Re: Plain Language

Hi, Alastair,
This is an interesting discussion. One problem with your suggested generic user focused SC is that it is only testable/possible to validate from the position of a user – of which we know nothing – and thus, it is not possible for others than that user – with their technology, level of knowledge etc. to verify if this statement is true or not – i.e. if the SC (requirement) is met by the website owner/designer/developer.
I am concerned with the general testability with the direction we are currently heading. Guidelines should guide you in solving a specific task (e.g. making your website accessible), whereas criteria are generally testable statements as I see it. I know this is taking it to the extremes, but I think we need to do this exercise as well to ensure we arrive at the detination we are looking for.





Stein Erik Skotkjerra
Lead Accessibility Strategist, EMEA & APAC

[cid:image002.png@01D37335.32C5A170]<http://siteimprove.com/da/>

Sankt Annæ Plads 28  |  DK-1250 København K
Mobile +45 26 34 34 55  |  ses@siteimprove.com<mailto:ses@siteimprove.com>

Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/Siteimprove>   Twitter<https://twitter.com/Siteimprove>   LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/siteimprove>

Unsubscribe<http://go.siteimprove.com/hs/manage-preferences/unsubscribe-simple>Stein Erik Skotkjerra

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Friday, 24 August 2018 at 11.27
To: Gerry Neustatl <swordfish68@gmail.com>
Cc: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Plain Language
Resent-From: <public-silver@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Friday, 24 August 2018 at 11.27

> the guidelines must achieve something that other references do not. They must be comprehensive without room for interpretation or they aren’t definitive.

Hi Gerry,

Agreed, the question is how.

My initial thought is that the current SC level should become the guideline level, and then have tech-specific SCs under that.
(Secondarily, I’ve been thinking that the guideline-level could be based on user-need, rather than content requirements.)

Taking an example like “reflow” [1], the plain-english guideline could be:

> Guideline: Users can make content twice the default size without needing to scroll to read.
(My 1st stab at that, I’m not a plain-language expert!)

Then the HTML specific criteria could be similar to the current SC:

> Content can be presented without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions for:
> - Vertical scrolling content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels;
> - Horizontal scrolling content at a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels.
> Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.

The iOS native version would be different, and the Android version would be different again because the technology is capable of different things.

WCAG 2.x separates by technology at the techniques level, whereas I’m suggesting it separates at the testable criteria level.

Cheers,

-Alastair

1] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#reflow<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23reflow&data=02%7C01%7Cses%40siteimprove.com%7C9bbe9f9ec73a4daf125008d609a3d2e1%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C0%7C0%7C636706996560247012&sdata=zqoIXfserlTZ8j4e4erhbs29lqGfaZtEW7P0hbBFIeU%3D&reserved=0>