my responses to WCAG 2.1 process review survey

Hi All,

Below are my responses to the 3 questions in the WCAG 2.1 process review survey.

The current AG WG decision policy was used during the WCAG 2.1 development process.
* ( ) The decision policy is fine as it is.
* (x) The decision policy needs some changes, as follows:
* ( ) Other (details in comments)
Decisions are made, in large part, on GitHub content. GitHub is insufficiently accessible to members of the COGA Task Force who have cognitive disabilities. I think solutions could be one or more of the following: use of an another, equivalent tool accessible to COGA members;
plain-language instructions presented with, and relevant to, each GitHub feature; GitHub instructions delivered multi-modally, such as with TTS or video; and on-demand training by people knowledgeable about GitHub and good at simple explanations.

Please share any comments and suggestions for improvements.
* ( ) The techniques and Understanding development process was fine.
* ( ) The techniques and Understanding development process needs
improvements, as follows:
* (x) Other (details in comments)
I would like us to include plain-language versions of everything, or at least plain-language summaries. If non-technical people, such as the general public, lawyers, regulators, and project managers, can understand our content, I think there will be significantly more adoption of the WCAG.

Please use this space to provide any additional comments about processes that are not covered by any of the above questions.
Much of the pushback to COGA SC included requests to produce research directly-relevant to cognitive Web accessibility. There is almost no such research. The W3C recognizes that COGA Task Force members have extensive expertise and experience with people who have cognitive disabilities. That we do, and for other reasons, a lack of research should not be used to interfere with COGA Task Force work, such as getting SC passed.

John

John Rochford<http://bit.ly/profile-rj>
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center
Director, INDEX Program
Faculty, Family Medicine & Community Health
www.DisabilityInfo.org
LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-rochford/>

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies of the original message.

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 3:47 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: Process review post-WCAG 2.1

All,
The Working Group has discussed a process to review the working group process that we used for WCAG 2.1. We want to make sure that we are collecting people’s thoughts, comments, complaints, and suggestions in order to have a deliberate and open review and to develop proposals for how to best proceed. We have received some suggestions already, including some received from the Director during the CR transition, and we will be incorporating that into the discussion.

The first step is to solicit feedback over a period of time (July 30-August 24).

Feedback can be provided confidentially, but even when it is provided confidentially, the general outcome of private conversations will need to be shared with chairs in order to discuss solutions, but efforts will be made to preserve anonymity. To be solutions-focused, problem descriptions should be accompanied by solutions proposals which consider the effect of proposals on other participants and issues.

In this initial step, we are suggesting any of the following for providing feedback:

  *   A Web-Based Survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/processfeedback/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2002_09_wbs_35422_processfeedback_&d=DwMGaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=1gjqRJ4FmS0Dvy4grrxpSGQ22kBDJySgl3sl4MCpxdA&s=6vrSwsCdoJO7rOdkoHHkB_i0lwniKJtaccG9ND99sI8&e=>
  *   Email to group-ag-chairs@w3.org<mailto:group-ag-chairs@w3.org<mailto:group-ag-chairs@w3.org%3cmailto:group-ag-chairs@w3.org>>,  which is private to chairs but not anonymous
  *   Private contact with any of Andrew, Alastair, or Michael
  *   Private contact with Judy or Philippe
  *   Private contact with ombudspeople listed at https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/#ombuds<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_Consortium_pwe_-23ombuds&d=DwQGaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=1gjqRJ4FmS0Dvy4grrxpSGQ22kBDJySgl3sl4MCpxdA&s=C5_K9nCaUPE_ZpFQCW5zyoJk69oBKDfQLZI2TcsxNJE&e=>

Once the feedback is collected, the Chairs will develop a proposal and share it with the group, with the intent to finalize at TPAC.

The entire process is detailed in Alastair’s email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JulSep/0063.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.w3.org_Archives_Public_w3c-2Dwai-2Dgl_2018JulSep_0063.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=1gjqRJ4FmS0Dvy4grrxpSGQ22kBDJySgl3sl4MCpxdA&s=SlTLArkgU_DdCe76GQUhzoZBjvr8qvBXYA2e4AHQYQE&e=>

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_awkawk&d=DwQGaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=1gjqRJ4FmS0Dvy4grrxpSGQ22kBDJySgl3sl4MCpxdA&s=ChNrkdVlIu6vZZ_SP2Nj4skeefcA0HzwOYYcCZ5BoK0&e=>