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

Re: Easy Reading Summary & Abstract of Cognitive Accessibility Roadmap and Gap Analysis

From: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 09:48:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEsWMvQVJBQCsWHE=Qy-9goa6eZs-8tOu2pvXctWpeaut3Ck6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "McSorley, Jan" <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
+1
I was not so happy but being timid with this :)

Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

On 14 September 2018 at 08:04, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> I made some more changes
>
> *"This document is for people who make web standards and policies (rules
> for the Web). It is about:*
>
>    - * problems people with learning and cognitive disabilities have
>    using the web and *
>    - *how they could be solved."*
>
>    from
>
> *"This document is for people who make web standards and policies. It
>    focuses on the state of accessibility for people with learning and
>    cognitive disabilities when using the Web." *
>
>
> To me this uses easier words. Do you agree?
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:23:15 +0300 *Alastair Campbell
> <acampbell@nomensa.com <acampbell@nomensa.com>>* wrote ----
>
> Hi Jan & everyone,
>
>
>
> I applied JohnK’s comment about the first paragraph and put the links into
> the abstract, and I’ve coped that below for reference.
>
>
>
> Also, can we move the “it builds on” bit to the last paragraph? It doesn’t
> seem as important, and then all the ‘dense’ information is at the end of
> the abstract.
>
>
>
> Jan, you mentioned some improvements to the bullet-points during the call
> but we didn’t have time to talk about that, can we do that over email?
>
>
>
> I did remove some of the ones from JohnR’s version, but mainly because
> we’ve remove the appendix (e.g. with policy guidance), so obviously we
> don’t want to include things which aren’t in the doc!
>
>
>
> I’m also wondering which way around this should be:
>
>    1. Techniques (ways) to address the issues
>    2. Ways to address the issues (Techniques)
>
>
>
> The second reads better to me, but maybe that’s just me?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> Current version from the google doc:
>
> ---------------------
>
> This document is for people who make web standards and policies. It
> focuses on the state of accessibility for people with learning and
> cognitive disabilities when using the Web.
>
>
>
> This document provides:
>
>    - A summary of issues,
>    - Techniques (ways) to address the issues,
>    - A list of unmet user needs,
>    - Suggested ways technologies may meet these needs in the future.
>
>
>
> For advice for people making web content  see "Making content usable for
> people with cognitive and learning disabilities
> <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html#a-appendix-making-content-usable-for-people-with-cognitive-and-learning-disabilities>
> ".
>
>
>
> This document builds on the Cognitive Accessibility User Research
> <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html#bib-coga-user-research>
> and Cognitive Accessibility Issue Papers
> <https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/>. It is produced by the Cognitive
> and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/> (COGA TF), a joint task
> force of the Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/>(APA WG) and the Accessibility Guidelines
> Working Group <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/> (AG WG) of the Web
> Accessibility Initiative <http://www.w3.org/WAI/>.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 14 September 2018 08:49:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 14 September 2018 08:49:09 UTC