W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

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

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:19:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SB0MJJvmys70_HL8Un1LXcEs5+XeaC7hYsebzeHO7-G=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "lorettaguarino@google.com" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Dear Andrew et. al.,
The Low Vision Task Force has identified core set of SCs and
techniques, and I think we can make our deadline of 12/1, Thanksgiving
not withstanding. Can the Cognitive Group do that? Their changes seem
harder to make testable. I am frankly worried that the schedule may
not support them.

Wayne

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> 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" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 10:51
> To: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> Cc: Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,
> "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Loretta
> Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>, CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>,
> Judy Brewer <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"
> <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, Twitter
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:44:46 +0200 lisa.seeman<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, Twitter
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:52:09 +0200 Katie Haritos-Shea
> GMAIL<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 |ryladog@gmail.com|Oakton, VA |LinkedIn Profile|Office:
> 703-371-5545 |@ryladog
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 14 November 2016 19:20:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC