Re[2]: consideration for wcag.next and cognitive

Hi all,

[Sorry for jumping in as JFs question was for Lisa, but 2 cents below on 
a couple of things]

------ Original Message ------
From: "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com>
  >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?

What it mean are a series of new normative success criteria that 
explicitly are designed to accommodate the various needs of the COGA 
community.
>
>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.
Yes. There is an advantage in the short term that extensions are 
'lighter' and quicker to get out. There is a big disadvantage in that 
harmonisation issues/ maintaining a conformance model/ spec 
fragmentation are more likely in the long run.

Also there is a potential for authors to cherry pick their extensions, 
choose some disability issues/types and ignore others - if they are not 
unified under single umbrella with the seal of a 2.x or whatever.


>>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.

There is also that.

>>
>>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.

I also think this is true. Personalisation is IMO, at the core of the 
new wave of cognitive a11y.
>>On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:24 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.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 do hear that Lisa, but as I say above there are (as always) pros/cons.

Thanks

Josh


>>>
>>>All the best
>>>
>>>Lisa Seeman
>>>
>>>LinkedIn, Twitter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---- On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:15:10 +0300 White<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