> I understood that our mandate in 2.1 was to address cognitive, low > vision and mobile. So were as this language was reasonable at the > begining, it became less and less accurate as the draft developed. > (Until the last few weeks, it looked like there would be at least > some reasonable accommodation for people with cognitive disabilities > in 2.1. ) > Thanks Lisa, respectfully I have to disagree that our mandate/vision for COGA became less accurate as the draft developed, rather our collective realisation of hard it is to get this right came into sharp focus. Much energy has been expended by the group on COGA related SC and issues. Both the record and our collective memory will assert this. Interestingly your comments (here and elsewhere) do relate/imply the 'gradual development of WCAG' - this is just the case. I would be careful to not see 2.1 as 'the end of the road' it's not. A > All that being said I know a lot of people on this list have made a > huge effort, and I do not want to minimise that. Right, actually the excellent work that you and others in COGA have been doing is practically paving the way for a much more robust standard. > Maybe it is just our timelines focus or our processes but we have not > done what we set out to do. Wrong. The work is just ongoing and really hard - I urge you (and others) to not underestimate the importance of those 'paving stones' and lets build on that to move forward. To channel my inner gardener - each thing that grows successfully has a seed that then flowers and that must be cared for if it is to fructify. No matter how much we may want it, it will just not bear fruit before its time - and therefore some things just need more work. Thanks -- Joshue O Connor Director | InterAccess.ie
Received on Friday, 26 January 2018 11:23:21 UTC