Preliminary comments re "Content Usable"

Colleagues:

I have begun looking closely at Content Usable in preparation for a Call
for Consensus in APA. I have looked at several recent versions in order
to get a sense of how final edits are going, and what content is still
the subject content being edited.

I have some initial comments I'd like to share before AP{A issues our
CfC. I include the AGWG Chairs because we've always tried to coordinate
our CfCs.

1.)	The Abstract

I'm pleased to note significant improvement over the past few weeks
here. It's actually making much better sense now than even ten days ago.

A couple small suggestions:

	a.)	The sentence: ""This document has content about" seems
	strained to me. I find it unusual English construction. Wouldn't
	the usual phrase be: "This document includes content about?"
	And, as it's a continuation of the paragraph above, I suggest it
	and the list that follows could be joined to the preceding
	paragraph as: "It includes information about ..."

	b.)	The first and last items on the list require expansion.
	What's the difference between "People with learning and
	cognitive disabilities" and the "Personas" of the final bullet?
	At the very least it seems they should be listed together for
	clarity's sake, imo.

	2.)	The term "persona" is itself troubling to me. I
	understand the value COGA took from the term during the
	development of this document, but I'm not persuaded of its value
	in a public facing note--or even a note aimed at all of W3C.

	It's a technical term from dramaturgy. Does it really pass clear
	words? I find it's most current common use is among gamers,
	where there's a "Persona Series" that started in 1996 in Japan
	for the PlayStation and has expanded since to an international
	audience. Is that what COGA is counting on for the term's
	understandability?

	Note that a "persona" isn't necessarily a real person. I find
	that contrary to what I believe the intent of this document to
	be. Check, please, the term's definition in any standard
	dictionary, or perhaps this Wikipedia page:

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona

	Note also that it's not really an English word so that
	"personas" isn't really the correct plural--but, I suppose we
	can let that pass.

	At the very, very least the term's use needs to be clearly
	defined, and that needs to happen early in the document. Perhaps
	I missed this definition?

3.)	I'm finding it difficulat to grok the organization of this
document. I very strongly suggest the Introduction include a clear and
concise explanation of how the document is organized before all the
discussion about what it includes and who should pay attention to what
part.

4.)	The paragraph in the Abstract that follows the bulleted list
isvery problematic for me. Does COGA really intend this document is but
a commentary on WCAG? Is that really the entire audience for this
document? Is there nothing here for CSS, or eb RTC, or XR, or even the
Personalization TF in APA? Reading this paragraph as currently written
reminds me of why APA sought to drop COGA from its task forces in our
charter update. If the paragraph stays as it is, it may yet prove the
point.
 
Please understand I am not slamming the document overall. I find this
document quite outstanding. I'm looking forward to it's publication soon
as a W3C Note. These comments are intended only to try and make it more
understandable to the innocent stranger who comes across it in the
wild--even the wild of other W3C work.

Best,

Janina


Lisa Seeman writes:
> Hi Justine
> 
> SOme comment - in no particular order
> 
>  intellection disabilities is now mentioned in the abstract. See
> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/coga/consistency_checks/content-usable/index.html#abstract
> Age Related Memory Loss is in the glossary
> 
> with metioning that it helps everyone: we say : While this guidance may
> improve usability for all, these patterns are essential for some people
> with cognitive and learning impairments to be able to use content
> independently.
> 
> Mention common conditions to help describe what you mean by "cognitive and
> learning disabilities": - this is now in the abstract
> 
> 
> Mention common conditions to help describe what you mean by "cognitive and
> learning disabilities":
> 
> 
> Use more formatting to help chunk information:: add that we will also make
> an oline version were we will be able to chuck the information better.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 6:19 PM Pascalides, Justine E <JPascalides@ets.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> >
> > COGA received detailed feedback on several areas of Content Usable in issue
> > 195 <https://github.com/w3c/coga/issues/195>. The editorial team
> > discussed the suggestions and propose the following response. Please reply
> > with any comments by 3/23.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your detailed feedback. The task force has reviewed your
> > suggestions and have determined a path forward for each of the sub-issues
> > that were submitted, as follows.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Use more formatting to help chunk information: Thank you for this
> > suggestion. The task force conducted a thorough review of the document and
> > organized in the most effective manner consistent with W3C style.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Clarify 2nd paragraph in the introduction: Regarding your question
> > about the statement "Some accessibility features will help people with
> > cognitive impairments", the same statement does apply to individuals with
> > learning disabilities. The task force determined that consistent use of
> > terminology throughout the document was an appropriate path forward.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regarding your question about the phrase "other factors that are difficult
> > to include in general guidelines" this relates to personalization which is
> > actively being addressed by the W3C's personalization task force. This text
> > was agreed upon through consensus in the Accessibility Guidelines Working
> > Group. Unfortunately, we need to publish version 1.0 in early 2021 and we
> > are not able to adjust consensus text at this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. COGA guidelines can be helpful to all web users: Similar to above, the
> > current language is consensus text that was approved by the Accessibility
> > Guidelines Working Group that we are not able to edit at this time. Your
> > feedback is appreciated and will be considered for the next version of
> > Content Usable.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. Define usability: Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, we need to
> > publish version 1.0 in early 2021, but we will look into the issue for the
> > next version of the document.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. Mention common conditions to help describe what you mean by "cognitive
> > and learning disabilities": We feel that this consideration is addressed
> > elsewhere in the document and in order to keep the length of the document
> > to a minimum, we would prefer not to make the change at this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > 6. Mention intellection disabilities in the introduction and mention that
> > learning disabilities can mean different things in different parts of the
> > world: Thank you for this suggestion. The task force determined that
> > consistent use of terminology throughout the document was essential and we
> > would prefer to avoid making the change at this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > 7. Consider restructuring the list of 8 examples in 2.2: We truly
> > appreciate your detailed feedback. Unfortunately, we need to publish
> > version 1.0 in early 2021 and we are not able to adjust consensus text at
> > this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > 8. Clarify what is meant by "may be age related": We feel that this
> > consideration is addressed elsewhere in the document and in order to keep
> > the length of the document to a minimum, we would prefer not to make the
> > change at this time.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Justine Pascalides
> >
> > Technology, Accessibility, and Innovation
> >
> > ETS | Assessment and Learning Technology Development
> >
> > Ph: 609-683-2213 | Email: jpascalides@ets.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> > confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> > it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> > in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> > take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> > it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> >
> > Thank you for your compliance.
> > ------------------------------
> >

-- 

Janina Sajka
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Monday, 22 March 2021 13:15:48 UTC