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

Wayne,

Posting mails to the public list with subject lines like that isn't 
helpful - especially when we
are in the middle of review of new SC, user needs etc for both COGA and 
Low Vision users.

We take this work very seriously and are trying to bridge gaps for these 
groups in ongoing work of the current
version - as you are well aware. To have a respectful and constructive 
dialog is crucial right now, especially when
I feel now many in the group are getting to better understand the needs 
for the groups like COGA and Low Vision (me included).

I find your input very useful on the technical discussions - but would 
appreciate some restraint when considering
future posts like this.

Sincerely

Josh


> Wayne Dick <mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com>
> 5 April 2017 at 23:50
> 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.
>
> ​If 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​. 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.
>

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie