Re: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

To me the biggest gap in getting the needs met for people with Cognitive
disabilities is a killer AT. Early in computing innovative people serving
the blind rolled up their sleeves and did the hard work necessary to invent
a technology that revolutionizes the lives of people with disabilities.
Building on that partnership, WCAG 1.0 provided guidance to authors to
optimize the use of screen readers on the web.

We can bring the plumbing to the door, as we tried to do in WCAG 2,
http://davidmacd.com/blog/wcag-for-low-vision-cognitive-disabilites.html

but I think ultimately the break through for people with Cognitive
disabilities will be software that analyses language, and UI's and delivers
content in a way that is simplified or specialized, we can piggy back on
that with requirements that optimize the use of this AT on the web.
Unfortunately, this is speculation right now, and unlike 1998 when there
was 10 years of screen reader history, we have no history of this
theoretical AT.

Inventors, where are you? and where have you been for 25 years?

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 Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Gregg wrote:
> > if there are supplemental docs — I think that each should focus on ONE
> aspect -  and not be written anything like WCAG  (or else it will be very
> confusing and not very useful or used)
> >
> > the supplement should NOT be   WCAG without testability.   Because there
> is no use for that.
>
> I disagree with that assumption, but perhaps we are talking along
> different lines. Let’s start with some agreements and see where we diverge:
>
> 1. Given how difficult it is to create testable criteria for things we
> know improve the experience for people with cognitive issues, do we agree
> that *something* beyond WCAG 2.1 is needed?
>
> Lisa has been clear that she believes putting things at AAA means they
> might as well not be there. I somewhat disagree, but see where that comes
> from and it removes a possible approach.
>
> 2. If we agree we need something, does that something need to be before
> Silver? I think most people would agree it does.
>
> 3. If we need something in the WCAG 2.1 timeframe, what form does it take?
>
> In my mind the motivation / aim is to create something for organisations
> which have a public service mandate (e.g. Governments, medium-large
> corporates etc.) so they can do more to make things accessible for more
> people.
>
> These are organisations where “reasonable effort” could include usability
> testing, following a UCD process, and getting external WCAG compliance
> testing etc. Compared to small and/or niche organisations where such effort
> would be unreasonable (but they should still be able meet WCAG 2.1 by
> improving their content in accordance with the 2.1 SCs).
>
> In the extended guidance we could include things which use terms like
> “When appropriate…”, e.g:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile/design/
> adjustability
>
> For example, something I include in training but isn’t covered by WCAG is
> making it apparent that you’ve performed an action when the reaction is
> spatially separated (e.g. you click “add to basket”, and the only thing
> that changes is a number in the top-right of the screen).
>
> I hadn’t even considered putting that forward as an SC, partly because of
> testability concerns, and partly because it usually gets caught in
> (general) usability testing anyway.
>
> However, with looser language it would be quite feasible to include that
> aspect, and things like Plain language (avoid jargon, double-negatives
> etc.) without having to worry about word lists.
>
> I think it should avoid ‘conformance’ language, but it makes sense to use
> a structure that mirrors POUR, has guidelines, and the next level down
> would be something like heuristics instead of SCs.
>
> If that is framed as something for organisations to follow when they have
> sufficient resource and a mandate to do so (e.g. for Government
> institutions), then it could be very useful.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
>