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

RE: Meeting on Feb 20

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:23:18 -0600
To: "'Sean Hayes'" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: "'TeamB'" <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d201c75589$2988cc20$bc17a8c0@NC84301>

They do.

Again, the issue isn't that we did things that might benefit pw cog dis but
rather that we didn't do enough and there is more to do.  I think Loretta's
comment was rhetorical.

Also some comments were a bit extremely worded in order to make a point I
believe.

We should do the best we can for cognitive as well as the other
disabilities.  that's all we can do.


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Hayes
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:58 PM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid
> Cc: TeamB
> Subject: RE: Meeting on Feb 20
>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 21 February 2007 07:23:30 GMT

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