Re: Capabilities vs Outcomes

+1 to having a paragraph, in the intro section, explicitly connecting the concept of CAPABILITY to OUTCOME.

STRAWMAN:

Our focus is user-centered and outcome-driven. We refer to each potential remediation as a capability in order to  highlight the technical intervention, but we keep in mind that such post-source remediations are done to serve the user’s success—which is the true outcome. Wherever a capability is described, it should be understood as a means of delivering a concrete, successful accessibility outcome, especially in cases where the source experience would otherwise fail.


From: Jason Taylor <jason@usablenet.com>
Date: Thursday, 3 July 2025 at 17:38
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Michael Paciello <michael.paciello@audioeye.com>, Lionel Wolberger <lionel.wolberger@levelaccess.com>, Accessibility at the Edge <public-a11yedge@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Capabilities vs Outcomes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I would suggest that the introduction of the document describes that sections 2,3 and 4 document the outcomes that can be achieved. The title of each sub section is already worded as an outcome.



J


This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are intended only to be read or used by the named addressee(s). It is confidential and contains legally privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.

Sent from my iPhone


On Jul 3, 2025, at 4:07 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
Something in the Introduction, if we really believe it's important to
emphasize "outcomes" more than we already do, is OK by me.

Please be aware that "outcomes" is a key term in WCAG 3.0 development.
Just do this search on Google:

+outcomes +wcag site:w3.org

And you'll see what I mean. Aligninf ourselves with those google search
results is, I would argue, our goal in publishing this document and
taking the next steps that result.

Changing our text to use that term prematurely may just be borrowing
trouble.

Mike Paciello writes:

I am leaning towards Janina's reasoning. However, perhaps the adjustment
can be introduced in the introduction/preface of the document. Drive home
both the meaning and objective.

-Mike

Mike Paciello
Chief Accessibility Officer
michael.paciello@audioeye.com
+1.603.484.1938

[image: AudioEye Registered Trademark Logo]
[image: Follow us on LinkedIn for more accessibility tips!]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/audioeye-inc/>


On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 8:56???AM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

Hi Lionel, All:

My quick, off the top of my head, initial response is "No" because:

*       It is very late in the process and every occurance would need to
*       be hand reviewed for skewed meaning. Think another multiweek
*       delay when I'm getting ready to be on vacation for two weeks
*       late July.

*       WCAG uses the same term but with arguably a different meaning.
*       Even if we align that we're using "outcome" with the same
*       meaning as WCAG, we'd forever be explaining ourselves about
*       that.

*       The syntactical/grammatical meaning shifts with this edit in
*       ways that give me pause. I can't take the time to explain this
*       just now as I have a call, but it's significant and should be
*       very carefully considered. This is actually my biggest reason
*       for no. Short version is meaning shifts to a result we claim
*       rather than a technology we supply.

Best,
Janina

Lionel Wolberger writes:
Hi Community Group,

During our last telecon, we discussed a potentially meaningful shift:
replacing the term ?capabilities? with ?outcomes? throughout the document.

This adjustment would align us more closely with current accessibility
frameworks?particularly WCAG?which emphasize user-centered design and
real-world results. While ?capabilities? suggests potential, ?outcomes?
speaks directly to what is achieved and experienced by users. This framing
may better support our goals and the practical needs of the market.

That said, this would be a significant terminological change at a late
stage in the publishing cycle.

I'd like a quick temperature check: are folks open to even considering
making this shift?



--
Lionel Wolberger, Ph.D.
VP Business Operations
Level Access
https://levelaccess.com

https://userway.org


--

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka


The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures     http://www.w3.org/wai/apa


Linux Foundation Fellow
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/





--
The information in this communication is intended for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information
that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL and/or exempt from disclosure under law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.

--

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka


The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures    http://www.w3.org/wai/apa


Linux Foundation Fellow
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/