I'd be interested in some detail about why these new suggestions are each felt to be better. What weakness are being addressed? That would offer a learning opportunity and lead to option 4 4) Update current based on shared understanding and consensus Otherwise I vote 3 given we have detailed back ground information, unless it's felt to be simply a matter of wording Steve Lee OpenDirective http://opendirective.com On 6 February 2017 at 19:55, Thaddeus . <inclusivethinking@gmail.com> wrote: > I vote 3 > On Feb 6, 2017 11:08 AM, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote: > >> We had issues with reading level , for example the word "mode" is a lower >> reading level than "hot or cold" . the lower reading level is much harder >> to understand. >> The reason to go with Jeanne's proposal is because wcag _might_ find it >> more testable. This would only be, in my opinion, because they have not >> bothered read the whole proposal and testability section (or they do not >> want new tools) Also i am not sure it is more testable in different >> languages and that is essential for WCAG. Wordlists requiremnts however, >> can work easily in any language and wordlists can be automatically >> generated by parsing a few sites. >> >> I agree that the "unless..." clause is only human testable but that it >> very typical for wcag. >> >> >> I want to suggest three options >> >> 1 - we retract our current pull requests and put these in instead >> >> 2 - we go with the current pull requests. If they fail and the comments >> are hard to address then we go with Jeanne's >> >> 3 -we go with the current pull requests. we can revisit this if needed >> >> My vote is 3, to go with the current wording and see what happens >> >> >> All the best >> >> Lisa Seeman >> >> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter >> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> >> >> >> >> >> ---- On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 20:00:24 +0200 *Jeanne >> Spellman<jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com >> <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>>* wrote ---- >> >> A group of us at The Paciello Group (TPG) have been meeting every week in >> January to comment on the WCAG 2.1 proposals. Because we test WCAG 2.0 all >> day, every (business) day, we have a lot of experience with both the >> language of WCAG and the testing of WCAG. What we decided this week is >> that we want to focus our efforts toward helping COGA TF draft success >> criteria that will get into WCAG 2.1 and will accomplish most of what you >> want -- even if it is phrased differently. >> >> We started with the proposals that we thought would be the least >> controversial to the WCAG WG to include. I looked at the Plain Language >> proposals and did my best to look at the needs identified by COGA TF, and >> craft language that I thought would be acceptable to the WCAG WG and be >> included in the first draft version of WCAG 2.1. >> >> The wording is quite different, but in my opinion, addresses the needs >> identified. I chose reading level, because it is internationally >> standardized, and there are automated tests already available. When I look >> at Technique G153: Making the text easier to read >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G153.html , it covers most of the >> items that the COGA TF identified. >> >> Issue 30 Proposal: >> >> Understandable Labels: Navigation elements and form labels do not >> require reading ability greater than primary education level. (A) [link >> to WCAG’s definition of primary education level from UNESCO standard] >> >> >> Issue 41: >> >> Understandable Instructions: Headings, error messages and instructions >> for completing tasks do not require reading ability greater than lower >> secondary education level. (AA) [link to WCAG’s definition of lower >> secondary level from UNESCO standard] >> >> >> Delta 3.1.5 (rewrite of existing WCAG 3.1.5) >> >> Understandable Content: Blocks of text either: (AAA) >> >> · have a reading level no more advanced than lower secondary >> education, or >> >> · a version is provided that does not require reading ability >> more advanced than lower secondary education. [links to WCAG’s >> definitions of lower secondary education and blocks of text] >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Received on Monday, 6 February 2017 20:17:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:58 UTC