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

RE: We have until tomorrow to object - Fwd: RE: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

From: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 09:58:48 -0500
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OF0717F16B.C60901CC-ON8625812A.0051E650-8625812A.005249F0@notes.na.collabserv.com>
I also agree that a single non-normative supplement is the right way to go.
There can be descriptions about which user needs the guidance satisfies,
and made to allow filtering to narrow the view.

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:	Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
To:	"lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf
            <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "Neil.Milliken"
Date:	05/24/2017 09:19 AM
Subject:	RE: We have until tomorrow to object -  Fwd:  RE: Supplementary
            document for WCAG 2.1

I’m afraid I’ve always believed that a single non-normative supplemental
document was the correct way to go. I very much like David McDonald’s
proposal of being able to create disability specific views of the document
– particularly if one proposal/guideline can be in multiple views e.g. for
something that is a benefit for LV and COGA users. So I’ve +1-ed for that.

The last thing we want if for there to be even more W3C documents that
people outside W3C have to discover. I’m also not a fan of trying to link
recommendations and guidelines to specific disabilities or even categories
of disabilities. It seems to be the wrong way to go.

Best regards


From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
Sent: 24 May 2017 11:13
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>;
Neil.Milliken <neil.milliken@atos.net>
Subject: We have until tomorrow to object - Fwd: RE: Supplementary document
for WCAG 2.1

This is a call for consensus in WCAg for the supplement.

two potential issues

They want one document for all the supplemental guidance from all the task
forces. That means there would not be one document for coga.
I have a problem with this because we were hoping to make a document that
would be useful for policy makers and web authors to use to include people
with cognitive disabilities in some scenarios. The other task forces are
not looking for this as a use case for the document.

I therefore think we will have to argue every step of the way for how the
document is structured and whether we should try to make things testable
etc. We will lose our main reason for doing it this, if it is dominated by
calls for extra research or other usecases.

also it will be non-normative. we might have to live with this.

DO you agree or have other concerns? if so you have until tomorrow 12:00pm
Boston time to let wcag know. If you do not object  it will be one, non
normative, document.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 12:51 PM
 Subject: CFC: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1
 Importance: High

 Resending with the “high priority” flag per our process…

 Call For Consensus — ends Thursday May 25rd at 12:00pm Boston time.

 The Working Group has discussed the idea of providing additional guidance
 for accessibility beyond what is able to be included within WCAG 2.1. The
 idea is that success criteria proposals that cannot reach consensus or
 that there is insufficient time to review still have valuable information
 that might be able to be published for use. This idea was surveyed (
 ) and discussed on the call (
 ) and a resolution received consensus:

 RESOLUTION: the working group has agreed to publisihing supplemental
 guidance in 1 document that is non-normative

 If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
 been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
 being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
 the CfC deadline.


 Andrew Kirkpatrick
 Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility


 Andrew Kirkpatrick
 Group Product Manager, Accessibility


(image/jpeg attachment: 16765496.jpg)

(image/jpeg attachment: 16902504.jpg)

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

(image/gif attachment: 16642324.gif)

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 14:59:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:59 UTC