- From: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 09:48:44 +0100
- To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "McSorley, Jan" <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEsWMvQVJBQCsWHE=Qy-9goa6eZs-8tOu2pvXctWpeaut3Ck6w@mail.gmail.com>
+1 I was not so happy but being timid with this :) Steve Lee OpenDirective http://opendirective.com On 14 September 2018 at 08:04, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote: > I made some more changes > > *"This document is for people who make web standards and policies (rules > for the Web). It is about:* > > - * problems people with learning and cognitive disabilities have > using the web and * > - *how they could be solved."* > > from > > *"This document is for people who make web standards and policies. It > focuses on the state of accessibility for people with learning and > cognitive disabilities when using the Web." * > > > To me this uses easier words. Do you agree? > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > > > > ---- On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 18:23:15 +0300 *Alastair Campbell > <acampbell@nomensa.com <acampbell@nomensa.com>>* wrote ---- > > Hi Jan & everyone, > > > > I applied JohnK’s comment about the first paragraph and put the links into > the abstract, and I’ve coped that below for reference. > > > > Also, can we move the “it builds on” bit to the last paragraph? It doesn’t > seem as important, and then all the ‘dense’ information is at the end of > the abstract. > > > > Jan, you mentioned some improvements to the bullet-points during the call > but we didn’t have time to talk about that, can we do that over email? > > > > I did remove some of the ones from JohnR’s version, but mainly because > we’ve remove the appendix (e.g. with policy guidance), so obviously we > don’t want to include things which aren’t in the doc! > > > > I’m also wondering which way around this should be: > > 1. Techniques (ways) to address the issues > 2. Ways to address the issues (Techniques) > > > > The second reads better to me, but maybe that’s just me? > > > > Cheers, > > > > -Alastair > > > > Current version from the google doc: > > --------------------- > > This document is for people who make web standards and policies. It > focuses on the state of accessibility for people with learning and > cognitive disabilities when using the Web. > > > > This document provides: > > - A summary of issues, > - Techniques (ways) to address the issues, > - A list of unmet user needs, > - Suggested ways technologies may meet these needs in the future. > > > > For advice for people making web content see "Making content usable for > people with cognitive and learning disabilities > <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html#a-appendix-making-content-usable-for-people-with-cognitive-and-learning-disabilities> > ". > > > > This document builds on the Cognitive Accessibility User Research > <https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/new-titles-and-intros/gap-analysis/index.html#bib-coga-user-research> > and Cognitive Accessibility Issue Papers > <https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/>. It is produced by the Cognitive > and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/> (COGA TF), a joint task > force of the Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/>(APA WG) and the Accessibility Guidelines > Working Group <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/> (AG WG) of the Web > Accessibility Initiative <http://www.w3.org/WAI/>. > > > > >
Received on Friday, 14 September 2018 08:49:09 UTC