I would be a little apprehensive to say “improve” cognitive accessibility. I’d prefer “ensure” or “related to” over “improve”. Only because there are techniques that actually scientifically improve/enhance cognition. Companies like Posit Science use them for rehabilitation, and other things. I wouldn’t want to, in any way, allow for misconception. Something like: For example, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) includes requirements related to (or that ensure) cognitive accessibility. The requirements (known as “success criteria”) are in guidelines such as: - Fazio This message was Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typographic errors. On Mar 8, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org<mailto:shawn@w3.org>> wrote: Hi Abi, Thanks much for the input at <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2019Mar/0036.html>. I agree that sentence is not totally smooth. <start message> I am struggling with the sentence " They are under these and other guidelines:" in the section on Cognitive Accessibility in W3C standards. It does not seem a clear way to say this. My suggestion would be to add "such as" to the previous sentence so that it read: For example, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) includes requirements (called “success criteria”) that improve cognitive accessibility such as: </end message> The issue is that the sentence talks about requirements/success criteria, yet the list is of guidelines (not success criteria). Also, some on the TF call wanted to avoid "For example" and "such as" in the same sentence -- which I agree with. A couple of options: 1. For example, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) includes requirements that improve cognitive accessibility. The requirements (called “success criteria”) are in guidelines such as: 2. For example, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) includes requirements that improve cognitive accessibility. The requirements (called “success criteria”) are in these and other guidelines: I do think #1 is more straightforward. However, it seem to me a bit wimpy. We really want this section to be strong. For that reason, I'm thinking #2 -- or something more like it -- might be better. Thoughts? Thanks, ~Shawn <http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/>Received on Friday, 8 March 2019 21:19:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:02 UTC