W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > February 2007

RE: Meeting on Feb 20

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:57:33 +0000
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
CC: TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7261AC2A5F73904CA41773C8F00813FF1B357ACE@EA-EXMSG-C309.europe.corp.microsoft.com>

No, I think those provisions are useful in other scenarios and should be kept; but we should just remove text that suggests they are there to address cognitive unless we can say conclusively that they are.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
Microsoft
Phone:
  mob +44 7977 455002
  office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: 20 February 2007 20:24
To: Sean Hayes
Cc: TeamB
Subject: Re: Meeting on Feb 20

There are a number of success criteria that only claim to benefit people with cognitive disabilities. If we remove all mention of cognitive from WCAG2, should we also remove those success criteria?

Examples:
  2.4.2 Multiple Ways: More than one way is available to locate content within a set of Web units where content is not the result of, or a step in, a process.
  2.4.7 Location: Information about the user's location within a set of Web units is available.
  3.1.3 Unusual Words: A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words or phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon.
  3.2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web units within a set of Web units occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
  3.2.4 Consistent ID: Components that have the same functionality within a set of Web units are identified consistently.

On 2/20/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have followed up by reading the rest of the comments, and apart from a few specific issues I'd say the broad thrust of the comments are along the lines of "please don't say you address learning difficulties or cognitive, because you really don't". And that what we do have is targeted at reading level which is not the same as either LD, CD or reading disability and shouldn't be confused.
>
> I think these are reasonable criticisms, and our broad response, once we have done as discussed a round of due diligence with invited experts, and unless some concrete proposals come out of that, should be to remove any mention of cognitive from WCAG2.0 with a disclaimer along the lines of:
>
> "We did not have enough expertise in the WG to formulate testable criteria to address cognitive issues which could resonably be adopted by all web content and this is an area which a specific W3C group with the relevant expertise should address in the future".
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Accessible Technology Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
>   mob +44 7977 455002
>   office +44 117 9719730
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino
> Reid
> Sent: 20 February 2007 19:02
> To: TeamB
> Subject: Meeting on Feb 20
>
>
> Cognitive issues:
> Note lack of expertise in working group.
>
> 1. Invite experts from Ad Hoc Task Force to discuss cognitive support
> 2. Try to address cognitive issues more completely beyond WCAG2 3.
> General clean-up of language relating to cognitive, language and
> learning disabilities
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 20:58:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:45 GMT