Re: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.

Chas,

         As it is, we have four guidelines 1) accessibility, 2) 
navigability, 3)comprehensibility, and 4) technology

         You suggest moving the technology checkpoints under which?

         Why not simplify further ---- two guidelines: 1) insure that all 
content is accessible and comprehensible
and 2) insure that users can navigate the page/site.  There will be too 
many cross links between accessible and comprehensible, and they both have 
a common goals -- for the user to be able to use the content.

                                                         Anne

At 04:30 AM 8/20/01 -0700, Charles F. Munat wrote:
> From a previous post:
>
>"If it were up to me, I would break out [navigability] and
>[comprehensibility] and make three guidelines: WCAG, WCNG, WCCG, for
>Accessibility, Navigability, and Comprehensibility respectively. If we did
>this, I expect that WCAG would be slightly smaller, WCNG would be of
>moderate size, and WCCG would be as large or larger than the current
>guidelines."
>
>I continue:
>
>I don't expect to convince many, but I'm going to state this for the record.
>The best we're going to do on the WCAG if we try to include navigability and
>comprehension in with accessibility (strict sense meaning ability to "get
>to" the data) is half-assed. More likely quarter-assed. It's just too much
>for one document.
>
>IF (big IF) we split the documents:
>
>1. We could have the WCAG 2.0 ready to go in a week (and with almost NO
>quarrelling over the details -- this stuff is mostly old hat).
>
>2. The Web Content Navigability Guidelines could be done fairly quickly, I'd
>imagine. A few months?
>
>3. The Web Content Comprehensibility Guidelines would take a while. At least
>a year, I'd think. BUT (big BUT): We could issue a temporary set containing
>the comprehensibility checkpoints currently in WCAG 2.0 (including the
>dreaded 3.3 and 3.4). They would be without official status (whatever that's
>worth) but would be enough to get people thinking about it. We could also
>promote them and try to get people thinking more about comprehensibility.
>
>THINK OF THE BENEFITS:
>
>1. We get access out of the way. This would refocus our goal. No longer
>would there be the tug of war between access advocates and comprehensibility
>advocates.
>
>2. A new, small, fast-working group could be formed to handle the
>navigability guidelines. Without the burden of having to figure out
>comprehensibility (a much more difficult proposition) or simple access,
>these guidelines could be produced quickly.
>
>3. COMPREHENSIBILITY IS NO LONGER ACCESSIBILITY'S UGLY HALF-SISTER, VYING
>FOR ATTENTION. This group could morph into the Comprehensibility WG, minus
>those people who are more interested in access or navigation. The group
>would be focused on ONE goal. Better still, we could PROMOTE this idea more
>effectively because comprehensibility is more *comprehensible* when were not
>trying to call it accessibility. Finally, we could go out and actively seek
>experts on comprehension (and cognitive disabilities) to join the experts
>already in this group, bringing in fresh blood and new ideas and
>rejuvenating the group. Who knows, maybe without the drag of constant access
>vs. comprehensibility wars, the WCCG could be completed in record time.
>
>The only detriments I see are these:
>
>1. It takes longer to get the comprehensibility guidelines out. As I see it,
>this delay would be more than compensated for by the MUCH clearer nature of
>the WCCG guidelines. And, when users looked to the WCCG, there would be no
>doubt about what they were trying to accomplish (e.g., a person who just
>wants to ensure access to users with visual disabilities will not look
>there). Another mitigating factor would be the temporary stop-gap measure of
>an "unofficial" release of "methods to aid comprehensibility while waiting
>for the release of the WCCG 2.0."
>
>2. Without the "accessibility" angle, comprehensibility might lose some
>leverage. Solution: Define accessibility twice (as we already have, I
>think). GENERAL accessibility includes SPECIFIC accessibility, navigability,
>and comprehensibility. PUT THIS IN THE INTRODUCTION TO ALL THREE SETS OF
>GUIDELINES, thus:
>
>"There are three parts to ensuring an accessible Web site. First, users must
>be able to access the site. Second, they must be able to navigate the site,
>to find the data they're looking for. Finally, they must be able to
>comprehend -- to understand -- the data once they've found it. The W3C
>provides three sets of guidelines related to Web site accessibility: the Web
>Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), the Web Content Navigability
>Guidelines (WCNG), and the Web Content Comprehensibility Guidelines (WCCG).
>All three sets of guidelines are necessary to ensure accessibility on the
>Web."
>
>This gets us out of the "usability" trap. It clarifies (and actually
>simplifies) the guidelines. It refocuses the guidelines by allowing each set
>to concentrate on one area.
>
>There could be overlap. A checkpoint that affected access and navigability,
>for example, could appear in both. The non-normative data could explain how
>it affected access in the WCAG version and how it affected navigability in
>the WCNG version.
>
>Another option is to reorganize the current guidelines into access,
>navigability, and comprehensibility sections, but this is much less
>desirable. I envision a significant expansion of the comprehensibility (and,
>to a lesser extent, the navigability) portion. This is going to take some
>time. If we keep them in one document, we will delay the access portion by
>quite some time. Why? Let's get it out of the way. Then let's create a set
>of comprehensibility guidelines that will blow the lid off this subject and
>will focus everyone's attention on the need to make sites comprehensible to
>everyone. (Note to Anne: this puts the needs of people with cognitive
>disabilities front and center.)
>
>I ask everyone in this group to think seriously about this idea. WE CAN DO
>THIS. IT IS NOT TOO LATE. WCAG 2.0, stripped of nav and comp can sail
>through to recommendation status and we can give the remaining two aspects
>of accessibility the attention they truly deserve.
>
>Since the current draft is scheduled to go public in the next 48 hours, if
>you think that this is worth at least a telecon, please SPEAK NOW.
>
>Chas. Munat

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 07:53:09 UTC