RE: Draft Silver Response

Hi Rachael,

That is a perfect response. I endorse it.

My only suggestions are that you replace “Down Syndrome” with “Intellectual Disability” and fix the typo, “nad map”.

John

John Rochford<http://bit.ly/profile-rj>
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center
Director, INDEX Program
Faculty, Family Medicine & Community Health
www.DisabilityInfo.org
LinkedIn Profile<http://bit.ly/profile-rj>
EasyText.AI Research<http://easytext.ai/>

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: Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:13 PM
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Draft Silver Response

Hello,

Based the discussions we had, I've drafted a strawman response to send to Silver.  I tried to draw from the minutes and emails I've seen but I've likely missed or misstated something. I would appreciate your feedback. We will disucss this briefly at tomorrow's meeting but please send edits to the group.

Thank you,

Rachael

***DRAFT BEGINS HERE***

To: Silver Taskforce
From: COGA Taskforce
Re: Silver Conformance Models

Hello,

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed conformance models. We recognize they are in an early phase at this point and hope that we can continue to talk with you as they progress. Our comments at this time are as follows:
·  A very complex scoring system may make it difficult for people with cognitive disabilities to use.  These drafts are so complex right now that it is difficult to review and provide feedback. Whatever solution is suggested, it needs to include plain text alternatives to the formulas and complexity to allow for inclusive review and comment.
·  Usability testing with individuals with disabilities is a key need to support COGA but there are risks such as difficulty in gaining legislative adoption and the possibility teams will intentionally create less usable systems to ensure "good" usability test results.  Any model should work to reduce these risks while still including usability as an important component.
·  There is a risk for COGA  in weighting issues by severity as small issues can lead to fatigue but individually would not be "severe."  There is also a risk in measuring by groups as COGA represents a very diverse set of users with overlapping but sometimes distinct user needs. If, for example, visual disabilities are broken out into subgroups such as blind, low vision, and color blind then COGA should also be broken out into distinct such groups such as Dyslexia, Aphasia, Non-verbal - Severe Speech and Language impairments, Aging and Dementia,  Down Syndrome, Autism, Dyscalculia, Anxiety, and Depression.
·  We also believe that any conformance model should begin with nad map to user needs.
Thank you again,

Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force