RE: suggested table of content

Hi Gregg

I agree that the vast majority of the material will be under “Understandable”.

When I’ve analysed a lot of the existing complex COGA SC proposals it is almost as if the scope of the proposed SC is more similar to a WCAG 2.0 guideline and some of the elements contained in the proposal might make individual SCs. I think that the wording that describes the overriding principles of existing SC proposals is often the material that everyone is (correctly) claiming is imprecise and untestable. Whereas this is unacceptable for an SC, guidelines are not meant to be testable – so putting these overriding principles as guidelines should in theory work perfectly.

If my analysis is at least partly right, this raises the question of whether we could disassemble these complex SC proposals and:


  *   Propose a brand new Guideline (under Understandable) to include in WCAG 2.1;
  *   Propose one or more SCs under the new guideline to also include.

Does this a) make sense and b) do you believe that it will be acceptable to add new guidelines in WCAG 2.1 under the “Understandable” principle?

Best regards

Mike

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu]
Sent: 01 May 2017 02:11
To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: suggested table of content

Thanks for the Table of Contents.
I think that you might use a different organization that WCAG principles -  since so much will be under just one principle  - namely “Understand"
However I can see advantages either way.

  If you did use the WCAG principles — I would avoid using the guidelines - because I think you will find that they don’t match everything you want to say — and you will have to shoehorn things in, leave somethings out — or have to discuss them grouped in ways that are less clear than if you can discuss them in a flowing manner with items wherever they need to be in the flow.


RE OUT OF SCOPE

Also - I don’t think anything is out of scope on this — since it is not a set of guidelines - and not tied strictly to WCAG.       It is advisory, ‘best practice’ for making the web more accessible.

As a result you can comment on AT,  on User Agents,  on Tool  as well as on Content.

Guidance for policy makers may be the only bit here that is out of scope — but I’m not sure.  We had a bit in WCAG   (recommending that level AAA not be required since we put things there that would not always apply or things that (on some pages) could not be done with other things.  )     But I would check with Judy on this question.



Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>






On Apr 30, 2017, at 1:54 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote:

Hi

To get us started I was thinking about making a table of content for the supplement. I think once we have a proposal we should send it to wcag and confirm they are comfortable with our outline


Anyway, here it is:

  *   Guidance for content authors

     *   under wcag  principle 1
     *   under wcag  principle 2
     *   under wcag  principle 3
     *   under wcag  principle 4

  *   Items for further research
  *   Known issues (internationalization, author burden, test ability)
  *   Guidance  Assertive technologies (is this out of scope)
  *   Guidance for Browsers (is this out of scope)
  *   Guidance for policy makers

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>


________________________________