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

Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:09:29 +0000
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Michael Pluke <mike.pluke@castle-consult.com>
CC: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DB6PR0901MB0919160198B1700BB64B8970B9FC0@DB6PR0901MB0919.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Sorry, I thought we were talking about a separate document?

One sitting alongside WCAG 2.1 for the best practice advice that doesn't fit the SC model.

Cheers,

Alastair

Sent from my phone, apologies for typos.
________________________________
From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:46:18 PM
To: Alastair Campbell; Michael Pluke
Cc: w3c-waI-gl@w3. org
Subject: Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward

If I understand your proposal, I think it's a more radical change to the
guidelines structure than we'd want to do in a dot-release to WCAG 2.0.
As a dot-release, I think we need to stick with the principles -
guidelines - success criteria model, or it won't be sufficiently
backwards compatible with WCAG 2.0. That does indeed create constraints,
and is one reason WCAG 2.1 should be viewed as an interim release, not a
"solve all the problems" version. I'm almost positive we'll want a
different structure in future guidelines, which is what the Silver task
force is working on.

My thoughts on cognitive accessibility "pillars" admittedly "shoe-horns"
them into the SC model. It's not perfect, but it's an attempt to get
some progress in 2.1, within its structure, with the expectation that
we'll be able to do better in later guidelines releases.

Michael


On 2017-05-25 7:18 PM, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Michael Cooper wrote:
>> I've been thinking of the "pillars" as success criteria.... [but] they do indeed look more like guidelines than SC... But the problem with guidelines is, we have to have SC under them.
> I think we need things that are specific 'checks' but are not SCs.
>
> So still use Principle > Guideline > [Something]
>
> In old-school usability terms, these would be 'heuristics', which are more about 'appropriateness'  than an SC. But heuristics isn't a very good term, perhaps 'checks'?
>
> Mike, any suggestions from other standards?
>
> For example, Plain language could be framed as something like (and this is off-the-cuff):
>
> [Guideline] Use plain language for important information.
>
> [Check 1] Double negatives are not used to express a positive statement.
> [Check 2] Words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form for the concept.
>
> There would be quite a bit of work to re-categorise things, but perhaps less than the current approach.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
Received on Friday, 26 May 2017 20:10:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 26 May 2017 20:10:07 UTC