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

Josh wrote:
> What it mean are a series of new normative success criteria that
explicitly are designed to accommodate the various needs of the COGA
community.

Success Criteria, PLUS Understanding documentation, Techniques examples...
and, as you note, a means to cohesively integrate all of that into an
inclusive WCAG #.x (unless we contemplate a profiles model, which is
suggested in either Option 1.1 WCAG 2.0 plus Mobile extension, Cognitive
extension, Low Vision extension, etc.
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models/Model_1> and/or
Option 1.2 WCAG 2.0 plus extensions by technology or platform
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Next_Possible_Models/Model_4>)

There has also been a bit of discussion about a more formalized "Best
Practices" for those instances where we may not be able to write explicit
testable statements (a requirement for Success Criteria as far as I
recall), yet we know that if a content author follows the Best Practice, it
facilitates greater access to more users, and (personally) I'd like to
spend a bit of time thinking about what that may mean as well.

As Josh and Lisa note, there are pros and cons to the 4 or 5 options under
contemplation now. I want to tease those pros and cons out into the
daylight, so that we can make an informed decision, and with the
opportunity for all stakeholders to speak up and offer feedback.

Cheers!

JF

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 5:26 AM, josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie>
wrote:

> 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 <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
>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion