RE: Starting over (was: RE: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to cognitive, learning, and language disabilities)

Hi Gregg

I think this is a hugely important point.
 WCGA has concentrated on Type 1 techniques - appropriate for all content on
all websites.

We have done a good job for them.

My main concern is that people will think we have done all the types
techniques and we need to be clear that we have not, as yet, done that.

Also we could be making techniques as part of a full roadmap that enabled
content  appropriate for all content on all websites to be ADAPTABLE for
people with cognitive disabilities. content

That would enable all content on all websites to be converted at the user
end to a version designed specifically for people with cognitive
disabilities

Technologies could include use of some standard CSS classes, RDF etc.

However that will be a long effort , it will need planning and structure

but that is really what I would like to see happen.



All the best
Lisa
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:53 PM
To: 'Slatin, John M'; 'lisa'; 'David MacDonald'; 'Bailey, Bruce';
'j.chetwynd'
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'; 'Michael Cooper'; 'Judy
Brewer'; 'WCAG'
Subject: RE: Starting over (was: RE: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to
cognitive, learning, and language disabilities)

Thanks John,

   I think maybe we should be dividing our discussion into three categories

Type 1) techniques appropriate for all content on all websites

Type 2) techniques for web sites designed specifically for people with
cognitive disabilities but intended to be accessible by all including people
who also have other disabilities.

Type 3) techniques for web sites designed specifically for people with
cognitive disabilities and not intended for people with other disabilities
to access.

We need to be documenting all three types of techniques.

But we will get into all sorts of arguments if we confuse Type 1 with Type 2
(or 3).  That is if people are talking about what can be done on special
sites with what could be done on all sites.

There is much to be done in all 3 types.  But we need to keep which type we
are referring to straight in our discussions I think to not get confused.
Some of the examples have been of things that could be done on all sites.
Some are special sites.  All are good ideas for different applications.


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slatin, John M [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:17 PM
> To: lisa; David MacDonald; Bailey, Bruce; j.chetwynd
> 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: Starting over (was: RE: Report on WCAG2 comments relating to 
> cognitive, learning, and language disabilities)
>
> Can we restart this discussion? We'll lose our focus if people get 
> angry.
>
> This is a difficult issue. I think everyone on this list wants to find 
> good solutions. We're working hard to understand each other.
>
> I'm asking for help understanding the sites that use Bliss or other 
> symbol languages. I have been to the sites that Lisa listed, and I've 
> chosen the links to display Bliss or other symbol languages.
>
> I didn't understand the results. In some cases my screen reader spoke 
> most of the words and phrases twice.
>
> This may have been because the content was presented in
> *both* English and Bliss, so the screen reader read both the English 
> text and the alt text for the individual Bliss symbols.
>
> It was very difficult to understand!
>
> In another case I couldn't tell whether the content changed when I 
> selected Bliss. Maybe that was because it worked
> correctly-- that is, maybe the content was presented only in Bliss, 
> and JAWS read it like English because it was using alt text.
>
> I also visited one of the sites that Jonathan mentioned as an example 
> that uses icons effectively. My screen reader couldn't handle it.
>
> I think something useful will emerge from all this. But we need to be 
> patient with each other and explain as best we can.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
> "Good design is accessible design."
>
> Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
> Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
> email john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
> Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisa [mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:22 PM
> To: 'David MacDonald'; 'Bailey, Bruce'; 'j.chetwynd'
> 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
>
>
>  >Could you send a link to the RDF document? I don't remember seeing 
> that in completed form.
>
> It never was in a final form
> it was put on the non critical list and no one had time to review it.
>
> >The Peebo site requires SVG which requires a special
> download for most
> browsers. The messages that the browsers give are
> >>not too friendly to cognitive users. They give a warning
> that Active X
> controls can be dangerous. Many people with cognitive
> >disabilities would not know what to do with that, I would say.
>
>
> and yet many real people have enjoyed using it - people who can not 
> use 99.9% of WCAG accessible sites
>
>
> >The DART site uses language and vocabulary (at least in
> English) which
> is
> quite advanced.
>
> your need to select the option in BLISS or pictures.
>
> I sent you these links because you seemed to want to see what was 
> being done
> - what products are available etc, so you could understand how many 
> people with disabilities use the web outside the WCAG communities.
>
> If you prefer to pick holes in how they are doing it, that is Ok too, 
> but I don't see that will help anyone.
>
>
> Lisa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:32 PM
> To: 'lisa'; 'Bailey, Bruce'; 'j.chetwynd'
> 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
>
> Hi Lisa
>
> >>and these techniques came of the to do list until after last call.
>
> I don't think this is an entirely fair statement. I looked at the 
> Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with 
> Cognitive Disabilities report and printed out the excerpts you listed.
> I compared
> our
> guidelines to those recommendations. I think that we've done much of 
> what the report was recommending, to the extent that it applies to the 
> web to the degree that it was testable. Also, many of the untestable 
> techniques in that document are listed advisory as advisory in the 
> guidelines.
> Much of that
> was
> due to your hard work and contribution while on the group.
>
> The primary reference for the Telecommunications document was the 
> TRACE centre research which is active on our committee.
>
> Could you send a link to the RDF document? I don't remember seeing 
> that in completed form.
>
> I personally do not have a problem with renaming advisory techniques 
> "advisory and/or untestable techniques". The conformance section says 
> that advisory techniques consist of helpful advice and techniques that 
> are untestable. But I'm ok with saying that in every section. Of 
> course it would depend on consensus.
>
> I did a brief examination of the sites you sent as models for 
> cognitive accessibility.
>
> -The Peebo site requires SVG which requires a special download for 
> most browsers. The messages that the browsers give are not too 
> friendly to cognitive users. They give a warning that Active X 
> controls can be dangerous. Many people with cognitive disabilities 
> would not know what to do with that, I would say. Once I finally 
> installed SVG, I went to the web portals page, and was met with a 
> password dialogue box. I think that would confuse many people with 
> cognitive disabilities. When I backed out of the unauthorized page 
> warning, back to the homepage, I tried to link to other pages ("forms, 
> splat, radio etc.) but the links were dead.
>
> -I went to handicom. I didn't find anything on the site itself that 
> seemed particularly oriented to help people with cognitive issues. 
> They sell Bliss, but they don't really use bliss on the web site. 
> There was rotating gif on the home page, which for me we distracting. 
> The language of the site is not particularly oriented to people below 
> secondary level education. Here's an
> excerpt:
>
> "Handicom focuses its activities on the tangent plane between handicap 
> and computer. Tomorrow's techniques are used for the development of 
> adapted computer and communication tools. It's mainly software we 
> make."
>
> -The DART site uses language and vocabulary (at least in
> English) which
> is
> quite advanced.
>
> --The ISSAC site uses icons on the nav bar and bliss symbols beside 
> links.
> Which is good but again the language at least in English, is quite 
> academic.
>
>
> -The Widget site uses icons but not much else on it was specifically 
> gears to Cognitive. Again the language doesn't seem geared to people 
> with cognitive disabilities. He's an exceprt.
>
> "2,000 new diverse and relevant symbols for WWS2000 and In Print to 
> bring resources to life."
>
> None of the sites listed meet the guidelines set out in the
> 1991 report
> that
> was point as a guide. Nor would I expect them to.
>
> However, one common feature that I see on these sites that seems 
> particularly geared to cognitive issues is the use of symbols. Which 
> it think is a great idea and I think we should create a technique 
> under
> 2.4.2
> titled
>
> "using pictures or symbols compliment link text"
>
> I think it is perfectly fine to say more research can to be done in 
> this area. With cognitive issues I would say, we are currently where 
> blind people were 30 years ago. And it's hard work from pioneers like 
> you that is moving it forward.
>
>
>
> David MacDonald
>
> access empowers people...
>         ...barriers disable them...
>
> www.eramp.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of lisa
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:56 AM
> To: 'David MacDonald'; 'Bailey, Bruce'; 'j.chetwynd'
> 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
>
>
>
> Hi David
>
> This discussion has proved my point. That it is not a lack of research 
> that is the primary problem for accessibility for cognitive 
> disabilities, but other factors - such as adoptability, interest 
> "appropriateness" etc..
>
> It is essential that people do not think that following WCAG is the 
> best they can do for these communities.
>
> Look  at the work of WAACI  and http://www.handicom.nl/  and 
> http://peepo.com/  and ld-web.org. That will help you get an idea of 
> what is doable - today.
>
>  WCAG does not contain guidelines that will help you achieve this type 
> of accessibility.
>
> In terms of commercial websites that have adopted symbolic based 
> accessibility - no I do not know of any. There is no legislation to 
> drive them, and the discrimination against these groups are huge.
>
> BY the way, the 2001 email was just a sample. I spent years writing 
> and writing test criteria's and guidelines for accessibility for 
> cognitive disabilities. I wrote a CSS techniques, and an RDF 
> techniques document and rewrote the success criteria a bunch of times. 
> We need to view the archives to glean the different approaches and 
> suggestions from over the years, Research existing successes and 
> methodologies, perform a gap analysis etc.....
>
> A few sticky plasters is not what is needed. We as standard writers 
> know that. We need a consistent integrated roadmap for access for 
> cognitive disabilities. We have had years to do it but we decided to 
> make it low priority, and these techniques came of the to do list 
> until after last call.
> We can not now claim that we did the best we could.
>
> All the best
> Lisa
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:04 PM
> To: 'Bailey, Bruce'; 'lisa'; 'j.chetwynd'
> 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
>
> >>>For an example of a government site that is oriented
> towards people
> >>>with
> cognitive disabilities:The Medicaid Reference Desk 
> http://thedesk.info/
>
> A prime feature for a cognitive person would be to be able to ask a 
> question, I would say. But the link to the "ask question" page gives a
> 404
> link error. And it appears to have been like that since 2002.
>
> On the home page, the additional info summaries above the link list do 
> not work for keyboard users, only for mouse users.
>
> Any page that is accessed from the home page comes up in a tiny window 
> with all the Chrome from the browser. A cognitive person can't find 
> the back button. Having the opened window tiny like that means that 
> there are other visible windows on the computer screen, which would be 
> confusing for many people with cognitive disabilities.
>
> David MacDonald
>
> access empowers people...
>         ...barriers disable them...
>
> www.eramp.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Bailey, Bruce
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:56 AM
> To: David MacDonald; lisa; j.chetwynd
> 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
>
>
> For an example of a government site that is oriented towards people 
> with cognitive disabilities:
> The Medicaid Reference Desk
> http://thedesk.info/
>
> Nancy Ward and Clayton Lewis have been particularly involved with that 
> project.  I did not find concept maps however.
>
> The claim to Triple A status (with a link to CAST no less) is 
> troubling.
>
> P.S.:  Follows is a link to the HTML version of the PDF mentioned in 
> Lisa's post from 2001.
> Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with 
> Cognitive Disabilities http://www.wid.org/archives/telecom/
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of David MacDonald
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:23 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
> >
> > Hi Lisa
> >
> > Can you provide a link to a successfully implemented
> concept map on a
> > commercial (or private site)? I would like to see one in
> use. Thanks.
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
> 3/12/2007
> 7:19 PM
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.10/720 - Release Date:
> 3/12/2007
> 7:19 PM
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/722 - Release Date:
> 3/14/2007
> 3:38 PM
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/722 - Release Date:
> 3/14/2007
> 3:38 PM
>
>

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:02:27 UTC