- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:20:35 -0400
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
- Cc: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbfAeW0W79jXuMpxFXd5Q1G5W6+OUFg_N74Q5d8Q=5uJA@mail.gmail.com>
I've assembled a list of SCs that address, or attempted to address Cognitive and Low Vision requirements in WCAG 2.0 http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/wcag-for-low-vision-cognitive-disabilites.html 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 Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:52 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 4, 2017 10:17 AM > > I’m not sure that this should be the question. I think a survey would not > prove anything. I’d be utterly astonished if many (or any) would suggest > that WCAG 2.1 should exclude cognitive disabilities from its scope! > > > > I think that everyone would like WCAG to address as many accessibility > barriers as possible, irrespective of disability. > > *[Jason] Making the Web “cross-disability accessible” has been the focus > of WCAG from the very beginning in 1997, and even before then when the > Trace Center compiled the guidelines that were submitted to the W3C at the > start of the WCAG development process. I don’t think anyone is now > proposing to reduce this scope. At least, I haven’t read or heard any such > proposal.* > > *Writing high-quality, efficacious and reliably testable proposals to > address the needs of people with learning and cognitive disabilities beyond > what we already have in WCAG is difficult. These difficulties are not new > to the working group. They were encountered, as I recall, in the > development of WCAG 1.0, and definitely received substantial attention in > the 2.0 process. There are reasons why WCAG 2.0 provides as it does in > Principle 3 and relevant parts of Principle 2, for example.* > > *Let’s not confuse the challenges of creating a high-quality > scpecification with an intention to reduce the scope of WCAG. The > difficulties are real, should not be underestimated, but remain > surmountable – even if some of them can’t be addressed until Silver.* > > ------------------------------ > > 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. > ------------------------------ >
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2017 18:21:09 UTC