Re: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive

Hi Lisa,

Thank you for this. A few questions for you:

When you say "extension" what does that mean to you? Specifically and
explicitly?

There is no doubt that WCAG 2.0 leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to
addressing the needs of people with cognitive disabilities - I think
everyone is in agreement there. But when we "extend" WCAG 2.0 to address
those gaps, how do you see us accomplishing this? "Write an extension"
sounds good, but what does that look like? What does that mean?

Does the COGA Task Force anticipate new (testable statement) Success
Criteria based upon their Requirements gathering exercise?

Or perhaps a new category of Best Practices that draws from existing SC,
includes the additional "lens" of COGA, and emerges with a new Best
Practice that SHOULD (RFC 2119) be adopted/deployed? And do we extend the
A, AA, AAA model to these newly emergent Best Practices? (and...could we
write testable statements for these Best Practices as well? I don't know...)

Would the COGA extension be something that could/would be included in a
conformance document, or would it remain a specialized Profile of WCAG 2.0,
tailored to a specific user-group, but running in "parallel" to the current
WCAG 2.0? (Personally I am not keen on that idea, as I see that
perpetuating a ghetto-like mentality around certain user-groups, but that's
just me.)

Has the COGA TF considered how the work and Requirements they have gathered
might integrate with either existing SC, or with the current work happening
within the other Task Forces (Mobile, Low Vision)?

I'll suggest one use-case: The COGA TF have already anecdotally commented
on color contrast, by way of the comment that the Low Vision people have
noted that they have a preference/requirement for greater contrast, a
comment likely echoed by the Mobile folk (who note that higher contrast on
a small mobile screen is easier to read in high sunlight conditions). Yet
as noted by a member of the COGA TF, greater contrast introduces increased
issues for some users in the COGA user-group (notably dyslexia, where
higher contrast increases the likelihood of increased "dancing letters").

I recognize that this is a difficult use-case to address, because on the
surface we have conflicting needs and requirements. How, in an extension
model, do we address problems like this? This is one of the main reasons I
have asked that we have this public discussion: there is an agreement on
working on "extensions", but we sort of missed out defining how they would
all stitch together.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

JF


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Kurt Mattes <kurt.mattes@deque.com> wrote:

> "I was just trying to address an advatage  of having an extension rather
> than incorporating all the content into a next version of WCAG"
>
>
> I don't see extensions and inclusion in WCAG.next as mutually exclusive.
> Perhaps that is not what you are thinking either. Providing information
> about the needs related to coga personas sooner via extensions, rather than
> later via WCAG.next is advantageous. However, the perception people will
> have about extensions may not lead to them being considered as important as
> the balance of WCAG's information. Both approaches are needed.
>
> IMHO, the conversation about personalization is long overdue. Anything we
> can do to get it started as soon as possible is a good thing for everyone
> and more so for people with disabilities.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:24 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason
>>
>> Personalization is being addressed in coga and the draft extension. We
>> agree that it is a very good way to address this.
>> I was just trying to address an advatage  of having an extension rather
>> than incorporating all the content into a next version of WCAG
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:15:10 +0300 * White<jjwhite@ets.org
>> <jjwhite@ets.org>>* wrote ----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:00 AM
>>
>> When our work is published some peoples first reaction might be that it
>> is ridicules or even unfair that they should be expected to accommodate our
>> user groups.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it is an extension we can argue that this extension is for people and
>> groups who have decided to accommodate as many people as they can.  And
>> then people and policy makers will need to go away and think where do they
>> stand. They will have to have a conversation. There might be a law case or
>> two (once there is clear guidance on what you could have done and did not
>> do, then there is a legal case to be made for inclusion) . The business
>> case will be considered, and the real numbers and loss of business and
>> distributed cost to the economy will come to light and that the only way
>> forward,  from a moral or from an economic point of view, will be to
>> include coga. I believe policy makers will get there. But I do not think it
>> will be on day one.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to see well justified and effective strategies for improve
>> Web accessibility to people with cognitive disabilities included in the
>> next revision of WCAG, beyond the requirements that we now have.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also think the role of personalization needs to be carefully
>> considered. In cases where benefiting one group of users occurs at the
>> expense of another, the traditional approach of WCAG would recommend
>> placing all of the relevant success criteria at Level AAA. Personalization
>> based on declared individual needs and preferences has attracted
>> considerable interest over the last decade, and for good reasons, as it
>> allows customized user interfaces to be delivered to different users who
>> have distinct, even incompatible, needs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Suppose that WCAG 2.x-conformant content is what you receive if no
>> individual preferences are declared, but that if you decide to disclose
>> your individual needs and preferences, a more customized and therefore
>> accessible version suited to your requirements is available. Decisions need
>> to be made about the circumstances in which it is fair and appropriate to
>> ask for disclosure of individual requirements (potentially revealing that a
>> person has a disability) in exchange for more accessible content. In
>> connection with people who have learning and cognitive disabilities, this
>> presents the further challenge that some of them may not be in a good
>> position to understand the implications of disclosure and to decide whether
>> it is appropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> WCAG is currently silent about personalization. We need a rigorous and
>> thoughtful conversation about whether this should remain the case, and if
>> not, how the emergence of personalization techniques should influence the
>> future of WCAG and related work.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
>> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>>
>> Thank you for your compliance.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Kurt Mattes
> Accessibility Program Manager
> Deque Systems
> 610-368-1539
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion