Re: my responses to WCAG 2.1 process review survey

John - that's awesome! I'll be interested in seeing how it handles all
the technical jargon!

Microsoft have an AI for accessibility fund too.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai-for-accessibility

Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com


On 30 July 2018 at 15:51, Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
>
>
> FYI: My research focuses on AI-driven text simplification. For it, I
> recently received funding from Amazon Machine Learning Research Awards. I
> will soon be blogging about this work.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> John Rochford
> University of Massachusetts Medical School
>
> Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center
> Director, INDEX Program
> Faculty, Family Medicine & Community Health
> www.DisabilityInfo.org
>
> LinkedIn
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Lee [mailto:steve@opendirective.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:43 AM
> To: Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
> Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org; Jeanne Spellman
> <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
> Subject: Re: my responses to WCAG 2.1 process review survey
>
>
>
> John said
>
>> 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: <snip>
>
> and
>
>> I would like us to include plain-language versions of everything, or at
>> least plain-language summaries.
>
>
>
> I've been thinking about this recently and I suspect the best solution
>
> would be an "Assistive Technology" that integrates with GitHub but
>
> provides simpler access and suitable content formats as required. It
>
> could ensure workflows are correctly followed. In a dream I could
>
> imagine AI converting text to easy reading version, similar to easy
>
> reading versions of web pages.
>
>
>
> I've been working on something along these lines for access to Media
>
> and Communications for people with cognitive disabilities and this
>
> might point to a useful approach. [1] Happy to discuss more.
>
>
>
> 1:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__alwaysinmind.info&d=DwIFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=c1Oxpxj2omwcq_NuCMsMo5LuYdv5Z_wOoUbKWIf1oh0&s=9qdjHIygH5Ef6HMACM5c0JuKWcOLctY8twCmPtG40wc&e=
> - try the demo
>
> Steve Lee
>
> OpenDirective
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__opendirective.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=c1Oxpxj2omwcq_NuCMsMo5LuYdv5Z_wOoUbKWIf1oh0&s=naBvsbyaCtGeSwP_V1JABLNcvs0NgYpTnFhcr9JQU7g&e=
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 July 2018 at 14:40, Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>> University of Massachusetts Medical School
>
>>
>
>> Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center
>
>> Director, INDEX Program
>
>> Faculty, Family Medicine & Community Health
>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.DisabilityInfo.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=c1Oxpxj2omwcq_NuCMsMo5LuYdv5Z_wOoUbKWIf1oh0&s=-W4-NJd-6c5amGcoPQJGqYBFRsLb9LwGNryCeLVH_rg&e=
>
>>
>
>> LinkedIn
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2002_09_wbs_35422_processfeedback_&d=DwIFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=c1Oxpxj2omwcq_NuCMsMo5LuYdv5Z_wOoUbKWIf1oh0&s=8eARvJqCANpmRE4Ykne6BC6bn1PZVySNDvmbRfAF2B4&e=
>
>>
>
>>   *   Email to group-ag-chairs@w3.org<mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_Consortium_pwe_-23ombuds&d=DwIFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=c1Oxpxj2omwcq_NuCMsMo5LuYdv5Z_wOoUbKWIf1oh0&s=AaCOVYXufsM8zN_YsdFA9gbS7nqWSsqb5hoba3in0kU&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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.w3.org_Archives_Public_w3c-2Dwai-2Dgl_2018JulSep_0063.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=c1Oxpxj2omwcq_NuCMsMo5LuYdv5Z_wOoUbKWIf1oh0&s=iMA9MhCx8GAYwN44WBL3IYfrINwkr0lpyc102uSSi5s&e=
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Thanks,
>
>>
>
>> AWK
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
>>
>
>> Head of Accessibility
>
>>
>
>> Adobe
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
>>
>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_awkawk&d=DwIFaQ&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=c1Oxpxj2omwcq_NuCMsMo5LuYdv5Z_wOoUbKWIf1oh0&s=lKHhyZC6YzbcjwBzU1IkY8kxtNna_mtJTrMOpARyM1s&e=

Received on Monday, 30 July 2018 15:46:30 UTC