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 11:59:37 +0000
Message-Id: <8F708132-14A5-4DD0-927E-4630995FA4C0@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>

Lisa,

as per the minutes circulated 11/03 the latest 'agreed' version is:

"Although some of the accessibility issues of those with cognitive,  
language, and learning disabilities are addressed directly or  
indirectly by WCAG 2.0, 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. [If possible a  
link of some sort to resources]."

this was not agreed by me, I had proposed:

"Although some of the accessibility issues of those with cognitive,  
language, and learning disabilities >> have informed << WCAG 2.0, 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. [If possible a link of some sort to resources]."

however the group on that call considered "have informed" as "too  
weak" and "lacking in clarity"

I also agree with your response, which also applies to the 'agreed'  
version.
however do you consider that it applies to 'my' version? I'm not sure.

regards

Jonathan Chetwynd



On 13 Mar 2007, at 10:02, lisa wrote:


Hi Jonathan

I took the wording for WCAG from http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
   which is titled Editor's Draft February/March 2007

I could not find the wording used in Loretta's email just reference  
to the
fact that it has been changed and there was a call for more research  
which
worried me.

All the best
Lisa



-----Original Message-----
From: "~:'' ありがとうございまし 
た。" [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:35 AM
To: lisa
Cc: 'Loretta Guarino Reid'; 'Sofia Celic'; 'Jan Dekelver'; 'Chuck
Hitchcock'; 'Hiroshi Kawamura'; 'Gez Lemon'; 'Clayton Lewis'; 'Gian
Sampson-Wild'; 'Keith Smith'; 'Roberto Scano'; 'Stephen Shore'; 'Nancy
Ward'; 'Paul Bowman'; 'John Slatin'; 'Elbert Johns'; 'Gregg  
Vanderheiden';
'Michael Cooper'; 'Judy Brewer'; 'WCAG'
Subject: Re: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to cognitive,  
learning, and
language disabilities

Lisa,

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

regards

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."

and

"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 !

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/W3C-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0455.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/W3C-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0456.html

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
incorrect.

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.

Thanks,
Loretta
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:00:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:49 GMT