- 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.c>
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
Mueller
Accessibility
Standards
Program
Manager
IBM
Accessibility,
IBM Research,
Austin, TX
Phone:
512-286-9698 |
Tie-line:
363-9698
Search for
accessibility
answers
"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 ----
EXAMPLES OF PROBLEM
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?
WHERE I THINK WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING OUR EFFORT (NOT SC’s)
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.
g
Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu
On May 17, 2017, at 3:30 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
wrote:
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
comprehension
Numbers are reinforced with non-numerical values
A summary is provided
At least two keywords are visually emphasized in long
documents
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
directions
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
them?
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
g
Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu
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
document
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
Attachments
- 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