Re: Important - reviewing WCAG 2.1 draft

        

        
            Hi GreggWill you be at CSUN? I will be giving a presentation with will Scott on the tools w are developing to make conformance to coga sc easy. It all comes down to the tools. Other people can of course make tools as well. But with the right tools accomidation for people with learning and cognitive disabilities will be at least as easy as the current accomidation requirements for the blind.All the bestLisa SeemanLinkedIn, Twitter---- On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:54:51 +0200  Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote ----+1 We can sink a boat by overloading it.   Hard thing to not do. A good test to apply our guidelines to all of our documents and pages.   If we can’t because it is too hard or too much work or not allowed….gregg Gregg C Vanderheidengreggvan@umd.edu   On Feb 27, 2017, at 4:13 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:Hi Lisa, The link seems to list all COGA issues whether in the 1st draft or not? Also, I think the plan is to open issues for comment again as they are linked from the 1st draft. I think it would help to have labels for things which are in the 1st draft, I’ll ask Michael about that. For anyone going out to various groups for comment, the best way to overcome criticism of the SCs will be to show that they are feasible and can be integrated in to the process of creating a website. If an SC doubles the cost of making a website (as an exaggerated example), it will be rejected by the people who implement websites because it is unreasonable. That kind of thing risks the whole of WCAG being rejected as unfeasible, so it is something to be careful of overall. I think everyone trusts that these SCs are useful and needed for people with Cognitive issues, it is really the feasibility (of which testability is a part) that is the issue. The problem is that these are new concepts to most people, and they look daunting from an implementation point of view. So I would really encourage everyone to gather feedback that includes examples of how these SC have been accomplished to show how easily it can be done. I’m assuming that some of the organisations you could contact know about these issues and have tried to overcome them already, how did they do that? If we move the effort to making these look easy to accomplish (relatively), that reduces the ‘cost’ side of the cost/benefit calculation, and makes them more likely to get through. Good luck at CSUN, wish I could be there! -Alastair   From: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>Date: Sunday, 26 February 2017 at 20:07To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>Subject: Important - reviewing WCAG 2.1 draftResent-From: <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>Resent-Date: Sunday, 26 February 2017 at 20:08 The new draft of WCAG - WCAG 2.1 has been published. See https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-WCAG21-20170228/  We have all worked really hard  to get some accommodation for people living with learning and  cognitive disabilities.  Unfortunately a lot of our recommendations are not in the new draft (see https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%20label%3ACOGAfor the full list)  Also most of the recommendation we proposed that did get in the draft are likely to get removed in the next version. You might notice red boxes next to them reading"This is a proposed Success Criterion that has not yet been formally approved by the Working Group. Discussion of the issue is available in Issue 30 and Pull Request 135. To file comments on this proposal, please raise new issues for each discrete comment in GitHub."  We expect a lot of negative comments as it is more expensive and difficult  for testing and evaluation. Although this is a consideration some positive feedback would help balance the reviews we get.  Can we find  people who care about people with cognitive disabilities   to review and comment? It would be fantastic if we can reach out to the major  relevant disability organisations.    I would suggest asking people to: Comment on any new success criteria that are important. Let us know if they are strong enough and the scope is wide enough. (most of them are under guideline 3)Comment on any success criteria that were proposed but did not get into the draft that you feel are important to get into the next draft (See the full list))Let us know if we have missed out any user needsTo comment, file an issue in the W3C WCAG 2.1 GitHub repository or send email to public-agwg-comments@w3.org  Note that any criteria that get downgraded to AAA conformance level will not be adopted. Thanks so much and all the bestLisa SeemanLinkedIn, Twitter