W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > July 2018

Re: my responses to WCAG 2.1 process review survey

From: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:42:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEsWMvQRkCKGVuTEzsqrHOPHEJ8S9Nc_7-OxXk6jtDnnzKD-dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rochford, John" <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
Cc: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
John said
> GitHub is insufficiently accessible to members of the COGA Task Force who have cognitive disabilities. I think solutions could be one or more of the following: <snip>
and
> I would like us to include plain-language versions of everything, or at least plain-language summaries.

I've been thinking about this recently and I suspect the best solution
would be an "Assistive Technology" that integrates with GitHub but
provides simpler access and suitable content formats as required. It
could ensure workflows are correctly followed. In a dream I could
imagine AI converting text to easy reading version, similar to easy
reading versions of web pages.

I've been working on something along these lines for access to Media
and Communications for people with cognitive disabilities and this
might point to a useful approach. [1] Happy to discuss more.

1: https://alwaysinmind.info - try the demo
Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com


On 30 July 2018 at 14:40, Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Below are my responses to the 3 questions in the WCAG 2.1 process review
> survey.
>
>
>
> The current AG WG decision policy was used during the WCAG 2.1 development
> process.
>
> * ( ) The decision policy is fine as it is.
>
> * (x) The decision policy needs some changes, as follows:
>
> * ( ) Other (details in comments)
>
> Decisions are made, in large part, on GitHub content. GitHub is
> insufficiently accessible to members of the COGA Task Force who have
> cognitive disabilities. I think solutions could be one or more of the
> following: use of an another, equivalent tool accessible to COGA members;
>
> plain-language instructions presented with, and relevant to, each GitHub
> feature; GitHub instructions delivered multi-modally, such as with TTS or
> video; and on-demand training by people knowledgeable about GitHub and good
> at simple explanations.
>
>
>
> Please share any comments and suggestions for improvements.
>
> * ( ) The techniques and Understanding development process was fine.
>
> * ( ) The techniques and Understanding development process needs
>
> improvements, as follows:
>
> * (x) Other (details in comments)
>
> I would like us to include plain-language versions of everything, or at
> least plain-language summaries. If non-technical people, such as the general
> public, lawyers, regulators, and project managers, can understand our
> content, I think there will be significantly more adoption of the WCAG.
>
>
>
> Please use this space to provide any additional comments about processes
> that are not covered by any of the above questions.
>
> Much of the pushback to COGA SC included requests to produce research
> directly-relevant to cognitive Web accessibility. There is almost no such
> research. The W3C recognizes that COGA Task Force members have extensive
> expertise and experience with people who have cognitive disabilities. That
> we do, and for other reasons, a lack of research should not be used to
> interfere with COGA Task Force work, such as getting SC passed.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> John Rochford
> University of Massachusetts Medical School
>
> Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center
> Director, INDEX Program
> Faculty, Family Medicine & Community Health
> www.DisabilityInfo.org
>
> LinkedIn
>
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and
> privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies
> of the original message.
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 3:47 PM
> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf
> <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf
> <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Process review post-WCAG 2.1
>
>
>
> All,
>
> The Working Group has discussed a process to review the working group
> process that we used for WCAG 2.1. We want to make sure that we are
> collecting people’s thoughts, comments, complaints, and suggestions in order
> to have a deliberate and open review and to develop proposals for how to
> best proceed. We have received some suggestions already, including some
> received from the Director during the CR transition, and we will be
> incorporating that into the discussion.
>
>
>
> The first step is to solicit feedback over a period of time (July 30-August
> 24).
>
>
>
> Feedback can be provided confidentially, but even when it is provided
> confidentially, the general outcome of private conversations will need to be
> shared with chairs in order to discuss solutions, but efforts will be made
> to preserve anonymity. To be solutions-focused, problem descriptions should
> be accompanied by solutions proposals which consider the effect of proposals
> on other participants and issues.
>
>
>
> In this initial step, we are suggesting any of the following for providing
> feedback:
>
>
>
>   *   A Web-Based Survey at
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/processfeedback/
>
>   *   Email to group-ag-chairs@w3.org<mailto:group-ag-chairs@w3.org>,  which
> is private to chairs but not anonymous
>
>   *   Private contact with any of Andrew, Alastair, or Michael
>
>   *   Private contact with Judy or Philippe
>
>   *   Private contact with ombudspeople listed at
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/#ombuds
>
>
>
> Once the feedback is collected, the Chairs will develop a proposal and share
> it with the group, with the intent to finalize at TPAC.
>
>
>
> The entire process is detailed in Alastair’s email:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JulSep/0063.html
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
Received on Monday, 30 July 2018 14:43:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 30 July 2018 14:43:18 UTC