RE: [action] Reasons for not moving SC 3.2.2 up to level 1

Please stop this non-productive thread of suggesting that we drop all
provisions that help people with cognitive disabilities because we cannot
think of ways to address all the needs of all of them.  Each country has its
own idiom for this type of behavior so I won't quote one here. But there is
no consensus to do such a thing. 

If you have suggestions for provisions that would help this group that are
testable and usable on most websites please contribute them.  

Best yet - provide links to places that use them.  There are many programs
and organizations that are dedicated to people with cognitive disabilities.
Surely at least some of them have tuned their sites to work with this
population.    

If it is a special section of their site - then the techniques could be used
to add as Level 3 and advisory techniques.

If it is their whole site - then it might be good for other levels,
particularly if it has been implemented and is implementable on a wide
variety of sites. 

Finally, remember that most of the access provisions at Level 1 and many at
level 2 do not provide direct access to any group. They only make it
possible for those people to access the content if they use special user
agents.    Most of these provisions also allow for people with cognitive
disabilities to gain access with special user agents - today and in the
future. 

Again - we all know this is a tough area.   So is deaf-blindness and other
multiple disabilities.   Help us move forward if you can.   We have spent
many many hours considering and trying to find guidelines and success
criteria that work.  And there are many many success criteria that benefit
people with cognitive disabilities.   There are many many types of cognitive
disabilities. 

Suggestions and examples - particularly of techniques that have been
implemented successfully on multiple sites.  That is what is most useful.
Remember, we need to be able to show multiple implementations on different
types of sites (and not just advocacy sites) before we can get out of CR
with these guidelines.

Thanks 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Lisa Seeman
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:14 AM
To: Gez Lemon; WCAG
Subject: Re: [action] Reasons for not moving SC 3.2.2 up to level 1


>  In my opinion,
> this just adds weight to Lisa's suggestion to drop guideline 3 and 
> stop pretending we're addressing the needs of users with cognitive 
> problems [1], as they're obviously not being considered here.

This is the third agreement.

Does anyone think that our guidelines really address the needs of users with
cognitive disabilities, (beyond mild disabilities such as dyslexia that has
been reasonably well treated and/or overcome) ?

By the way, that is not to say that the group did not try. Just that we
could not balance it with other needs like appropriateness for all sites. I
also suggesting that we do keep working on an extension guideline that does
address  the needs of users with cognitive disabilities.

All the best

Lisa

Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 15:22:25 UTC