W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: AW: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Task Force - DRAFT

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 14:08:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHu5OWZq0bht4c42xdz74188A=Qhz5f_bSgYih6ZLTMO2xrKcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Katie Haritos-Shea @ Earthlink" <ryladog@earthlink.net>
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think that this work should be done but I share Kerstin's reservations.
In particular, I'm worried that if this is a joint WCAG task force, both
task force members and external observers may assume that WCAG itself will
be extended to include the task force results.

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea @ Earthlink <
ryladog@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I agree with David
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> * katie *
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note® II
> -------- Original message --------
> From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> Date: 09/14/2013 12:39 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
> Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>,WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: AW: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Task Force - DRAFT
> I agree that it may be difficult to test cognitive techniques but I don't
> think that should stop us from trying to help people with cognitive and
> learning disabilities who use the web...
> At our local university and college there is a 9:1 ratio between
> cognitive/learning and all other disabilities combined.
> We may find a way to test many techniques ... We may also find an elegant
> way to include untestable techniques... In a way to promote good
> practices...
> I think Kerstin brings up important points that we need to explore... But
> I think Wcag is the right place for this..
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 2013-09-14, at 3:59 AM, Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, all,
> I think we all can easily agree that we all don't know enough about
> accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities and that
> we welcome improvements especially in this part of our work. I've read the
> draft a few times and like a lot of the ideas and goals written in and I
> also have some reservations.
> Of course accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities
> is not only about language, but it is of course also a question of (a)
> specific language. One example for this we can read in G153: "Use sentences
> that are no longer than the typical accepted length for secondary
> education.
> (Note: In English that is 25 words.)". The note shows one problem when it
> comes to techniques in this area of accessibility: "In English". It is of
> course not possible for a Working Group or a Task Force to take in account
> every language on this planet. But I fear that (of course not all)
> techniques might only be of value for the English language and also that
> speakers of other language might ignore this. We all know that it is hard
> work to explain even the role of techniques as optional...which leads me to
> the second point of the draft:
> "but we are also expecting to produce techniques that are non-testable".
> Criteria for WCAG-Techniques is that they are testable. If a Cognitive and
> Learning Disabilities Task Force as WCAG WG Task Force will produce a paper
> which includes non-testable techniques I think it will soften this
> important
> aspect of techniques. I also think about WCAG-Surveys. During the working
> process of a Task Force we will fill out surveys like "Technique XY: Do you
> agree, agree with the following changes..." and so on. I don't see how to
> fill out those surveys, when it comes to non-testable techniques ("I like
> it"? "I believe it's a good technique"?.
> Therefore a Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Task Force under the cover
> of WCAG WG gives me some headache. My proposal for the second point is,
> that
> techniques given by a Task Force like this should be testable.
> For the first point I don't have a proposal, but would like to hear from
> the
> Proposed Co-Facilitators how they expect to handle the problem of culture
> and language specific aspects and techniques in this area of accessibility.
> Best
> Kerstin
> Von: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. September 2013 16:13
> An: WCAG (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)
> Betreff: Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Task Force - DRAFT
> WCAG’ers –
> The Protocols and Formats WG is proposing a new task force on cognitive and
> learning disabilities and we’ve been asked if we agree that it is a good
> idea and whether we would like it to be a joint TF with WCAG.  The draft TF
> work statement is here:
> http://www.w3.org/2013/08/draft-cognitive-a11y-tf.html
> We are interested in the opinion of the group on this matter.  The chairs
> feel that this work is valuable and timely in that we do need to continue
> to
> evaluate possible improvements in WCAG or in techniques to better support
> users with cognitive or learning disabilities, and this task force can help
> by focusing directly on that topic.  We expect that we will need to recruit
> additional members in order to have enough participation for the TF, but
> believe that is achievable.  This task force will operate in a
> substantially
> independent manner from WCAG and PF, but may contribute techniques that the
> main WG needs to review and the main WG will also need to approve the
> release of any publications produced by the group.
> Please take a look at the work statement and share your thoughts.
> Thanks,
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe Systems
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
Received on Saturday, 14 September 2013 21:09:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:54 UTC