Re: Silver Requirements (high level draft)

Some comments:

Abstract:

"  the requirements that the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has  
set for development of Accessibility Guidelines moving forward."

I think we mean

"requirements for the next generation of Accessibility Guidelines, known  
as 'Silver'".

"in terms of practical use, and in maintenance"

I am not sure what this adds to the abstract and think it should be  
removed.

Introduction:

I think we could rewrite this. I suggest something like:

Content and applications online sometimes include features that make it  
hard for people with disabilities to use them. We need to identify those  
barriers, to explain how to make applications or publish content online,  
so people with disabilities can use  them as effectively as possible.

Design Principles:

" It is the view of Silver that accessibility guidelines should include  
the principles and intent of previous guidelines, and"

Silver isn't a person. I am not sure it has a view. It is also unclear if  
the Silver Task Force means to imply that the following material is *in  
addition* to the principles and intent of the existing guidelines.

"include people wth disabilities in the process"

in which process?

Requirements:

"
…not exclusively have strict pass/fail tests. Develop alternative methods  
of measuring whether guidance has been implemented sufficiently that  
better supports people’s needs.
Develop a conformance model with the flexibility to include guidelines  
with ranges of helpfulness of implementations
"

These seem to say the same thing in different words and not in very plain  
language.

As I understand them, the requirement is:

Silver will provide more information than a simple pass/fail statement. It  
will describe "minimal" and "better" methods of conforming to a  
requirement.

cheers

Chaals


On Fri, 18 May 2018 22:42:59 +0200, Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>  
wrote:

> All,
>
> We've put together a high level draft of a Silver Requirements document  
> (HTML version), which we'll send to the overall Accessibility Guidelines  
> >Working Group in a couple of weeks. We still have several outstanding  
> comment threads in there (largely around needed rewording and  
> simplification >of sentence structure), but please have a look through  
> and add your thoughts or suggestions! Feel free to comment directly in  
> the document or email
> A couple prompts:
> Does this document make the requirements clear?
> Did we leave anything out that we should explicitly speak to in this  
> requirements document?
> For other examples, see:
> WCAG 2.1's Requirements Document
> WCAG 2.0's Requirements Document
> A search of W3C of Requirements documents
> We'll create a more detailed version later on, once we've all agreed on  
> the higher level points here. Then, we'll go into a little more detail  
> about our >plans on how to meet these goals and more explicitly what  
> each requirement means.
>
> Much appreciated!
>
> Shawn



-- 
Chaals: Charles (McCathie) Nevile find more at https://yandex.com
Using Opera's long-abandoned mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Is there really still nothing better?