W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Do we need a sub group or is this an issue paper?

From: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:07:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEsWMvTXPs+v3TbtLzkR20t-2QCMNd9t9RLu9-Nr9oV=QSG74A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> (This seems beyond anything GPII currently supports

I think in principle these 'high level' preferences can be handled by
the GPII, both in declaring preferences and by the matchmakers which
choose device settings based on preferences. In practice, work is
currently on simpler 'sensory' accessibility options - as that is what
devices currently support.

I agree with Debra that the Issue paper approach is more more
accessible and I think this is important work. It seems more an
'approach' than an issue. What this is doing is defining cognitive
accessibility preferences.

I'll discuss this on GPII and see if it is supportable and if anyone
would like to join us on this..
Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com


On 26 January 2015 at 12:11, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks
>
> I am wondering if we should have a subgroup to look at what can be done for
> personalization for cognitive disabilities.
>
> In the real world many disabled people have a "communication passport" that
> tells people how to communicate with them
>
> In the online world this would user preferences, however for our users it
> could be
>
> I do not like background noise
> I like "yes and no" questions only
> I like one idea on a page
> I know the following symbol set ....
> I can use the following video player...
>
>
>  how that can be constucted to enble important web content to adapt for
> them?  (This seems beyond anything GPII currently supports.)
>
> Do you think it should be an issue paper and /or done as a sub group?
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> Athena ICT Accessibility Projects
> LinkedIn, Twitter
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 11:07:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:51 UTC