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

Re: Starting over (was: RE: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to cognitive, learning, and language disabilities)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:13:45 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0703201913q7cd53c07t40abed2f97b120a3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "boland@nist.gov" <boland@nist.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I don't think the distinction between Types 2 and 3 is an issue of intent,
but whether the web page is also satisfying the other WCAG success criteria.
Type 2 would, and Type 3 wouldn't.

Loretta

On 3/20/07, boland@nist.gov <boland@nist.gov> wrote:
>
>
> Are Types 1, 2, and 3 truely mutually exclusive?  Can one discriminate
> between
> Types 2 and 3 on the basis of intent?
>
> Tim Boland NIST
>
>   Quoting Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>:
>
> >
> > Thanks John,
> >
> >    I think maybe we should be dividing our discussion into three
> categories
> >
> > Type 1) techniques appropriate for all content on all websites
> >
> > Type 2) techniques for web sites designed specifically for people with
> > cognitive disabilities but intended to be accessible by all including
> people
> > who also have other disabilities.
> >
> > Type 3) techniques for web sites designed specifically for people with
> > cognitive disabilities and not intended for people with other
> disabilities
> > to access.
> >
> > We need to be documenting all three types of techniques.
> >
> > But we will get into all sorts of arguments if we confuse Type 1 with
> Type 2
> > (or 3).  That is if people are talking about what can be done on special
> > sites with what could be done on all sites.
> >
> > There is much to be done in all 3 types.  But we need to keep which type
> we
> > are referring to straight in our discussions I think to not get
> confused.
> > Some of the examples have been of things that could be done on all
> sites.
> > Some are special sites.  All are good ideas for different applications.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> >  -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Slatin, John M [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:17 PM
> > > To: lisa; David MacDonald; Bailey, Bruce; j.chetwynd
> > > 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: Starting over (was: RE: Report on WCAG2 comments
> > > relating to cognitive, learning, and language disabilities)
> > >
> > > Can we restart this discussion? We'll lose our focus if
> > > people get angry.
> > >
> > > This is a difficult issue. I think everyone on this list
> > > wants to find good solutions. We're working hard to
> > > understand each other.
> > >
> > > I'm asking for help understanding the sites that use Bliss or
> > > other symbol languages. I have been to the sites that Lisa
> > > listed, and I've chosen the links to display Bliss or other
> > > symbol languages.
> > >
> > > I didn't understand the results. In some cases my screen
> > > reader spoke most of the words and phrases twice.
> > >
> > > This may have been because the content was presented in
> > > *both* English and Bliss, so the screen reader read both the
> > > English text and the alt text for the individual Bliss symbols.
> > >
> > > It was very difficult to understand!
> > >
> > > In another case I couldn't tell whether the content changed
> > > when I selected Bliss. Maybe that was because it worked
> > > correctly-- that is, maybe the content was presented only in
> > > Bliss, and JAWS read it like English because it was using alt text.
> > >
> > > I also visited one of the sites that Jonathan mentioned as an
> > > example that uses icons effectively. My screen reader
> > > couldn't handle it.
> > >
> > > I think something useful will emerge from all this. But we
> > > need to be patient with each other and explain as best we can.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > John
> > > "Good design is accessible design."
> > >
> > > Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
> > > Accessibility Institute
> > > University of Texas at Austin
> > > FAC 248C
> > > 1 University Station G9600
> > > Austin, TX 78712
> > > ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
> > > email john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
> > > Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lisa [mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:22 PM
> > > To: 'David MacDonald'; 'Bailey, Bruce'; 'j.chetwynd'
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >  >Could you send a link to the RDF document? I don't remember seeing
> > > that in completed form.
> > >
> > > It never was in a final form
> > > it was put on the non critical list and no one had time to review it.
> > >
> > > >The Peebo site requires SVG which requires a special
> > > download for most
> > > browsers. The messages that the browsers give are
> > > >>not too friendly to cognitive users. They give a warning
> > > that Active X
> > > controls can be dangerous. Many people with cognitive
> > > >disabilities would not know what to do with that, I would say.
> > >
> > >
> > > and yet many real people have enjoyed using it - people who
> > > can not use
> > > 99.9% of WCAG accessible sites
> > >
> > >
> > > >The DART site uses language and vocabulary (at least in
> > > English) which
> > > is
> > > quite advanced.
> > >
> > > your need to select the option in BLISS or pictures.
> > >
> > > I sent you these links because you seemed to want to see what
> > > was being
> > > done
> > > - what products are available etc, so you could understand how many
> > > people
> > > with disabilities use the web outside the WCAG communities.
> > >
> > > If you prefer to pick holes in how they are doing it, that is Ok too,
> > > but I
> > > don't see that will help anyone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:32 PM
> > > To: 'lisa'; 'Bailey, Bruce'; 'j.chetwynd'
> > > 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
> > >
> > > Hi Lisa
> > >
> > > >>and these techniques came of the to do list until after last call.
> > >
> > > I don't think this is an entirely fair statement. I looked at the
> > > Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with
> > > Cognitive
> > > Disabilities report and printed out the excerpts you listed.
> > > I compared
> > > our
> > > guidelines to those recommendations. I think that we've done much of
> > > what
> > > the report was recommending, to the extent that it applies to
> > > the web to
> > > the
> > > degree that it was testable. Also, many of the untestable
> > > techniques in
> > > that
> > > document are listed advisory as advisory in the guidelines.
> > > Much of that
> > > was
> > > due to your hard work and contribution while on the group.
> > >
> > > The primary reference for the Telecommunications document was
> > > the TRACE
> > > centre research which is active on our committee.
> > >
> > > Could you send a link to the RDF document? I don't remember
> > > seeing that
> > > in
> > > completed form.
> > >
> > > I personally do not have a problem with renaming advisory techniques
> > > "advisory and/or untestable techniques". The conformance section says
> > > that
> > > advisory techniques consist of helpful advice and techniques that are
> > > untestable. But I'm ok with saying that in every section. Of course it
> > > would
> > > depend on consensus.
> > >
> > > I did a brief examination of the sites you sent as models for
> > > cognitive
> > > accessibility.
> > >
> > > -The Peebo site requires SVG which requires a special
> > > download for most
> > > browsers. The messages that the browsers give are not too friendly to
> > > cognitive users. They give a warning that Active X controls can be
> > > dangerous. Many people with cognitive disabilities would not know what
> > > to do
> > > with that, I would say. Once I finally installed SVG, I went
> > > to the web
> > > portals page, and was met with a password dialogue box. I think that
> > > would
> > > confuse many people with cognitive disabilities. When I backed out of
> > > the
> > > unauthorized page warning, back to the homepage, I tried to link to
> > > other
> > > pages ("forms, splat, radio etc.) but the links were dead.
> > >
> > > -I went to handicom. I didn't find anything on the site itself that
> > > seemed
> > > particularly oriented to help people with cognitive issues. They sell
> > > Bliss,
> > > but they don't really use bliss on the web site. There was
> > > rotating gif
> > > on
> > > the home page, which for me we distracting. The language of
> > > the site is
> > > not
> > > particularly oriented to people below secondary level
> > > education. Here's
> > > an
> > > excerpt:
> > >
> > > "Handicom focuses its activities on the tangent plane between handicap
> > > and
> > > computer. Tomorrow's techniques are used for the development
> > > of adapted
> > > computer and communication tools. It's mainly software we make."
> > >
> > > -The DART site uses language and vocabulary (at least in
> > > English) which
> > > is
> > > quite advanced.
> > >
> > > --The ISSAC site uses icons on the nav bar and bliss symbols beside
> > > links.
> > > Which is good but again the language at least in English, is quite
> > > academic.
> > >
> > >
> > > -The Widget site uses icons but not much else on it was specifically
> > > gears
> > > to Cognitive. Again the language doesn't seem geared to people with
> > > cognitive disabilities. He's an exceprt.
> > >
> > > "2,000 new diverse and relevant symbols for WWS2000 and In Print to
> > > bring
> > > resources to life."
> > >
> > > None of the sites listed meet the guidelines set out in the
> > > 1991 report
> > > that
> > > was point as a guide. Nor would I expect them to.
> > >
> > > However, one common feature that I see on these sites that seems
> > > particularly geared to cognitive issues is the use of
> > > symbols. Which it
> > > think is a great idea and I think we should create a technique under
> > > 2.4.2
> > > titled
> > >
> > > "using pictures or symbols compliment link text"
> > >
> > > I think it is perfectly fine to say more research can to be
> > > done in this
> > > area. With cognitive issues I would say, we are currently where blind
> > > people
> > > were 30 years ago. And it's hard work from pioneers like you that is
> > > moving
> > > it forward.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David MacDonald
> > >
> > > access empowers people...
> > >         ...barriers disable them...
> > >
> > > www.eramp.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> > > Behalf
> > > Of lisa
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:56 AM
> > > To: 'David MacDonald'; 'Bailey, Bruce'; 'j.chetwynd'
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi David
> > >
> > > This discussion has proved my point. That it is not a lack of research
> > > that
> > > is the primary problem for accessibility for cognitive
> > > disabilities, but
> > > other factors - such as adoptability, interest "appropriateness" etc..
> > >
> > > It is essential that people do not think that following WCAG
> > > is the best
> > > they can do for these communities.
> > >
> > > Look  at the work of WAACI  and http://www.handicom.nl/  and
> > > http://peepo.com/  and ld-web.org. That will help you get an idea of
> > > what is
> > > doable - today.
> > >
> > >  WCAG does not contain guidelines that will help you achieve this type
> > > of
> > > accessibility.
> > >
> > > In terms of commercial websites that have adopted symbolic based
> > > accessibility - no I do not know of any. There is no legislation to
> > > drive
> > > them, and the discrimination against these groups are huge.
> > >
> > > BY the way, the 2001 email was just a sample. I spent years
> > > writing and
> > > writing test criteria's and guidelines for accessibility for cognitive
> > > disabilities. I wrote a CSS techniques, and an RDF techniques document
> > > and
> > > rewrote the success criteria a bunch of times. We need to view the
> > > archives
> > > to glean the different approaches and suggestions from over the years,
> > > Research existing successes and methodologies, perform a gap analysis
> > > etc.....
> > >
> > > A few sticky plasters is not what is needed. We as standard
> > > writers know
> > > that. We need a consistent integrated roadmap for access for cognitive
> > > disabilities. We have had years to do it but we decided to make it low
> > > priority, and these techniques came of the to do list until after last
> > > call.
> > > We can not now claim that we did the best we could.
> > >
> > > All the best
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:04 PM
> > > To: 'Bailey, Bruce'; 'lisa'; 'j.chetwynd'
> > > 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
> > >
> > > >>>For an example of a government site that is oriented
> > > towards people
> > > >>>with
> > > cognitive disabilities:The Medicaid Reference Desk
> > > http://thedesk.info/
> > >
> > > A prime feature for a cognitive person would be to be able to ask a
> > > question, I would say. But the link to the "ask question" page gives a
> > > 404
> > > link error. And it appears to have been like that since 2002.
> > >
> > > On the home page, the additional info summaries above the link list do
> > > not
> > > work for keyboard users, only for mouse users.
> > >
> > > Any page that is accessed from the home page comes up in a tiny window
> > > with
> > > all the Chrome from the browser. A cognitive person can't
> > > find the back
> > > button. Having the opened window tiny like that means that there are
> > > other
> > > visible windows on the computer screen, which would be confusing for
> > > many
> > > people with cognitive disabilities.
> > >
> > > David MacDonald
> > >
> > > access empowers people...
> > >         ...barriers disable them...
> > >
> > > www.eramp.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> > > Behalf
> > > Of Bailey, Bruce
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:56 AM
> > > To: David MacDonald; lisa; j.chetwynd
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > For an example of a government site that is oriented towards
> > > people with
> > > cognitive disabilities:
> > > The Medicaid Reference Desk
> > > http://thedesk.info/
> > >
> > > Nancy Ward and Clayton Lewis have been particularly involved with that
> > > project.  I did not find concept maps however.
> > >
> > > The claim to Triple A status (with a link to CAST no less) is
> > > troubling.
> > >
> > > P.S.:  Follows is a link to the HTML version of the PDF mentioned in
> > > Lisa's
> > > post from 2001.
> > > Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with
> > > Cognitive
> > > Disabilities http://www.wid.org/archives/telecom/
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> > > > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of David MacDonald
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:23 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
> > > >
> > > > Hi Lisa
> > > >
> > > > Can you provide a link to a successfully implemented
> > > concept map on a
> > > > commercial (or private site)? I would like to see one in
> > > use. Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
> > > 3/12/2007
> > > 7:19 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
> > > 3/12/2007
> > > 7:19 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/722 - Release Date:
> > > 3/14/2007
> > > 3:38 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/722 - Release Date:
> > > 3/14/2007
> > > 3:38 PM
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 02:14:01 GMT

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