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

Yes we should be making the deadline

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 21:19:11 +0200 Wayne Dick<wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote ---- 

Dear Andrew et. al., 
The Low Vision Task Force has identified core set of SCs and 
techniques, and I think we can make our deadline of 12/1, Thanksgiving 
not withstanding. Can the Cognitive Group do that? Their changes seem 
harder to make testable. I am frankly worried that the schedule may 
not support them. 
 
Wayne 
 
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote: 
> Thanks Lisa. 
> 
> Related to the objection, Lisa wrote that: 
> 
> The aim of the objection is that: 
> a, The working group understands that WCAG 2.0 does not provide all the 
> requirements for access for cognitive limitations, and 
> b, to encourage continued work on an extension guideline that will address 
> these needs. 
> 
> I agree completely – I don’t think that anyone believes that WCAG 2.0 
> addresses all requirements for any user group, but in particular cognitive. 
> 
> Lisa then wrote: 
> 
> I also want to offer again to set up a sub group to work on an extension 
> guideline or success criteria that does the job. Personally I believe 
> what is needed is a concentrated and planned effort, that should include: 
> 
> a.. An evaluation of different learning disabilities and cognitive 
> limitations 
> b.. An analysis of the difficulties of the different groups when accessing 
> web content 
> c.. A gap analysis between current techniques and required support 
> d.. Innovation and proposal stage 
> e.. User testing of proposed techniques 
> 
> I hope that people agree that the work of the COGA TF is squarely in line 
> with this list, and in some cases goes beyond it. The COGA group has 
> indicated that they have focused on certain types of cognitive disabilities 
> and that there is more work to be done in the future to complete an 
> evaluation, but they have taken a big chunk in this first effort. 
> 
> The COGA group will be able to propose new techniques and as we know, will 
> also be suggesting new success criteria (this is the part that isn’t called 
> out in the above list), so I’m happy (but not surprised) to see that the 
> focus of the COGA group is so well-aligned to the concerns around the time 
> of publication of WCAG 2.0. 
> 
> Of course, we still need to get the SC and techniques written and accepted, 
> but that work is underway! 
> 
> Thanks, 
> AWK 
> 
> Andrew Kirkpatrick 
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility 
> Adobe 
> 
> akirkpat@adobe.com 
> http://twitter.com/awkawk 
> 
> From: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> 
> Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:51 
> To: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> 
> Cc: Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, 
> "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Loretta 
> Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>, CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, 
> Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> 
> Subject: Re: Evidence that WCAG 2.0 WG 'promised' to cover Cognitive issues 
> in the next version of WCAG 
> Resent-From: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" 
> <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org> 
> Resent-Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:51 
> 
> A personal note explaining the objection can be found at 
> https://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 ---- 
> 
> Hi 
> We 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>