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

Re: should we be trying to include all disabilities equally?

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:20:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbfAeW0W79jXuMpxFXd5Q1G5W6+OUFg_N74Q5d8Q=5uJA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
I've assembled a list of SCs that address, or attempted to address
Cognitive and Low Vision requirements in WCAG 2.0


David MacDonald

*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902



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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:15 UTC