W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > March 2019

RE: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:49:43 +0000
To: David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
CC: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM5PR0902MB2002A749D0FBD8BA8CB7BEA6B9480@AM5PR0902MB2002.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi David,

I agree that it probably won’t come up. From looking at the proposed SCs, the COGA ones are all interface / task-oriented SCs, so I don’t think this will come up for 2.2 anyway.

As a side note:
One source of my concern is from experience of testing at AAA, and SC such as:
3.1.6 pronunciation, where you have to read every word on the page and work out whether it could be mis-understood as another word. (E.g. is “Desert” used as “abandon” or “arid region”?)

It is *really* easy to miss instances, and very hugely time consuming to test, especially if you are doing it to the side of your day job (like most of the people I train). If there were a tool that could highlight those words from a set list, that would be a massive improvement. That is the type of thing that could pull the requirement up a level as it would be more feasible and applicable across scenarios.

NB: I’m not assuming that SC is something that helps folk with neuro-cognitive issues, it is just an example where available tools would make a difference.


Received on Monday, 11 March 2019 23:50:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:02 UTC