proposal for removing guideline 3 (and working on it after last call as an extension)

I am very concerned with the way guideline 3 has shaped out (about making 
content understandable).

As the checkpoint stands now it  addresses some usability issues, but does 
not , in my opinion,  address the kind of issues that makes sites unusable, 
but specifically with people with cognitive disabilities (not just less 
usable for most  people)

I understand that this is a very trick subject when balancing issues like 
adoptability and American legislative requirements.

I therefore have  three suggestions:

Option 1. We take out of the WCAG definition that all types of disabilities 
are being addressed. There is very little or nothing for people with many 
cognitive disabilities, such as Aphasia, (not mild) autism,  non specific 
learning disability etc..who I doubt will find most WCAG 2.0 AAA sites 
accessible. However, as part of this suggestion, after we go to last call we 
start real work on an extension guideline that seriously addresses access 
for people with cognitive disabilities. This would work from the ground up, 
which a clear and appropriate  mandate, specification and gap analysis to 
create a true roadmap of success criteria and techniques creation for 
addressing this important issue. We could now simply  remove guideline three 
from the WCAG 2.0 draft , which does not achieve very much anyway.

The advantages are: WCAG 2.0 is not held up on  this issue, adoption is not 
compromised and we are being honest about what we are really doing. On the 
other hand, this will give us a chance to genially focused on  access for 
cognitive disabilities and maybe even get somewhere.  In other words 
everyone wins beyond some need to be all things to all people all of the 
time.

Option 2, The other alternative is that we hold up last call and actually 
develop techniques, successes criteria  and checkpoints that solve this 
issue now.

Option3, We take out of the WCAG definition that all types of disabilities 
are being addressed and let people look elsewhere if they which to provide 
access for all disabilities. It may be better then to give people the 
impression that they are accommodating more people then they really are.

All the best
Lisa Seeman

www.ubaccess.com

Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 08:02:40 UTC