W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2016

RE: proposal for wcag

From: Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:04:24 +0000
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55BD19D83AA2BE499FBE026983AB2B58A57FBE15@ummscsmbx10.ad.umassmed.edu>
Hi Lisa, Neil, Mike, and All,

About section “Under WCAG 2.2 Provide users enough time to read and use content<https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG#Under_WCAG_2.2_Provide_users_enough_time_to_read_and_use_content.>”

·      How did we determine the specified times? Did we arbitrarily decide “A minimum of five minutes must be provided to complete any controlling action unless sensitive information is at risk”?

About section “Under WCAG 2.3<https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG#Under_WCAG_2.3>”

·      I am troubled by “Do not add mechanisms that are likely to confuse the user in a way that may do them harm” and its example technique “not adding automatically incrementing the number of items selected without warning the use (sic)”. “Harm” is typically defined as “Physical or psychological damage or injury.” With that in mind, is a user truly harmed because the number of items selected automatically incremented? To me, we are defining “harm” inappropriately loosely. Perhaps, for the example technique, we should use “inconvenience” rather than “harm.”

·      What do you think about replacing “boldness” with “emphasis” in “Techniques will include: using size, boldness, colour, symbols, white space and positioning”?

About section “1.4.3 Instructions, labels, navigation and important information are provided with a clear writing style that includes<https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG#Instructions.2C_labels.2C_navigation_and_important_information_are_provided_with_a_clear_writing_style_that_includes:>”

·      Rather than stating ambiguities should be reduced by “clarifying metaphors and non-literal text,” I suggest we advise that they should not be used. I think reading them and their clarifications would be more difficult to understand.

About section “(COGA Techniques 2.5)”

·      I don’t think the example "You many not eat here" compared to "Eating is not allowed in this room" for the following exemption is indeed clearer. “Exemptions: 1. There are times when passive voicing or other tense can be clearer. Other voicing may be used when it has been shown via user test to be easier to understand, more friendly or appropriate.”

This is all the feedback I can provide for now.

John

John Rochford<http://profiles.umassmed.edu/profiles/display/132901>
UMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver Center
Director, INDEX Program
Instructor, Family Medicine & Community Health
www.DisabilityInfo.org
Twitter: @ClearHelper<https://twitter.com/clearhelper>



From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 11:21 AM
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: proposal for wcag

Hi Folks

The sub team of Neil, Mike and myself have made the next draft of the proposal for wcag

See

 https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG


Ready for comments

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__il.linkedin.com_in_lisaseeman_&d=BQMCaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=fB481i_2m5D-PWtHkLAvbhDPuOquY7Qz2QywJiIrRj8&s=OjtrWbDCryfLjJjCAXr_oCreX0EzyxVmPzqTDFP4J1Q&e=>, Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_SeemanLisa&d=BQMCaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=fB481i_2m5D-PWtHkLAvbhDPuOquY7Qz2QywJiIrRj8&s=U4Q0RF4ivoVT64fAjDmakCiqcCzMwmDeahfTkTAVGdc&e=>

Received on Sunday, 24 April 2016 20:04:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 24 April 2016 20:04:55 UTC