Re: Evidence that WCAG 2.0 WG 'promised' to cover Cognitive issues in the next version of WCAG

A personal note  explaining the objection can be found athttps://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0119

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:44:46 +0200 lisa.seeman<lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote ---- 

HiWe had a formal objection to WCAG 2.0's  claim that it defined and addressed the requirements for making Web content accessible to those with learning difficulties, cognitive limitations. 
It was co-signed by almost 60 organizations and individuals. See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0118.html (You may recognise a name or two)


I understood WCAG's response was  to acknowledge that cognitive needs were, in part, not adequately addressed due to a lack of research and called for additional research so it can be better addressed in the future and "Eventually we would expect to incorporate this research into future accessibility guidelines". The wording of the introduction to WCAG was changed to reflect that further research was needed to fully address cognitive disabilities and the claim that these requirements were fully addressed by WCAG 2.0 was removed. 


I am having trouble finding the direct link but here is  a site that quotes it. http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WCAG/cognitive/message061122.html


Hope that helps...

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:52:09 +0200 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL<ryladog@gmail.com> wrote ---- 

 Dear WG participants,
 
At their behest, I had a meeting with the WCAG chairs this morning about the continued unrest in the WG. They would like us to return to a time when work was getting done, and stability was the norm. So would I. In that vein, they stated they want to make decisions on the direction of the WG based on facts, not conjecture. 
 
This morning, as in the past on an occasion or two, I have been asked to provide ‘evidence’ that when we were wrapping up our WCAG 2.0 work, before publication, that much of the work that those who worked on the Cognitive issues SC at that time, were very disappointed and unhappy that the bulk of the recommendations for those SC were either moved to Level AAA or not included – and that we, the WG ‘assured’ (promised is my word) those people that if/when WCAG was updated, that Cognitive Issues would be addressed.
 
​​​​​Does anyone have time to research this, and find either minutes or something that supports my recollection – that we did in fact, do that?
 
Thanks in advance.
 
 
 
* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog