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

Re: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

From: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 09:52:45 +0100
Message-ID: <5927ECDD.8090009@interaccess.ie>
To: "Milliken, Neil" <neil.milliken@atos.net>
CC: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Milliken, Neil wrote:
> -5
>
> Speaking as a person with a cognitive disability I don't agree. 
> Assistive technologies like speech recognition and text to speech when 
> I need it are very useful but a pain and many of the issues that I and 
> millions of others face daily could be solved without the need to use AT.
>
> If you add an AT extra layer into the mix you frequently add to the 
> cognitive load certainly at the beginning - the learning curve is can 
> appear cliff-like for some users with cognitive disabilities which is 
> why it's so critically important to address the issues at source and 
> not try and sticking plaster it with AT. Furthermore there is plenty 
> of evidence of abandonment of AT.
>
> Make better products, design clearer websites don't push people to 
> adopt extra tools to deal with what is essentially poor design.
+1 to Neil on this. I think (for the immediate future) especially when 
it comes to COGA user needs (though I am not a domain expert) - it does 
seem to me the more we aim to support these requirements on the content 
level, with an eye on the potential of the UA working towards supporting 
these requirements the better. This is what Gregg and David are getting 
I guess but the potential of the UA is only very slowly being realised. 
But isn't that the promise of technology? Always tomorrow..

I've seen a lot of AT abandonment with my clients when I was an AT 
specialist/trainer - and indeed the frustration of the end user when 
they have not been given sufficient training or the AT is just not a 
good match for their requirements.

Anyway, this 'lets fix it at the content level without the need for AT' 
issue is coming up more and more which is interesting.

Thanks

Josh
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Neil Milliken
>
> Head of Accessibility & Digital Inclusion
>
> Atos
>
> M: 07812325386 <tel:07812325386>
>
> E: Neil.Milliken@atos.net <mailto:Neil.Milliken@atos.net>
>
> http://atos.net/iux
>
> http://atos.net/accessibilityservices
>
> @neilmilliken
>
>
>
>
> On 26 May 2017, at 03:33, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu 
> <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>> wrote:
>
>> +5
>>
>> /g/
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 25, 2017, at 9:02 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca 
>>> <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 <http://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 <mailto: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
>>>     <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
>>>
>>>
>>
> Atos, Atos Consulting, Worldline and Canopy The Open Cloud Company are 
> trading names used by the Atos group. The following trading entities 
> are registered in England and Wales: Atos IT Services UK Limited 
> (registered number 01245534), Atos Consulting Limited (registered 
> number 04312380), Atos Worldline UK Limited (registered number 
> 08514184) and Canopy The Open Cloud Company Limited (registration 
> number 08011902). The registered office for each is at 4 Triton 
> Square, Regent’s Place, London, NW1 3HG.The VAT No. for each is: 
> GB232327983.
>
> This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended 
> solely for the addressee, and may contain confidential or privileged 
> information. If you receive this e-mail in error, you are not 
> authorised to copy, disclose, use or retain it. Please notify the 
> sender immediately and delete this email from your systems. As emails 
> may be intercepted, amended or lost, they are not secure. Atos 
> therefore can accept no liability for any errors or their content. 
> Although Atos endeavours to maintain a virus-free network, we do not 
> warrant that this transmission is virus-free and can accept no 
> liability for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. The 
> risks are deemed to be accepted by everyone who communicates with Atos 
> by email.

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie
Received on Friday, 26 May 2017 08:53:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:13 UTC