Re: Does anyone else agree with my perspective - was Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)

>The group never considered Cognitive and LV disabilities with the
necessary care in the past to solve the real problems.

I think it's important to understand what WCAG is and isn't. In my opinion,
WCAG is not a place to invent solutions to accessibility barriers. It is a
place to VET existing solutions, and to provide a means for authors to
honour existing solutions. The fact that we are trying to create a plugin
that linearizes content, to show that it can be done, and are encountering
many problems in the process, shows that there are currently no existing
tools doing this. The fact that we are trying to accommodate cognitive
attributes that have not been recognized in any standard yet, shows that
there are currently no tools. I hope there soon will be. There has been
almost no progress on these tools since WCAG 2.

I think both Lisa and Wayne have good points, the cognitive and low vision
community are both sorely lacking in adequate tools. The
cognitive community needs AT that will simplify language and interfaces. It
needs a standard of attributes to mark up content to read these and
personalize the interface. The Low vision community needs tools to
linearize content etc...

WCAG can't fix that. When tools exist, then we can make requirements on
authors to not break the effective functioning of those tools or plugins
etc... This is what we've done with screen readers and it is what we can do
in other domains as well.

Regarding WCAG's attentiveness to the needs of people with low vision and
cognitive disabilities. I was there. I saw the research available, I saw
the tools available. WCAG did everything in its power to make
requirements that were acceptable to all stakeholders given the lack of
tools.

I would like to see our limited time put into trying to solve our current
problems within our current constraints. We have been charted to create a
backward compatible updated version of WCAG 2.0. Version 2.1. We can't
stray to ffar beyond that. We haven't been chartered to solve the lack of
sufficient solutions that don't exist.


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, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with you Lisa. The old WCAG did not study cognitive disabilities
> enough to determine how to test ways to overcome barriers. WCAG 2.0 focused
> on a narrow and easily defined set of disabilities with highly testable
> barriers. It was not inclusive.
>
> I too find the current AG process frustrating. The group never considered
> Cognitive and LV disabilities with the necessary care in the past to solve
> the real problems. This is witnessed by their inadequate framework for
> testing barriers for these disabilities.  They are imposing differential
> standards to these disability groups because they are not looking for new
> testing methods for a new type of problem. If the old testing techniques do
> not work, then a proven barrier to access are left in place.
>
> Grappling with and solving the real needs of people with LV and Cognitive
> disabilities is a test for the legitimacy of the AG working group as a
> leader in accessibility guidelines. If guidelines and test procedures
> cannot be expanded to accurately identify insurmountable barriers for
> people in these disability groups, then the disability community will have
> to look to other leadership for developing accessibility standards.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> Yes I can see how small sample user testing techniques need to be built by
> organizations the claim to test for accessibility.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:20 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks
>> At the risk of shooting my self in the foot but ... to enable us to move
>> on
>>
>> Does anyone else see this as an issue. If I am the only one with a
>> problem with it, then I will conseed to consensus, rewrite the exceptions
>> that depend on it,  and we can move on.
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:24:07 +0200 *Joshue O
>> Connor<josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie>>* wrote ----
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Fair point or not, I don't at this point feel the need to go thru another
>> CFC that allows or does not allow user testing in situation x, or to limit
>> it under exception y. I'm not fully clear on the implication of doing such
>> a thing, nor am I clear on the reason why we might. You seem to be, which
>> is cool :-)
>>
>> My main concern at the moment, is that we cannot make user testing a
>> requirement in 2.1. End of story. However, I don't want to wrangle our spec
>> to stop people from testing or imply that that cannot do it under situation
>> A or B. People can test all they like, in any situation, if they wish to as
>> far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> As I stated - at the moment, I feel I just don't fully grok some of the
>> points being made here but even with that aside - the original CFC was
>> clear IMO.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>>
>> John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
>> 15 February 2017 at 15:58
>> Chairs,
>>
>> Lisa has a fair point.
>>
>> Can I request that a second CfC go out that explicitly states that "we
>> should not allow user testing in exceptions" - for the same reasons that
>> user-testing for conformance was rejected?
>>
>> This way we can be sure that the consensus has been recorded properly and
>> accurately, and everyone understands what they are registering their
>> position on.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> JF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Foliot
>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>> Deque Systems Inc.
>> <john.foliot@deque.com>john.foliot@deque.com
>>
>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joshue O Connor
>> Director | InterAccess.ie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>