About This Page

This page is used by the task force to track our current work. To learn more about the task force take a look at our home page, our public list or our work statement. Send us comments at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org.

Notes from our Face to Face meeting in London FTF issues and agenda Terms and Definitions

Current Mandate

Our current mandate is to:

  • Perform a Gap Analysis;
  • create and suggest techniques; and
  • create a roadmap.

What are we working on now?

Right now we are working on the Gap Analysis.

A module of the Gap Analysis is user research. We are getting it ready for the first working draft. Note that the current draft of user research is on GitHub. You can also see the published draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/coga-user-research/.

Also as part of the Gap Analysis we are:

General To do

  • make prescriptive
  • give good descriptions for user agents like Kurzweil 3000?
  • add draft the business case and user needs

todo - next draft of techniques

  • Make dysculcila consistent -done
  • Add techniques for issue papers
  • Review and edit - make prescriptive

todo - next draft of issue papers

  • Add note of what is missing
  • next draft of each paper ..


  • Security and Privacy Technologies -John R
  • Online Safety
  • Voice Menu Systems -Debra Dahl
  • Online Payments - Debra Rue and Neil
  • Flat Design - Jamie?
  • User Preferences - Mike and Lisa
  • Add Providing graded help
  • Add Interoperable preference
  • Adaptable Links and Buttons
  • Personalization
  • Add meta data support
  • Symbols for Non-Verbal - EA
  • Numbers and Math - Tony
  • Web of Things - Jannina
  • Add Attention and distraction - Neil
  • modality -ea

todo - Gap Analisis

  • Make dysculcila consistent
  • Add techniques for issue papers
  • Review and edit

Lower priority for now

Current schedules

June 7th: Release of 2nd editors draft of techniques - to include more techniques including for numbers and restructuring

31st July - Frease 1st Working Draft to go to WCAG and PF for approval for: Issue papers, Techniques, Gap analysis

31st August Editors draft of the roadmap

1st November Editors draft for information for WCAG

1st November 2nd Working Draft of user research module

1st December Editors draft of the glossary

Citations

Materials published by this task force have a lot of citations. W3C has a particular format and tooling for those. While there is a central database of specifications and other publications, most of the citations used by this group are not in that central database. Therefore the task force maintains a separate database of citations. See instructions for creating and using citations.

Key links

Upcoming Work

Gap Analysis Road Map

Key Resolutions

  1. Name officially needs to include LD or CLL
  2. Term needed for "recommendations" in roadmap as "recommendations" is a reserved word in the W3C. (Suggestion: Proposals and/or Principles)
  3. Helping users improving skills is out of scope but useful for outreach
  4. we will use the term 'intellectual disabilities' rather than just use terms such as Down Syndrome or other specific types of intellectual disability
  5. We are avoiding the phrase ICT with other, Web related terms intellectual disability such as Down Syndrome.
  6. We are using the term intellectual disability rather then specific type of
  7. We can resolve small issues on the calls. Larger resolutions need to be approved on our list. We expect people to bring up opposition to resolution within 48 hours.
  8. Criteria by which we decide what research to accept:Due to practical constraints most research will simply be cited and not examined for credibility. However the following cases will rely on task force consensuses before inclusion:
    1. Commercial research that implies the use of a specific proprietary product will be examined for scientific credibility before being included
    2. Research where the task force is aware of contradictory evidence (including anecdotal) will be examined for scientific credibility before being included.

Links for evaluating what scientific research is good (or not): http://www.reportbd.com/articles/57/1/Criteria-Qualities-of-Good-Scientific-Research/Page1.html

http://www.ttuhsc.edu/gsbs/srw/JudgingCriteria_ScientificResearch.aspx

http://www.slideshare.net/Sisyphosstone/81-criteria-ofscientificresearch

http://blog.reseapro.com/2012/08/criteria-of-good-research/

Open issues

  1. we have discussed a few times changing our name. There is a huge problem with localization.

The task force name should contain LD, but disabilities may be replaced for impairments or challenges.

Other Relevant Links

Other pages of our work

Technologies to review

Also taken from HTML 5 wishlist:

  • Full Transcript
    • John Foliot is interested in exploring this.
  • Media Descriptions
    • John Foliot.
  • Date UI Widgets
    • Janina
  • Input type numeric
  • Emotion Markup
    • Debra Dahl
  • Haptic Output
  • Gaming
  • Referencing UAAG
  • Media
  • Web Payments
  • Footnotes, End notes, Annotations, Definitions
    • ePub, ARIA
  • Real Time Chat
    • Janina
  • Accesskey
    • John Foliot
  • Menus
    • Cynthia

Authors of User group research modules

Volunteer research groups: John Rochford

Reports

View edit history of this page.