- From: lisa <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:02:23 +0200
- To: '"~:'' ありがとうございました。"' <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Cc: 'Loretta Guarino Reid' <lorettaguarino@google.com>, 'Sofia Celic' <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org>, 'Jan Dekelver' <jan.dekelver@khk.be>, 'Chuck Hitchcock' <chitchcock@cast.org>, 'Hiroshi Kawamura' <hkawa@rehab.go.jp>, 'Gez Lemon' <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, 'Clayton Lewis' <clayton.lewis@colorado.edu>, 'Gian Sampson-Wild' <gian@tkh.com.au>, 'Keith Smith' <k.smith@bild.org.uk>, 'Roberto Scano' <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, 'Stephen Shore' <Tumbalaika@aol.com>, 'Nancy Ward' <nward@thedesk.info>, 'Paul Bowman' <pbowman@gmu.edu>, 'John Slatin' <jslatin@mail.utexas.edu>, 'Elbert Johns' <ejohns@thearclink.org>, 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'Michael Cooper' <cooper@w3.org>, 'Judy Brewer' <jbrewer@w3.org>, 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Jonathan I took the wording for WCAG from http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/ which is titled Editor's Draft February/March 2007 I could not find the wording used in Loretta's email just reference to the fact that it has been changed and there was a call for more research which worried me. All the best Lisa -----Original Message----- From: "~:'' ありがとうございました。" [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:35 AM To: lisa Cc: 'Loretta Guarino Reid'; 'Sofia Celic'; 'Jan Dekelver'; 'Chuck Hitchcock'; 'Hiroshi Kawamura'; 'Gez Lemon'; 'Clayton Lewis'; 'Gian Sampson-Wild'; 'Keith Smith'; 'Roberto Scano'; 'Stephen Shore'; 'Nancy Ward'; 'Paul Bowman'; 'John Slatin'; 'Elbert Johns'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Michael Cooper'; 'Judy Brewer'; 'WCAG' Subject: Re: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to cognitive, learning, and language disabilities Lisa, not sure where your wording comes from, it is not the wording agreed during the recent conference call. regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 13 Mar 2007, at 07:59, lisa wrote: A few clear and important problems with these resolutions the new improved wording seas: "Abstract: Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, photosensitivity and combinations of these." and "introduction: Although some of the accessibility issues of people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities are addressed by WCAG 2.0, either directly or through assistive technologies, the WCAG 2.0 guidelines do not address many areas of need for people with these disabilities. There is a need for more research and development in this important area." I have a very strong objections to this wording. I believe it is designed to mislead It makes it appear that following WCAG enables the best level of accessibility for people with cognitive disabilities to date, and until further research is done this is the best that you can do for these communities. " to call out the need for more research in this area" this has very little to do with WCAG. Many proven techniques have been found by the team are not reported in WCAG. Also and there is more research in this area then for blind access for example. I see the call for more research as a "red hearing" or something to divert attention from the real problem. (such as use of concept mapping which definitely without question makes content accessible to people who can not access it otherwise) Further, many of the techniques used by other guidelines are still not in WCAG Take a look at some of my reports on other standards and how they support access for learning disabilities that was sent to WCAG in 2001 ! http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/W3C-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0455.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/W3C-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0456.html We still have not got to this level. (From 2001 folks - we still did not get them in in 2007) What about the problems we had within the WCAG working group itself, were use of long numbers and codes made issues impossible to track without a good short term memory. WCAG eventually improved the process (Thanks Loretta) but these problems are not considered issues in WCAG 2 - even though the group themselves experienced the affect of reliance of short term memory being an unnecessary barrier to participation. Giving the impression that we are doing all that is possible today is incorrect. I propose that the words " There is a need for more research and development in this important area." be dropped from the introduction. Then people will be aware that WCAG is not the best place to look for this. Issue two: Putting things in advisory techniques, s a good idea, but this concept needs to be worked out a, the term "advisory" suggests that it is less important then required success criteria techniques. I suggest changing the name to "non testable techniques" b, the techniques included seem "add hock" or what ever seems a good idea at the time. I suggest we make a tougher roadmap about building up these techniques so that we are properly covering\ c, Even if they are hard to test, an author should be a ble to make a conformance statement if they fulfil them. If nothing else this enables people to locate pages that they may be able to use. Issue three looking at the text: Using the clearest and simplest language appropriate for the content. - we were stuck with this one last time round. The word appropriate is a blanket loophole for people to say they have done this without doing a thing. how about the wording write clearly and simply or provide clear and simple text From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 5:48 PM To: Jonathan Chetwynd; Sofia Celic; Jan Dekelver; Chuck Hitchcock; Hiroshi Kawamura; Gez Lemon; Clayton Lewis; Gian Sampson-Wild; Keith Smith; Roberto Scano; Lisa Seeman; Stephen Shore; Nancy Ward; Paul Bowman; John Slatin; Elbert Johns Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; Michael Cooper; Judy Brewer; Loretta Guarino Reid; WCAG Subject: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to cognitive, learning, and language disabilities The attachment to this email contains a report on the proposed responses to the comments received relating to cognitive, learning, and language disabilities. We will be discussing these at our meeting on Tuesday, March 13. Details on the meeting logistics will be sent in a separate message. Thanks, Loretta
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 10:03:42 UTC