RE: volunteer information with extended information

Hi Lisa,

I just signed up for / added my name to: “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.”

John

John Rochford<http://profiles.umassmed.edu/profiles/display/132901>
UMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver Center
Director, INDEX Program
Instructor, Family Medicine & Community Health
www.DisabilityInfo.org
Twitter: @ClearHelper<https://twitter.com/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 8:44 AM
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: volunteer information with extended information


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



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

 What wording to start with?

we have the SC proposal at <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html#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.x> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html<https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html#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.x>

However we have split up some of them https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/rewrodedsc2.html


I suggested looking at the SC in the full proposal and seeing if it is redone in the rewording. If it is use the new wording, but use  the exceptions terms and techniques in the original proposal.  If needed I will merge them once the proposal  is approved by the group



All the best

Lisa SeemanLinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>