W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Low Vision and COGA should Drop Support for WCAG 2.1 if the AG WG is not willing make real change.

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:11:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZ+7HiWFoRAR4xTA_uJ9k4VFGEY12nGHOWhHyU-FtYa0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
WCAG did as much as any standard could possibly do. There is plenty of the
following WCAG SCs embedded in law and even more in the WCAG for web
masters who want to do the right thing. We provided plenty of guidance:

- We required all information to be available in text opening up a clear
pathway for assistive technology and parsing engines to manipulate that
text for people with cognitive disabilities that would simplify language
and manipulate it into symbols, and hundreds of other possibilities.  (SC
1.1.1) It's unfortunate AT was not developed to take advantage of this huge
win, but its not WCAG's fault. We brought the plumbing to the door of the
house.
- We required everything to have color contrast for low vision (1.4.3,
1.4.6)
- We required that images of text not be used because they pixelated (1.4.5)
- We required that all text be resized 1.4.4
- We required low or no background noise which minimizes audio distractions
(1.4.7)
- We required text colors be selected,
- We required text not to be justified,
- We required adjustable line spacing,
- and resizing with no horizontal scroll (1.4.8)
- No images of text at all (1.4.9)
- We required timing to be adjustable at least 10x the default length.
- We required that distracting movements not be on the page unless they can
be paused stopped or hidden ( 2.2.2)
- We required that No timing at all be used without exceptions (2.2.3)
- We required that distracting interruptions can be postponed or suppressed
by the user (2.2.4)
- We required that when a session expires the user can continue without
having to remember all their data (2.2.5)
- We required that web sites not triggers epileptic seizures (2.3.1
- We required a simple and descriptive page title to give users a quick
understanding of what was on the page (2.4.2)
- We required visible focus so that people who could cognitively not use a
mouse because of dyslexia, could follow the cursor (2.4.7) and use a
kyeboard to operate the site (2.1.1)
- We required that link text told users where the link went (2.4.4, 2.4.9)
- We required the language of the page to be marked up so that screen
readers for people who could not read, or were illiterate, or had dyslexia,
could surf the page with the proper speech engine (3.1.1) and that it would
change speech engines when the language changed.
- We required unusual words, idioms and jargon be identified (3.1.3)
- We required abbreviations be expanded and their meanings available (3.1.4)
- We required a pronunciation be identifiable (3.1.6)
- We required that the user not be sent to strange places and confusing
places on focus (3.2.1) or on input (3.2.2)
- We required consistent navigation (3.2.3) and Consistent identification
of controls (3.2.4)
- We required that any change of context by initiated by the user so they
would not be confused (3.2.5)
- We required that error fixes be suggested 3.3.3 and that legal
commitments be reversible, checked or confirmed (3.3.4) and strengthened
those requirements in 3.3.6
- We required context sensitive help (3.3.5)
- We required that the code be parse properly, paving the way to cognitive
AT that could make use of clean code. (4.1.1)
- And finally we required that any custom widgets expose themselves to
assistive technologies to help their users operate and understand them.
(4.1.2)

We brought the plumbing to the door. What the cognitive community, the low
vision community and the companies serving them do with that incredible
effort is really up to them. We have no control over that.

I hope we can continue this tradition of service to ALL people with
disabilities in this new version. In ways that are operable, implementable,
testable, and achievable.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> The assumptions of WCAG 2.0 cannot support low vision or cognitive
> disabilities in ways essential to access.  A page can pass WCAG 2.0 at
> level AAA and fail to be usable by people with low vision and cognitive
> disabilities.
>
> WCAG 2.0 did worse than nothing for low vision and cognitive disabilities.
> It created the illusion that we were helped when we were being left out.
> This may be hard to accept if you worked hard on WCAG 2.0. However, it is
> time to accept this fact and start solving the problem.
>
> There is no point of 2.1 continuing the false illusion that it provides
> meaningful help, when it does not.
>
> Low vision needs a few fundamental things. Personalization of text:
> font-family, spacing, color. The precise limits are these: any font family
> the user chooses, spacing that has been proven to be useful, and 16M
> colors. We need ability to enlarge significantly at least  400% with word
> wrapping. We need single column access. That is what is needed. If the WCAG
> 2.0 assumptions cannot support this need then we need to change the
> assumptions.
>
> I am sure there are similar bedrock issues for Cognitive Disabilities.
>
> The basic idea of accessibility for a disability is that a person with the
> disability can use the resource. Right now WCAG does not support access for
> the majority of people with visual disabilities and most people with
> cognitive disabilities. That is just a fact. COGA and LVTF have documented
> this decisively.
>
> ‚ÄčIf the AG cannot change some WCAG 2.0 assumptions then would the W3C just
> stop claiming they make guidelines that provide access to people with
> disabilities when it fails to do so. Just say the WAI gives guidance on how
> to help some disabilities‚Äč. State explicitly that Low vision and Cognitive
> disabilities are not included.
>
> With that admission, people with these disabilities could then proceed to
> devise guidelines that would help us without the interference of WAI.
>
> Right now WAI is harming these disabilities because developers and
> legislators believe that if they follow the WCAG guidelines than most
> disabilities are covered. This is false. Low Vision and Cognitive
> Disabilities are not covered.
>
> The WAI just failed these disabilities. Live with it. WAI can do something
> about it, live in denial, or leave the field to people who know how to help.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2017 01:12:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:12 UTC