Re: Evidence that WCAG 2.0 WG 'promised' to cover Cognitive issues in the next version of WCAG

Thanks Lisa.

Related to the objection, Lisa wrote that:

The aim of the objection is that:
a, The working group understands that  WCAG 2.0 does not provide all the requirements for access for cognitive limitations, and
b, to encourage continued work on an extension guideline that will address these needs.

I agree completely – I don’t think that anyone believes that WCAG 2.0 addresses all requirements for any user group, but in particular cognitive.

Lisa then wrote:

I also want to offer again to set up a sub group to work on an extension guideline or  success criteria that does the job.   Personally I believe what is needed is a concentrated and planned effort, that should include:

  a.. An evaluation of different learning disabilities and cognitive limitations
  b.. An analysis of the difficulties of the different groups when accessing web content
  c.. A gap analysis between current techniques and required support
  d..  Innovation and proposal stage
  e.. User testing of proposed techniques


I hope that people agree that the work of the COGA TF is squarely in line with this list, and in some cases goes beyond it. The COGA group has indicated that they have focused on certain types of cognitive disabilities and that there is more work to be done in the future to complete an evaluation, but they have taken a big chunk in this first effort.

The COGA group will be able to propose new techniques and as we know, will also be suggesting new success criteria (this is the part that isn’t called out in the above list), so I’m happy (but not surprised) to see that the focus of the COGA group is so well-aligned to the concerns around the time of publication of WCAG 2.0.

Of course, we still need to get the SC and techniques written and accepted, but that work is underway!

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:51
To: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
Cc: Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>, Loretta Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com<mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com>>, CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org<mailto:jbrewer@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Evidence that WCAG 2.0 WG 'promised' to cover Cognitive issues in the next version of WCAG
Resent-From: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:51

A personal note  explaining the objection can be found at
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0119


All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>




---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:44:46 +0200 lisa.seeman<lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote ----
Hi
We had a formal objection to WCAG 2.0's  claim that it defined and addressed the requirements for making Web content accessible to those with learning difficulties, cognitive limitations.
It was co-signed by almost 60 organizations and individuals. See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0118.html (You may recognise a name or two)

I understood WCAG's response was  to acknowledge that cognitive needs were, in part, not adequately addressed due to a lack of research and called for additional research so it can be better addressed in the future and "Eventually we would expect to incorporate this research into future accessibility guidelines". The wording of the introduction to WCAG was changed to reflect that further research was needed to fully address cognitive disabilities and the claim that these requirements were fully addressed by WCAG 2.0 was removed.

I am having trouble finding the direct link but here is  a site that quotes it. http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WCAG/cognitive/message061122.html


Hope that helps...

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>




---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:52:09 +0200 Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL<ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote ----
Dear WG participants,

At their behest, I had a meeting with the WCAG chairs this morning about the continued unrest in the WG. They would like us to return to a time when work was getting done, and stability was the norm. So would I. In that vein, they stated they want to make decisions on the direction of the WG based on facts, not conjecture.

This morning, as in the past on an occasion or two, I have been asked to provide ‘evidence’ that when we were wrapping up our WCAG 2.0 work, before publication, that much of the work that those who worked on the Cognitive issues SC at that time, were very disappointed and unhappy that the bulk of the recommendations for those SC were either moved to Level AAA or not included – and that we, the WG ‘assured’ (promised is my word) those people that if/when WCAG was updated, that Cognitive Issues would be addressed.

​​​​​Does anyone have time to research this, and find either minutes or something that supports my recollection – that we did in fact, do that?

Thanks in advance.



* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

Cell: 703-371-5545 |<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>|Oakton, VA |LinkedIn Profile<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>|Office: 703-371-5545 |@ryladog<https://twitter.com/Ryladog>