Re: 48 hour call for consensuses for a first working draft of the gap analysis and roadmap

I strongly support all of Steve's comments, particularly the stress on individual difference and on the fundamental problem with flat design.

Apologies that I haven't had enough time to do my own detailed analysis of the drafts, but I've been sounding all my time in meetings and travelling.

Mike



Sent using CloudMagic Email<https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=pi&cv=7.4.8&pv=9.0.2&source=email_footer_2>

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:02 pm, Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com> wrote:
Lisa

Here's a few non blocking comments.

I'm not sure If I've lost my right to comment, but anyway this is really good!

* "There is a wide range of cognitive disabilities; each type of
impairment is different, with diverse symptoms and particular digital
accessibility requirements. This adds to the complexity of knowing how
to address user needs." -> perhaps add something to say every
individual is unique?

* Perhaps cleanly state where we are in the described process?

* "selecting in phase one a limited scope of eight diverse
disabilities" -> what are they?

* Summary of the problem with flat design: -> I feel a major problem
is the lack of very clear affordances. At least google and some
shadows in Material design but that is very subtle

Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com


On 9 February 2016 at 13:21, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> This is a call for consensuses. The latest version of the gap analysis and
> roadmap is at
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/
>
> Please let us know if you approve this draft to be submitted to our parent
> working groups as a first working draft.
>
> Please
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> Athena ICT Accessibility Projects
> LinkedIn, Twitter
>
>