RE: Privacy and Security Success Criteria Doc

I am sorry John for the confusion. It is the draft we have been reviewing on the call each week,  I added clarification to the email

All the best

Lisa SeemanLinkedIn, Twitter







---- On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:53:17 +0300  Rochford<john.rochford@umassmed.edu> wrote ---- 

    Hi Lisa,
  
 Your questions and my answers are below.
  
 ·      Lisa: Do you want me to look at anything?
  o  John: No. I now fear I did everything wrong / wasted my time.
 ·      Lisa: Did you look at the main proposal at  https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html#provide-a-clear-structure-that-includes ?
  o  John: No, because that doc was not referenced in your message requesting volunteers for success criteria.
 ·      Lisa: Also I do not see you down for that SC but the one on avoid harming the user.
  o  John: On the SC To Do List to which you referred us, I added my name under “Do not add mechanisms that are likely to confuse the user in a way that may do them harm and use known techniques to keep the user safe” because I assumed that is: the privacy and security one; and the one you wanted me to address. 
  
  John
  
 John RochfordUMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver CenterDirector, INDEX ProgramInstructor, Family Medicine & Community Healthwww.DisabilityInfo.orgTwitter: @ClearHelper
 
 
 
 
 
  
 Confidentiality Notice:
 This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies of the original message.
 
  
   From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:17 AMTo: Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>Subject: Re: Privacy and Security Success Criteria Doc
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  Hi John
   
 
  DO you want me to look at anything?
   
 
  Also I do not see you down for that SC but the one on avoid harming the user. Did you look at the main proposal at https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html#provide-a-clear-structure-that-includes
 
   
 
   
 
   
  All the best Lisa Seeman
 

 
 LinkedIn, Twitter
 
 
 
  
   
 ---- On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 23:17:00 +0300 Rochford<john.rochford@umassmed.edu> wrote ---- 
 
    Hi Lisa,
  
 I have spent 6+ hours on the draft of the web security and privacy criteria.  I have much work to do, which I will continue this week.
  
  John
  
 John Rochford
 UMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver CenterDirector, INDEX ProgramInstructor, Family Medicine & Community Health
 
 
 www.DisabilityInfo.org
 Twitter: @ClearHelper
  
 Confidentiality Notice:
 This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies of the original message.
 
  
   From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:34 AMTo: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <
 
 public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>Subject: volenteer for success cryteria
 
 
 
  
     
 
  Hi Folks
 
   
 
  Please can you volunteer for putting success criteria into the WCAG template by signing up here:
 
 https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/SC_todo_list
   
 
  Writing up according to the template: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/wiki/Proposals-for-new-Success-Criteria
 
   
 
  (also attached as html page - if you need it in MS word let me know)
 
   
 
  I made a sample at : https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/support-personalization.html (note this does not follow the template right now but has all the content - I will try to update it to the new template soon) 
 
   
 
  It is worth looking at wcag 2.O such as https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/text-equiv-all.html to see the kind of wording used in WCAG.
 
   
 
  Comply with: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria
 
   
 
  Also, realy realy important , is we want to get these passed, to do this we realy want to:  
 
   
 
    show the benefits including any evidence and
 show test-ability
 make it clear
 
  you can see an example of a general test procedure here: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20160317/G92.html#G92-tests
 
   
 
  Some thing we might want to clarify s that people with cognitive disabilities include many types of disabilities such as
 
  people with 
 
    Language related disabilities
 Memory related disabilities
 Focus and attention related disabilities
 Executive and decision making disabilities
 
   
 
   
 
   
  All the best Lisa Seeman
 

 
 LinkedIn, Twitter