163 draft response - 2 additions to the document (mainly editorial). lease respond by feb 21

Hi folks

Issue 163 <https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues/163> had a lot of
editorial suggestion, but also  some additions to the document. To
help people review the responce I have put proposed additions to the
document at the top in Bold as that are the most important.

This is continued from h2021Feb/
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cognitive-a11y-tf/2021Feb/0027.html>
Please respond by feb 21. We will consider silence as agreement.

*Draft response:*

Thank you  for your really detailed and helpful review. We have tried
to address as many of your points as we can.  Here are the details:

*163.1 - we will add to the introduction:
*Note that people with cognitive and learning disabilities often also
have other impairments such as motor disabilities or visual
impairments. For
example, many people with age related forgetfulness may also require
higher contrast. It is always important to follow WCAG and insure the
needs
of all disabilities are addressed.*

*

163.6

*We are  adding to pattern 4.4.1 "use clear word" as follows:
*"**Remove or explain uncommon acronyms** and jargon.*"
we are also adding to the examples:
Use:    *Acronyms that are not in common use, are explained the first
time they are used, and are in an acronym tag with a title after
that.*
    *Jargon is avoided or explained.*

Avoid:*Acronyms and jargon that the user may not know.*
*

Issues 163.2, 163. 7, 163.8, 163.14, 163.17, 163.19:  We have edited
the document to meet these suggestions. This includes making the terms
more consistent. Specifically we intend to use the term   "*easy to
understand language*" as suggested in 163. 7. For 163.14 We have added
the missing heading to section 4.7.2.

163.3, 163.4, 163.5, 163.9, 163.11, 163.14 163.16: Here they have asked to
expand some sections. However we need to balance this with the need against
other requests to shorten the document! Most of them we felt had been
covered elsewhere in the document and we were not convinced of the befit of
making the document longer. We also felt 163.16 was out of scope for
this document
and that 163.11 is covered in WCAG and ARIA. 163.13 (part of the
introduction) is especially difficult to change, without very strong
arguments as it was written via a consensus meetings between different
groups in the W3C..

163.18 Thank you for the information about arrosac, we are indeed aware of it

163.12 163.20 163.21: More research would be needed for these
suggestions to be included. We would be delighted if you could point
us in the right direction or contribute to them. We could then try to
get them in to a next version (2.0).

with thanks

The task force