W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to cognitive, learning, and language disabilities

From: ~:'' ありがとうございました。 <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:34:33 +0000
Message-Id: <9B67AD0F-8FC8-4480-AD4F-D46004B89E8A@btinternet.com>
Cc: 'Loretta Guarino Reid' <lorettaguarino@google.com>, 'Sofia Celic' <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org>, 'Jan Dekelver' <jan.dekelver@khk.be>, 'Chuck Hitchcock' <chitchcock@cast.org>, 'Hiroshi Kawamura' <hkawa@rehab.go.jp>, 'Gez Lemon' <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, 'Clayton Lewis' <clayton.lewis@colorado.edu>, 'Gian Sampson-Wild' <gian@tkh.com.au>, 'Keith Smith' <k.smith@bild.org.uk>, 'Roberto Scano' <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, 'Stephen Shore' <Tumbalaika@aol.com>, 'Nancy Ward' <nward@thedesk.info>, 'Paul Bowman' <pbowman@gmu.edu>, 'John Slatin' <jslatin@mail.utexas.edu>, 'Elbert Johns' <ejohns@thearclink.org>, 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'Michael Cooper' <cooper@w3.org>, 'Judy Brewer' <jbrewer@w3.org>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
To: lisa <lisa@ubaccess.com>


not sure where your wording comes from, it is not the wording agreed  
during the recent conference call.


Jonathan Chetwynd

On 13 Mar 2007, at 07:59, lisa wrote:

A few clear and important problems with these resolutions

the new improved wording seas:
"Abstract: Following these guidelines will make content accessible to  
a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and  
low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties,  
cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties,  
photosensitivity and combinations of these."


"introduction: Although some of the accessibility issues of people  
with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities are addressed by  
WCAG 2.0, either directly or through assistive technologies, the WCAG  
2.0 guidelines do not address many areas of need for people with  
these disabilities. There is a need for more research and development  
in this important area."

I have a very strong objections to this wording.

I believe it is designed to mislead

It makes it appear that following WCAG enables the best level of   
accessibility for people with cognitive disabilities to date, and  
until further research is done this is the best that you can do for  
these communities.

" to call out the need for more research in this area"  this has very  
little to do with WCAG.   Many proven techniques have been found by  
the team  are not reported in WCAG. Also  and there is more research  
in this area then for blind access for example.

I see the call for more research  as a "red hearing" or something to  
divert attention from the real problem.

(such as use of concept mapping which definitely without question  
makes content accessible to people who can not access it otherwise)

Further, many of the techniques used by other guidelines are still  
not in WCAG

Take a look at some of my reports on other standards and how they  
support access for learning disabilities that was sent to WCAG  in  
2001 !



We still have not got to this level. (From 2001 folks - we still did  
not get them in in 2007)

What about the problems we had within the WCAG working group itself,  
were use of long numbers and codes made issues impossible to track  
without a good short term memory.

WCAG eventually improved the process (Thanks Loretta) but these  
problems  are not considered issues in WCAG 2 - even though the group  
themselves experienced the affect of reliance of short term memory  
being an unnecessary barrier to participation.

Giving the impression that we are doing all that is possible today is  

I propose  that  the words " There is a need for more research and  
development in this important area." be dropped from the  
introduction. Then people will be aware that WCAG is not the best  
place to look for this.

Issue  two:

Putting things in advisory techniques, s a good idea, but this  
concept needs to be worked out

a, the term "advisory" suggests that it is less important then  
required success criteria techniques. I suggest changing the name to  
"non testable techniques"

b, the techniques included seem "add hock" or what ever seems a good  
idea at the time. I suggest we make a tougher roadmap about building  
up these techniques so that we are properly covering\

c, Even if they are hard to test, an author should be a ble to make a  
conformance statement if they fulfil them. If nothing else this  
enables people to locate  pages that they may be able to use.

Issue three

looking at the text:

Using the clearest and simplest language appropriate for the content.

- we were stuck with this one last time round. The word appropriate   
is a blanket loophole for people to say they have done this without  
doing a thing.
how about the wording

write  clearly and simply
or provide clear and simple text
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 5:48 PM
To: Jonathan Chetwynd; Sofia Celic; Jan Dekelver; Chuck Hitchcock;  
Hiroshi Kawamura; Gez Lemon; Clayton Lewis; Gian Sampson-Wild; Keith  
Smith; Roberto Scano; Lisa Seeman; Stephen Shore; Nancy Ward; Paul  
Bowman; John Slatin; Elbert Johns
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; Michael Cooper; Judy Brewer; Loretta Guarino  
Reid; WCAG
Subject: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to cognitive, learning,  
and language disabilities

The attachment to this email contains a report on the proposed  
responses to the comments received relating to cognitive, learning,  
and language disabilities. We will be discussing these at our meeting  
on Tuesday, March 13. Details on the meeting logistics will be sent  
in a separate message.

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 08:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:02 UTC