W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > February 2019

WCAG 2.2 Possible Criteria

From: Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L. <rbradley@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 20:38:17 +0000
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR09MB2226307A7D3D17E1D679E85FDE6D0@BN6PR09MB2226.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hello,

I had taken the action from the last phone call to go through the various 2.1 COGA SC proposals and GitHub discussions to see which I thought would be good candidates for 2.2.  This was before the face-to-face meeting so may not be as useful now.  But, in case it is still helpful, the result is below.

Process
I was not looking for which were the most important SC. Instead, I was trying to determine which SC would be easiest to successfully get through a shorter WCAG review process. I believe the group is better able to determine which are most important.

I reviewed all the COGA SC and To Do List, and then selected SC based on a two criteria:

  1.  Did the working group make progress on the SC in 2.1? Several SC had been discussed in depth and simply ran out of time before being finalized. These seem to be to be better candidates than SC that got little or no discussion or SC that were discussed at length but were not close to a final wording.
  2.  Does the SC lend itself to the 2.1 framework? Some SC require usability-like assessment which fits better in Silver than in the current framework. I eliminated these from the list.

I also eliminated any that made it to an SC in 2.1.

Results
SC that had a lot of discussion and some solid proposals but didn’t make it in:


  *   Feedback: This had a proposal to split it into two SC, one on general feedback and one on auditory feedback.
  *   Accessible Authentication: This had a proposal to split into two, one for authentication and one for captcha
  *   Undo: This had a good bit of work done on it and ran out of time.
  *   Error Prevention: This had been changed to a level A that interacted with 3.3.4.  It had a lot more discussion left at TPAC but ran out of time.
  *   Extra Symbols: This was a little unclear what happened but it also may have run out of time. It had good discussion and a clear proposal for a way forward.

Two SC that are not quite as proposed from COGA but may have a way forward:

  *   Affordances: This isn’t a term on the COGA to do list but it came up in discussion at the AG group as part of 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast. 1.4.11 requires that if affordances exist they have sufficient contrast. It does not require the affordances exist. An SC requiring consistent affordances such as input outlines could tie together concepts from Visually Clear Controls and Consistent Cues.
  *   Clear Instructions and Messages:  Mike Gower proposed an overarching SC around clear instructions and messages. This would then use Plain Language, Understandable Language, Chunks, and other language centered SC as techniques.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Rachael

Received on Monday, 4 February 2019 20:38:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 4 February 2019 20:38:45 UTC