Re: Important proposed change in our surveys

We would add a note in the 2.1 draft of these todo items. It is common to have in a first working draft to-do items, and this enables us to both identify they have a  problem and include them for review by the community.

AWK: I expect that we will be doing that, sure.

Let me be clear, after all the research and issue papers we can not claim that there is not enough research to enable support for learning and cognitive (like we did for 2.0). We also can not claim we support all disabilities when we do not. We must work/innovate to enable us to support them. The most we could do is say we could not reach consensus on how to make it clear/testable/ easy to do etc... which should mean that  this specification is not yet finished and not that we left them out.

AWK: I don’t think that anyone is making that claim (regarding the research). I do think that we can make a claim to support disabilities, but need to be clear that there is a difference between supporting disabilities and creating a standard that eliminates all possible barriers that people with disabilities may face. WCAG 2.0 includes success criteria that support cognitive, low-vision, and mobile, but there is more to do. I could say the same for WCAG 2.0 and blind and deaf users. There is always more to be done.

We should only reject SC and leave them out, or demote them to AAA if they are not needed to include people with disabilities.

AWK: I don’t agree with this statement. First off, if something is not needed to include people with disabilities it isn’t going to be demoted to AAA, it will not be in the document at all. Second, even if a SC includes a great idea there are many reasons that an SC might not make the cut. Sign language, extended audio description, and low or no background audio are items that certainly benefit users with disabilities but that didn’t make the cut in WCAG 2.0, and I know that these were not put into AAA without a careful discussion of the pros and cons.

AWK

---- On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:04:33 +0200 Thaddeus .<inclusivethinking@gmail.com<mailto:inclusivethinking@gmail.com>> wrote ----

I feel the same. I feel like my SC are not moving forward well. I have a lot of criticism of the SC without much constructive criticism or indications of suggestions to imporove.
I am trying to move the conversation away from pure criticism but it has been difficult. I also am finding that many times we are restating supporting comments that have already been stated earlier in the issue thread.

Thaddeus

On Jan 31, 2017 10:19 AM, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote:
I added the link to the w3c specification,  that is  the first Accessible authentication technique. It is in the  comments of the issue.


my 2 cents if these  COGA SC (Such as Accessible authentication) do not go in,  then WCAG 2.1 will be a joke, because we will know, when we publish, that conformant content will not include or be useable by people with cognitive disabilities. It will not be inclusive content.

A basic question we need to ask is if we need wcag to enable content to be accessible to people with any cognitive disabilities, and is that an important thing.


If we do, we need to find ways to include this stuff, we need to change the focus from saying no to finding solutions to make this work and include them.

If we don't we are wasting our time. we may meet our deadlines but we will achieve little else .  Please do not suggest moving things to AAA. It is insulting to the user groups excluded.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

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