Re: Do SCs need to be testable?

I agree with Gregg's comments, with the reminder that users must be the ones able to tailor an environment to suit their needs. I'm reminded of the work that Jutta Treviranus and her group at U-Toronto (now OCAD) did on the IMS Access for All specifications (https://www.imsglobal.org/activity/accessibility).
One of the challenges will be to develop interfaces that a broad range of people with varying abilities will be able to use to create an optimal experience for themselves.
Mike
 


     On Monday, November 2, 2015 11:57 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
   

 We spent LOTS of time working on cognitive, language, and learning provisions
and had Clayton Lewis and others in working with us
and we incorporated all of the SC we and they could think of.

cognitive, language, and learning is just a very hard area to find things that apply across the board — and that are not user specific

I think the key going forward is
1) work on auto personalization —where we change the interface to match the needs of each user  (rather than a one size fits all approach ) 
2) use the same provisions that allow blindness AT to access  content to create  cognitive, language, and learning  AT    
    - this would work with #1
    - this would allow access for these groups the same way access is provided to other groups. 
3) work really hard on creating better cognitive, language, and learning  AT    — we now are getting the tech to so this


People say that blindness is covered in WCAG but not cognitive, language, and learning disabilities 
    - there are about the same number of provisions for both
    - mostly the difference is that blindness can take better advantage of the “programmatically discernible” provisions that cognitive, language, and learning disabilities can — at this time

cognitive, language, and learning disabilities are so individual and you do lose information as you change content for people more severe intellectual disabilities. 

I think we NEED TO find ways to have content be adapted for each person — in order to put it within their range - but not reduce the richness of the information any more than we need to. 

SO

I think we need to focus on 

1)  Advanced research on AT for people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities 
    - this will require both top scientists and top clinicians/users/teachers/family  to be sure that it works and that it works for the people in real life
2) Create guidelines and techniques  (non-normative - so we capture them all and not just the few that qualify as SC)
    - for people to use in the meantime 
    - as a guide to those working on AT as to what really helps who.



Gregg




> On Nov 2, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Hoffman, Allen <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov> wrote:
> 
> How would such guidelines which are NOT requirements be utilized at a later date in something like Section 508?  Creating things that to me feel very much like triple A SC(s) makes sense, as they don't apply all the time but only in certain situations.  I'm still trying to understand the extension vs triple A difference, other than these extensions are past the release date of WCAG 2.0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allen Hoffman
> Deputy Executive Director
> The Office of Accessible Systems & Technology
> Department of Homeland Security
> 202-447-0503 (voice)
> allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov
> 
> DHS Accessibility Helpdesk
> 202-447-0440 (voice)
> 202-447-0582 (fax)
> 202-447-5857 (TTY)
> accessibility@dhs.gov
>  
> This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain sensitive and legally privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message.  Thank you.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:30 PM
> To: Joshue O Connor
> Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org
> Subject: Re: Do SCs need to be testable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Josh,
> 
> 
>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
>> This brings up a question .  What are via alternatives to creating SCs? Without the SC approach, would it merely result a tranche of new techniques, or is there some other new or unused mechanism that might be an alternative?
>> 
> 
> 
> I think the alternative would be to have guidelines and examples. 
> 
> The guidelines do not need to be testable - but set a goal.
> 
> The examples show how it can be done.  
> 
> The idea would be to go beyond what you can require  because requiring something means it must be testable and apply everywhere.  And there are so many good ideas that don't match these two requirements and therefore don't get recorded. 
> 
> Also - trying to get more things required will get much push back from industry.  And for some reason they are very against things that relate to what they view as 'usability' - which is much or all of cognitive disability.    The are very much FOR it in design - but not for it being required.  The way to ride that - is to create a great manual on how to do it - but avoid making SC or requirements because    a) it will then be resisted and diminished  b) you will have to leave out - or diminish yourself -  so many good ideas because they can't be SC and if you have a few SC and mostly not- the mostly not (which will most of the great stuff) will be second class citizens in your own document. 
> 
> 
> 
> Gregg 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> TTBOMK, any new success criterion must be testable. If not, it's a clear departure from the original WCAG requirements framework. If we do need to depart from the framework (for whatever reason) - then we cannot call these new SCs success criteria. We'd need to come up with something else. I'm only making an objective statement here, and not making any value judgement.
>> 
>> This brings up a question relating to one of Greggs comments (and thanks Gregg for your very helpful input). What are via alternatives to creating SCs? Without the SC approach, would it merely result a tranche of new techniques, or is there some other new or unused mechanism that might be an alternative?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Josh
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>