W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > May 2017

Re: please check this SC before we submit it to wcag survey

From: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 15:02:29 -0500
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OF532B7ADD.57E106DE-ON86258123.006DF85B-86258123.006E174E@notes.na.collabserv.com>
The difficulty is when there are "loopholes" there's also differences in
interpretation where some organizations, government entities, etc. will
take it to mean the strictest possible interpretation.

Best regards,

Mary Jo
                    Mary Jo                                                                    
                    IBM Research,                                                              
                    Austin, TX                                                                 
                    512-286-9698 |                                                             
                    Search for                                                                 

"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader."
~John Quincy Adams

From:	"lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
To:	Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc:	"public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Date:	05/17/2017 08:13 AM
Subject:	Re: please check this SC before we submit it to wcag survey

Hi Gregg

I basically agree with you , and that is why we are working on the
supplement. However we would like to get some hocks/pillars of
accessibility into WCAG 2.1 as well - even if they end up having loopholes,
people will look at them and people who want to will do it well.

(A lot of WCAG can be done badly  -it is hard to avoid that )

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:58:51 +0300 Gregg C
Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote ----


 OK so if I have a 10,000 page document — I can provide a simple summary of
 two sentences and it will pass?

 How about a one sentence summary  (like the title)?

 In another document I highlight two key words when they are used.

 This will make these documents substantially easier for people with
 cognitive disabilities?


 My concern is that we take what should be good advice - but not really
 quantifiable - and we keep trying to make SC out of them instead of
 abandoning this SC fixation and writing a good document on how to make
 things better for People with cognitive disabilities.

 There is SO MUCH we have to say — and SO LITTLE  that is  “do exactly this
 and it will help (at least some significant portion of ) people with
 cognitive disabilities without making it harder for others to use.

 YES - there are cognitive SC to be captured — but not that many compared
 to all the good advice and guidance we could provide if we just stopped
 trying to make good advice and guidance into SC.


 Gregg C Vanderheiden

       On May 17, 2017, at 3:30 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>

       After Greggs comments we are rewording  provide support   (closer to
       the original - before we were told to avoid lists).

       Are people happy with the following language...

       For long documents, numerical information, relative and cardinal
       directions, multi page forms and non-standard controls one of the
       following is provided

             Charts, tables or graphics are provided to  aid the
             Numbers are reinforced with non-numerical values
             A  summary is provided
             At least two keywords are visually emphasized in long
             Instructions are available for non standard controls
             context sensitive help is provided
             For multi step forms, signposts should be provided to clarify
             the broader context including steps completed, current step
             and steps pending.
             alternative terms are available for  relative and cardinal

       non-standard controls, long documents etc are defined terms

       All the best

       Lisa Seeman

       LinkedIn, Twitter

       ---- On Tue, 16 May 2017 00:29:08 +0300 Gregg C Vanderheiden<
       greggvan@umd.edu> wrote ----
       again  a great idea — and  Great advice.

       But it cannot be  an SC  because it is not testable.

            Content is provided that helps users understand complex
            information, long documents, numerical information, relative
            and cardinal directions, forms and non-standard controls.

        What kind of content?
       How much?
       If I provide any content at all how am I to know where the line is
       between complex and noncomplex information. And if I do provide
       something that is complex, what does providing content to help
       understand it mean? If I provide a link at the top of the page it
       says, here is a book on the topic, is that providing content to help
       understand the information?
       You have cardinal directions listed. If a person doesn’t understand
       directions what is sufficient for me to put on my page to explain

       In short, is an author and no idea one I have crossed any of these
       lines, and I absolutely no idea what sufficient to meet the success
       criteria from the language in the success criteria.

       Great idea, but doesn’t qualify as a success criterion. Any
       criterion has to  be very specific  and measurable  with a statement
       as to exactly when something passes


       Gregg C Vanderheiden

             On May 15, 2017, at 2:56 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com
             > wrote:

             Hi Folks

             We are reworking the wording on provide support

             Can everyone check if they are happy with the user need has
             been well addressed?

             Know issues:
             1, we need to give research for the definitions on long
             2, we may get rid of multi page forms or find better
             techniques/ definition  and
 3,  non- standard controls-  this term may need to change  
 or be better defined                                       

             All the best

             Lisa Seeman

             LinkedIn, Twitter

(image/jpeg attachment: 65223289.jpg)

(image/jpeg attachment: 65931807.jpg)

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

(image/gif attachment: 65789607.gif)

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:33:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:58 UTC