W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Supplementary document for WCAG 2.1

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 11:48:12 +0000
To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
CC: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <60D843B1-216F-4B17-B12B-8BCE6543F28E@nomensa.com>
Hi Lisa,

Regarding:

> I therefore think we will have to argue every step of the way for how the document is structured and whether we should try to make things testable etc.

I’m really struggling to understand those arguments because:

-      If it is structured as you suggested then it is following the “POUR” structure, which they can all follow;

-      I thought the point was that it doesn’t need to be (as strictly) testable.


> If they are separate documents we may be able to make an interface that merges them, but I think that will be much easier then to build an interface that pulls out different sections and still has the form we need.

This seems like a “Potato potahto” difference, if the structures are compatible then it doesn’t make much difference whether it is three that can be combined or one that can be separated.


> We need a document that tells web developers how to build content so it can be used by people with cognitive and learning disabilities. And lets face it , it wont be WCAG.

We need a document that policy makers and organisations can follow to make their web sites more accessible to everyone that goes beyond what testable content guidelines can provide.

I’ll come back to the guideline vs process difference: Following a user-centred design process will make far more impact on the usability (for everyone, but especially for people with cognitive issues) than one-size-fits-all guidelines. Jamming what are essentially usability guidelines into WCAG will be counter-productive.

I’m assuming at the moment that this document would provide the heuristics (rather than SCs) to improve your interface, but can use terms like “when appropriate”, which is far more flexible and useful.

Kind regards,

-Alastair
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 11:48:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:48 UTC