Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward

+1 

    On Thursday, May 25, 2017 9:04 AM, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
 

 #yiv0149008775 #yiv0149008775 -- _filtered #yiv0149008775 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0149008775 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0149008775 #yiv0149008775 p.yiv0149008775MsoNormal, #yiv0149008775 li.yiv0149008775MsoNormal, #yiv0149008775 div.yiv0149008775MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0149008775 a:link, #yiv0149008775 span.yiv0149008775MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0149008775 a:visited, #yiv0149008775 span.yiv0149008775MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0149008775 p.yiv0149008775msonormal0, #yiv0149008775 li.yiv0149008775msonormal0, #yiv0149008775 div.yiv0149008775msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0149008775 span.yiv0149008775EmailStyle19 {color:windowtext;}#yiv0149008775 .yiv0149008775MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv0149008775 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0149008775 div.yiv0149008775WordSection1 {}#yiv0149008775 In general, and not only with respect to COGA proposals, I think the working group will need to concentrate on a small set of high-priority success criteria for inclusion in 2.1 if it is to meet the schedule prescribed by the Charter.    I would define “high priority” as a combination of (1) a high degree of benefit to users with disabilities, and (2) capacity of the proposals to achieve the quality requirements that need to be met by WCAG 2.x success criteria.    I think it’s inevitable that the group will focus on a relatively small subset of the proposals in an attempt to bring WCAG 2.1 to completion; it’s only a question of when we recognize this necessity and act on it (either now, or later on as the deadline approaches and everyone belatedly acknowledges what is needed). I would like to see proposals that have major problems of testability and feasibility filtered into the supplemental advice category, and the working group’s efforts concentrated on proposals that have a chance of making it into the final Recommendation.    From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:19 AM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward    We’ve been talking about ways to encourage the inclusion of success criteria that benefit users with cognitive or learning disabilities in WCAG 2.1.  The SC proposed by COGA are not going to all make it into WCAG 2.1 due to a variety of concerns ranging from testability to lack of working group time to discuss all proposals. Unfortunately for end users with disabilities, all of the SC proposed are designed to address real problems faced by some users and without the SC being incorporated into WCAG 2.1 the users are likely to continue to face barriers.    Of course, this is also true for low-vision and mobile SC proposals, but the issue is more acute for COGA as the SC proposals are much more numerous and we want to help strategize on how to focus the efforts of the group on a smaller set of COGA SC. With the supplementary guidance document, we will be able to provide additional best practice-level suggestions to improve access for users with cognitive disabilities, but we still want to have a core set of items in WCAG 2.1.    We are thinking about defining a set of "pillars of cognitive accessibility" in WCAG 2.1 and then expanding on them in the supplemental guidance. The pillars would likely be based on ideas from the COGA Roadmap and Gap Analysis document (https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/#roadmap---tables-of-user-needs) and would provide a structure for 6-8 WCAG 2.1 SC and the additional guidance within the supplementary document would follow the same pattern.    This will require some additional work on the part of the COGA TF and from this group as the current proposals may not fit precisely with the pillars. We would be looking to draw from the SC proposals made earlier but only include parts that directly relate to the applicable pillar and that we think can pass the WG consensus process. Remaining concepts from the SC proposals would be targeted for inclusion in the supplemental guidance document.    We wanted to see if the WG thinks this approach could work and would support us in making sure we can increase the chance that we have a good core of improvements for COGA in WCAG 2.1. Please let us know if you have any thoughts or concerns.    Thanks, AWK    Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Accessibility Adobe     akirkpat@adobe.com http://twitter.com/awkawk 
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
Thank you for your compliance.