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

Re: Evidence that WCAG 2.0 WG 'promised' to cover Cognitive issues in the next version of WCAG

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:12:28 +0200
To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com>, "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "lorettaguarino@google.com" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "CAE-Vanderhe" <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1586664b728.d44e658b1762.6411825816929272483@zoho.com>
Yes we should be making the deadline

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 21:19:11 +0200 Wayne Dick&lt;wayneedick@gmail.com&gt; wrote ---- 

Dear Andrew et. al., 
The Low Vision Task Force has identified core set of SCs and 
techniques, and I think we can make our deadline of 12/1, Thanksgiving 
not withstanding. Can the Cognitive Group do that? Their changes seem 
harder to make testable. I am frankly worried that the schedule may 
not support them. 
 
Wayne 
 
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick &lt;akirkpat@adobe.com&gt; wrote: 
&gt; Thanks Lisa. 
&gt; 
&gt; Related to the objection, Lisa wrote that: 
&gt; 
&gt; The aim of the objection is that: 
&gt; a, The working group understands that WCAG 2.0 does not provide all the 
&gt; requirements for access for cognitive limitations, and 
&gt; b, to encourage continued work on an extension guideline that will address 
&gt; these needs. 
&gt; 
&gt; I agree completely – I don’t think that anyone believes that WCAG 2.0 
&gt; addresses all requirements for any user group, but in particular cognitive. 
&gt; 
&gt; Lisa then wrote: 
&gt; 
&gt; I also want to offer again to set up a sub group to work on an extension 
&gt; guideline or success criteria that does the job. Personally I believe 
&gt; what is needed is a concentrated and planned effort, that should include: 
&gt; 
&gt; a.. An evaluation of different learning disabilities and cognitive 
&gt; limitations 
&gt; b.. An analysis of the difficulties of the different groups when accessing 
&gt; web content 
&gt; c.. A gap analysis between current techniques and required support 
&gt; d.. Innovation and proposal stage 
&gt; e.. User testing of proposed techniques 
&gt; 
&gt; I hope that people agree that the work of the COGA TF is squarely in line 
&gt; with this list, and in some cases goes beyond it. The COGA group has 
&gt; indicated that they have focused on certain types of cognitive disabilities 
&gt; and that there is more work to be done in the future to complete an 
&gt; evaluation, but they have taken a big chunk in this first effort. 
&gt; 
&gt; The COGA group will be able to propose new techniques and as we know, will 
&gt; also be suggesting new success criteria (this is the part that isn’t called 
&gt; out in the above list), so I’m happy (but not surprised) to see that the 
&gt; focus of the COGA group is so well-aligned to the concerns around the time 
&gt; of publication of WCAG 2.0. 
&gt; 
&gt; Of course, we still need to get the SC and techniques written and accepted, 
&gt; but that work is underway! 
&gt; 
&gt; Thanks, 
&gt; AWK 
&gt; 
&gt; Andrew Kirkpatrick 
&gt; Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility 
&gt; Adobe 
&gt; 
&gt; akirkpat@adobe.com 
&gt; http://twitter.com/awkawk 
&gt; 
&gt; From: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" &lt;lisa.seeman@zoho.com&gt; 
&gt; Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:51 
&gt; To: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" &lt;lisa.seeman@zoho.com&gt; 
&gt; Cc: Katie GMAIL &lt;ryladog@gmail.com&gt;, WCAG &lt;w3c-wai-gl@w3.org&gt;, 
&gt; "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" &lt;public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org&gt;, Loretta 
&gt; Reid &lt;lorettaguarino@google.com&gt;, CAE-Vanderhe &lt;gregg@raisingthefloor.org&gt;, 
&gt; Judy Brewer &lt;jbrewer@w3.org&gt; 
&gt; Subject: Re: Evidence that WCAG 2.0 WG 'promised' to cover Cognitive issues 
&gt; in the next version of WCAG 
&gt; Resent-From: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" 
&gt; &lt;public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org&gt; 
&gt; Resent-Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:51 
&gt; 
&gt; A personal note explaining the objection can be found at 
&gt; https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0119 
&gt; 
&gt; All the best 
&gt; 
&gt; Lisa Seeman 
&gt; 
&gt; LinkedIn, Twitter 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; ---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:44:46 +0200 lisa.seeman&lt;lisa.seeman@zoho.com&gt; 
&gt; wrote ---- 
&gt; 
&gt; Hi 
&gt; We had a formal objection to WCAG 2.0's claim that it defined and addressed 
&gt; the requirements for making Web content accessible to those with learning 
&gt; difficulties, cognitive limitations. 
&gt; It was co-signed by almost 60 organizations and individuals. See 
&gt; https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0118.html 
&gt; (You may recognise a name or two) 
&gt; 
&gt; I understood WCAG's response was to acknowledge that cognitive needs were, 
&gt; in part, not adequately addressed due to a lack of research and called for 
&gt; additional research so it can be better addressed in the future and 
&gt; "Eventually we would expect to incorporate this research into future 
&gt; accessibility guidelines". The wording of the introduction to WCAG was 
&gt; changed to reflect that further research was needed to fully address 
&gt; cognitive disabilities and the claim that these requirements were fully 
&gt; addressed by WCAG 2.0 was removed. 
&gt; 
&gt; I am having trouble finding the direct link but here is a site that quotes 
&gt; it. http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WCAG/cognitive/message061122.html 
&gt; 
&gt; Hope that helps... 
&gt; 
&gt; All the best 
&gt; 
&gt; Lisa Seeman 
&gt; 
&gt; LinkedIn, Twitter 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; ---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:52:09 +0200 Katie Haritos-Shea 
&gt; GMAIL&lt;ryladog@gmail.com&gt; wrote ---- 
&gt; 
&gt; Dear WG participants, 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; At their behest, I had a meeting with the WCAG chairs this morning about the 
&gt; continued unrest in the WG. They would like us to return to a time when work 
&gt; was getting done, and stability was the norm. So would I. In that vein, they 
&gt; stated they want to make decisions on the direction of the WG based on 
&gt; facts, not conjecture. 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; This morning, as in the past on an occasion or two, I have been asked to 
&gt; provide ‘evidence’ that when we were wrapping up our WCAG 2.0 work, before 
&gt; publication, that much of the work that those who worked on the Cognitive 
&gt; issues SC at that time, were very disappointed and unhappy that the bulk of 
&gt; the recommendations for those SC were either moved to Level AAA or not 
&gt; included – and that we, the WG ‘assured’ (promised is my word) those people 
&gt; that if/when WCAG was updated, that Cognitive Issues would be addressed. 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; Does anyone have time to research this, and find either minutes or something 
&gt; that supports my recollection – that we did in fact, do that? 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; Thanks in advance. 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; * katie * 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; Katie Haritos-Shea 
&gt; Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA) 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; Cell: 703-371-5545 |ryladog@gmail.com|Oakton, VA |LinkedIn Profile|Office: 
&gt; 703-371-5545 |@ryladog 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 05:13:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 November 2016 05:13:01 UTC