Judy's comments

Hi Folks
I would like to suggest the following changes in response to Judy's comments. We will need to check with APA and AG before we nclude them.



1. Add to the abstract: 

"It can be considered a supplement to WCAG accessibility guidelines."



2. Change the title of the policy appendix to "Considerations for uptake in different contexts and policies"





3. Add to the policy appendix the following sentences 

"Many agencies and services are required to use plain language and to be usable by vulnerable groups. This document will help content developers know what to do to achieve this goal across different geographical areas and include user groups of people with learning and cognitive disabilities. In addition many sites want to reach user groups such as millennials with  learning disabilities and people with age appropriate forgetfulness. This can be  because of their commitment to inclusion, or to enable growth in these high value, under-serviced, markets. Typically, there are many more people in the target audience with a cognitive or learning disability then the content provider is aware of, and many content providers are often losing these user groups.



This document  is not normative or designed for wide applicability for all websites and contexts. There are sites that may choose not to follow some or all of the advice in this document.  For example, a Web site for accountants may disregard any advice on accommodation for people who do not understand numbers, whilst realizing that many of their colleagues have other learning or communication impairments and age appropriate forgetfulness. (In contrast conformance to WCAG is required by law in many countries, and is designed to enable clear conformance and wide applicability for all web content.) 






(Of course WCAG will need to be an acronym and  link.)


All the best

Lisa Seeman

http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/, https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa





---- On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:44:10 +0300 lisa.seeman <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote ----


Thanks Judy for your comments. It is particularity appreciated that it comes with suggested remediation! 



Forwarding to the COGA task force. 


All the best

Lisa Seeman

http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/, https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa





---- On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:23:12 +0300 Judy Brewer <mailto:jbrewer@w3.org> wrote ----










Hi Janina and APA WG,

Thanks for the chance to review. Several comments follow. 

I'm unclear what the timeline is, since I'm seeing a 48-hour call
      in the subject line, a deadline below of Tuesday May 3 (perhaps
      Sunday the 3rd, or Tuesday the 5th?), and I'd heard of a hoped-for
      publication date of today, April 30th and see that on the current
      editors' draft. 

I do have several concerns that I think should be addressed
      before the document is published for wide review, as I believe
      these could create misunderstandings as to expectations that W3C
      WAI may be setting with the broader community unless these are
      clarified first. Most of these concerns relate to AGWG's scope of
      oversight of the COGA TF rather than APA's, but given my
      uncertainty on the publication timeline, I wanted to bring these
      to APA's attention as well as AGWG's. 

First, it is great to see how far the document has come -- it is
      clearer throughout, and from my perspective has extensive amounts
      of useful information in an area that is greatly needed.

Second, it is quite lengthy, and if APA and AGWG support putting
      this out for wide review, think that it is worth reading through,
      even if, with regard to substance, we may be relying on wide
      review to provide detailed feedback on the substance. 

My concerns are primarily with the abstract, and the policy
      section. 

The abstract does not appear to adequately represent the scope
        or contents of the document, and it gives no indication of how
        this document relates to any other W3C WAI accessibility
        guidance. Unless the abstracted is clarified and updated, I
        think we would should expect confusion around whether this
        document is a replacement for part or all of WCAG 2.x ; whether
        it's an entirely non-matching set of new requirements that now
        double the compliance picture for groups seeking to conform to
        accessibility requirements; or some other relationship to WAI's
        existing accessibility guidance. Any of these could detract from
        the progress evident in this document. I therefore recommend
        clarifying and updating the abstract, including explaining the
        relationship to existing WAI guidance.

It is unusual to have policy recommendations embedded in a W3C
        technical report, and particularly unusual to have those in a
        Note-track document. The policy guidance that is suggested in
        Appendix C doesn't describe how this guidance relates to any
        existing WAI guidance, and I think it needs to before it goes
        for wide review so that misunderstandings don't emerge.
        Nevertheless, the content of the policy appendix appears useful
        and relevant, for instance highlighting how this guidance could
        be taken up in policies for emergency services. One possibility
        would be to move that section to a separate document; another
        would be provide more clarification of the intention of this
        section, or even adjust the name and tone of this appendix. (I'm
        wondering if "Considerations for uptake in different contexts"
        would be more accurate heading for this section.) But I think
        addressing this issue before publication would reduce chances of
        misunderstandings that may be difficult to walk back.


Again, addressing these two concerns fall more under the purview
      of AGWG, but I think APA should be aware of these if you are each
      running a CfC ahead of First Public Working Draft publication.

Thank you for your consideration, 

- Judy

On 4/28/2020 3:39 PM, Janina Sajka
      (mailto:janina@rednote.net) wrote:

Colleagues:

This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
Architectures (APA) Working Group proposing a second 
wide review Draft publication of:

Making Content Usable for People With Cognitive and Learning
Disabilities

https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/changes-after-0327/content-usable/index.html

This document has been in development over many years in our (joint)
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities (COGA) Task Force. We appreciate and
support their desire for a second wide review round before seeking to
finalize the document as a W3C Note.

***Action to Take***

This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of
support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though
messages of support are certainly welcome.

If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this
proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later
than 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time, Tuesday 3 May.

IMPORTANT: If you have concerns or comments you believe should be
addressed before a public review publication, please note them in your
response on this thread but also please copy your comments to
mailto:public-coga-comments@w3.org.

NOTE: This Call for Consensus is being conducted in accordance with the
APA Decision Policy published at:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/decision-policy

As COGA is a joint Task Force of APA and of the Accessible Guidelines
Working Group (AGWG), a concurrent CfC is in process at AGWG. Members of
APA who are also members of AGWG are encouraged to be sure to register
their responses in both groups.

Janina




-- 
Judy Brewer
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
105 Broadway, Room 7-128, MIT/CSAIL
Cambridge MA 02142 USA
http://www.w3.org/WAI/