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

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