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

I think what Wayne is suggesting is similar to the extension model.

In other words, basic wcag 2.1 address some disabilities  well, with some benefits for other disabilities. People should use the extensions when it is important to include everyone.

Let the lawmakers and advocacy groups decide when that is.

Maybe we could  continue with wcag 2.1 as we are so that some accommodation is there for everyone, and agree to have extensions of LV and  COGA that give comprehensive support.

Maybe we can lose AAA for COGA and LV and port them, when useful, to the extensions

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 01:50:07 +0300 Wayne Dick<> 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 09:09:58 UTC