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

Individually, many of us are very engaged in cutting edge research,
creating inventions and dreaming of ways we can make the web more
inclusive.

As a group, my understanding is that our role has been to survey all the
techniques and tools that are out there, and throw our collective weight
behind solutions that are implementable by *web authors* and also to inform
them of *how not to interfere* with existing tools.

Once in a while we can push the envelope a little beyond those things, but
I don't think we can stray too far beyond that role without loosing
credibility.

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 2:59 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> I strongly disagree with Davids comment that we are just a vetting
> committee.
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:11:26 +0200 * White<jjwhite@ets.org
> <jjwhite@ets.org>>* wrote ----
>
> +1 to David’s comments.
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:03 AM
> *To:* Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; Joshue O Connor <
> josh@interaccess.ie>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>;
> W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* 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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
>
> --
> Joshue O Connor
> Director *| InterAccess.ie *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>