RE: Easy Reading Summary & Abstract of Cognitive Accessibility Roadmap and Gap Analysis

+1 I like the Google doc layout.  I have been thinking about the word 'obsolete' and wonder if we could go for 'out of date' or 'no longer used'?

I have added some bits and a few more questions in places later in the document.

Best wishes
E.A.

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: 14 September 2018 09:55
To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Easy Reading Summary & Abstract of Cognitive Accessibility Roadmap and Gap Analysis

I wasn’t sure about the formatting of that, but the version in the google doc is good, so +1 from me.

Cheers,

-Alastair

From: Steve Lee <

+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<mailto: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<mailto: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/>.