Re: CFC: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

As noted on the call this is not something I can live with

My issue is with having  one document for all the supplemental guidance from all the task forces. That means there would not be a seperate document for the different task forces. 
I have a problem with this because we were hoping to make a document that would be useful for policy makers and web authors to use to include people with cognitive disabilities in some scenarios. The other task forces are not looking for this as a main use case for the document. 

I made a mock up of what we think it might look like (see . I understood from the other task force facilitators that this is different from what they have in mind.

I therefore think we will have to argue every step of the way for how the document is structured and whether we should try to make things testable etc. We will lose our main reason for doing it this, if it is dominated by calls for extra research or other use cases. 

I have no motivation to work on a document that I do not believe will achieve the use cases  above. If they are separate documents we may be able to make an interface that merges them, but I think that will be much easier then to build an interface that pulls out different sections and still has the form we need.

We need a document that tells web developers how to build content so it can be used by people with cognitive and learning disabilities. And lets face it , it wont be WCAG.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <> wrote:
   Resending with the “high priority” flag per our process…
 Call For Consensus — ends Thursday May 25rd at 12:00pm Boston time.
  The Working Group has discussed the idea of providing additional guidance for accessibility beyond what is able to be included within WCAG 2.1. The idea is that success criteria proposals that cannot reach consensus or that there is insufficient time to review still have valuable information that might be able to be published for use. This idea was surveyed ( and discussed on the call ( and a resolution received consensus:
  RESOLUTION: the working group has agreed to publisihing supplemental guidance in 1 document that is non-normative
  If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.
 Andrew Kirkpatrick
 Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
 Andrew Kirkpatrick
 Group Product Manager, Accessibility

Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator

Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964


Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 10:20:26 UTC