteleone, Rebecca <Rebecca.Monteleone@utoledo.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Monteleone@utoledo.edu>> wrote:
Hi all,

Just chiming in to +1 Rain’s point that neurodivergence as a term was developed specifically in part to move away from a disability or diagnostic category, and so we may alienate potential users that way, and that this still does not adequately address intellectual and developmental disability.

If we explain what groups are covered under our umbrella in the introduction, could we just then refer to them as something like “users who benefit from cognitive accessibility” in the text itself?

Warmly,

Becca




From: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com<mailto:lisa1seeman@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 7:52 AM
To: Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com<mailto:rainb@google.com>>
Cc: Julie Rawe <jrawe@understood.org<mailto:jrawe@understood.org>>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: COGA summary, key questions, and minutes for March 31st meeting

Hi Rain
Thanks for the feedback.
We agreed  to use cognative accessibility guidance where ot fits. However there were a bunch of times where we are talking about the users and we needed an inclusive way to refer to them.
Do you think just alling them our users is ok? Assume we have who is included discussed in the into.

All the best
Lisa

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, 14:03 Rain Michaels, <rainb@google.com<mailto:rainb@google.com>> wrote:
I share Lisa's concern.

If I understand correctly, the problems we are trying to solve in the language of the subtitle are:

  1.  We cover more than just "cognitive disabilities" and "learning disabilities," and since diagnostic terms in different countries have different meanings and legal implications, this even leaves some people out.
  2.  We learned in our user research that some felt alienated and unseen by "cognitive and learning disabilities" because it didn't include them. This includes folks with functional needs related to what we are covering due to mental health, neurodivergence, and developmental disabilities or intellectual disabilities.
The concerns I have with "cognitive and neurodivergent disabilities"

  1.  Not all individuals who are neurodivergent identify with their neurodivergence as a disability. I believe we could truly alienate a lot of people this way.
  2.  "Neurodivergence" is still a fairly academic term, and not well recognized throughout communities. I'm worried that many people won't understand what it means.
  3.  This still leaves out individuals with developmental disabilities, intellectual disabilities (which has varying diagnostic meanings based on geographical boundaries), and now also learning disabilities (which also has varying diagnostic meanings based on geographical boundaries).
Since we are levering the subtitle approach, we have flexibility to be more verbose. For example, one approach might be to just list them. As an example:

Cognitive accessibility guidance
Making content usable for people who experience barriers to technology related to cognitive, learning, intellectual, and developmental disabilities, as well as neurodivergence and mental health.

Alternatively, we might anchor more on the need:

Cognitive accessibility guidance
Making content usable for people with disabilities or contexts that impact memory, learning, communication, attention, reading, executive function, (etc....).

Rain



Rain Breaw Michaels
Design Lead, Products for All UX
rainb@google.com<mailto:rainb@google.com>



On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 3:44 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com<mailto:lisa1seeman@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi folks
My issue with the suggested phrase is people with learning disabilities and specific learning disabilites and mental health related disabilities may not see themselves as included. Also cognative disabilities oftem mean something very specific such as MCI (mild cognative impaiment)

What about just talking about "our use groups" or "our users" and explaining in the introduction who we are including?

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, 03:18 Julie Rawe, <jrawe@understood.org<mailto:jrawe@understood.org>> wrote:
Hi, folks, below is a summary of what we discussed at today's COGA task force meeting and key questions as we consider possibly replacing "cognitive and learning disabilities" with "cognitive and neurodivergent disabilities."

Summary:

  *   We only got to the first item on the agenda: continuing the discussion on how to replace "cognitive and learning disabilities" in the next version of "Making Content Usable."
  *   We discussed how the new structure of "Making Content Usable" aims to streamline the information overall and to keep the focus on telling content creators and developers what to do. This approach may mean there are fewer places in the next version where we need to use an umbrella phrase.
  *   We reviewed the 343 section of this Github tracking doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FkyRIP3CAuZ-JAazUOAUI64TYCrEfOkKSeBg94mMOkg/edit?resourcekey=0-HM4QyycKbkfCwWAXzIymrw&tab=t.0#heading=h.r0jc39bbtz1i> that explains why the new umbrella phrase needs to include "disabilities." (That word is essential because legal protections may not apply if we just talk about "differences," "challenges," etc.)
  *   We added "cognitive and neurodivergent disabilities" to the table suggesting new umbrella phrases.

     *   We talked about how when we use the umbrella phrase in regular text, we can offer a pop-up that has a long bulleted list of examples of what is covered under this phrase.
     *   We also talked about why we may need to use different versions of the umbrella phrase in different places, such as the subtitle and abstract/introduction, which are detailed in the next section.
Suggested wording for four key parts of Making Content Usable

  *   Title: "Cognitive accessibility guidance"

     *   Rain's group suggested this title in Making Content Usable V2 Structure -- Text<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GwIadQU2rmDwqPDeYX6PF7UjnD4D47vqRjvPysXNe-A/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.8op9ructilp5>.
     *   The task force discussed today why we like it, including that it identifies the the purpose of the information that will be shared and is short enough so it won't get truncated inappropriately.

  *   Subtitle: "Making content usable for individuals with cognitive and neurodivergent disabilities, such as those that involve learning, attention, memory, or mental health"

     *   The subtitle would use the new umbrella phrase plus a short "such as" list that gives a sense of the breadth of disabilities covered.
     *   We discussed the importance of mentioning "mental health" in particular.
     *   We also discussed why we need a phrase like "such as" so it's clear this is not an exhaustive list.

  *   Abstract/introduction first sentence: “This document explains how to make content usable for individuals with [cognitive and neurodivergent disabilities ( ← link to resource that we need to create)] such as anxiety, autism, age-related forgetfulness, dyslexia, and Down syndrome."

     *   We talked about why it might help to mention some specific conditions/diagnoses in this sentence. Much like the subtitle, we want "such as" examples to show a wide range of disabilities. But the big difference is that the abstract uses specific diagnostic terms that users are likely to be searching for.
     *   In particular, we discussed that it might be helpful for the document's SEO overall to mention "autism" in the abstract/introduction.
     *   If we go this route of mentioning a wide range of conditions, the examples need to be carefully chosen—we pulled this together very quickly!

  *   Link or pop-up list for "cognitive and neurodivergent disabilities": This link or pop-up list is where we will discuss the full bulleted list of disabilities covered, including making clear that "learning disabilities" means one thing in the UK and a very different thing in the U.S.
Key questions

  *   Does "cognitive and neurodivergent disabilities" translate easily into other languages?
  *   What keywords should we put in the title, subtitle, abstract, and/or metadata to help people find this document using search engines?
Minutes: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/31-coga-minutes.html


Thanks again to Eric for scribing. Have a good week, everybody!

--
<https://www.understood.org/>
  Julie Rawe
Director, Content Strategy & Accessibility
jrawe@understood.org
www.understood.org
she | her | hers

         Support us<https://www.understood.org/>