Re: suggested table of content

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On May 1, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gregg
>  
> I agree that the vast majority of the material will be under “Understandable”.

Agree
>  
> When I’ve analysed a lot of the existing complex COGA SC proposals it is almost as if the scope of the proposed SC is more similar to a WCAG 2.0 guideline and some of the elements contained in the proposal might make individual SCs. I think that the wording that describes the overriding principles of existing SC proposals is often the material that everyone is (correctly) claiming is imprecise and untestable. Whereas this is unacceptable for an SC, guidelines are not meant to be testable – so putting these overriding principles as guidelines should in theory work perfectly.

Agree

>  
> If my analysis is at least partly right, this raises the question of whether we could disassemble these complex SC proposals and:
>  
> Propose a brand new Guideline (under Understandable) to include in WCAG 2.1;
> Propose one or more SCs under the new guideline to also include.


Hmmm  yes  - you need SC for each guideline  (at least one - hopefully several)

>  
> Does this a) make sense and 

Interesting thought.  Would need to see what it would look like to determine if it would make sense or not. Also have to see if they are genuinely new guidelines or whether the topic fall under the existing guidelines.

> b) do you believe that it will be acceptable to add new guidelines in WCAG 2.1 under the “Understandable” principle?

 I would think if there are new guidelines with qualified SC  under them  that are not conflated  with the other guidelines they could certainly be added under understandable.

So I think the answer to your basic question is yes it is possible if the guidelines and SC make sense and qualify as new guidelines (non-testable general guidance) and SC (testable etc).


 only the SC  would be used for conformance but the guidelines would still provide guidance and they would be within WCAG 2.1 


 in summary, interesting thought, to evaluate it further would require seeing text to see if it makes sense or actually works.


  unable to judge without text, but intrigued 

Gregg

>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mike
>   <>
> From: Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu] 
> Sent: 01 May 2017 02:11
> To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: suggested table of content
>  
> Thanks for the Table of Contents.   
> I think that you might use a different organization that WCAG principles -  since so much will be under just one principle  - namely “Understand"
> However I can see advantages either way.  
>  
>   If you did use the WCAG principles — I would avoid using the guidelines - because I think you will find that they don’t match everything you want to say — and you will have to shoehorn things in, leave somethings out — or have to discuss them grouped in ways that are less clear than if you can discuss them in a flowing manner with items wherever they need to be in the flow. 
>  
>  
> RE OUT OF SCOPE
>  
> Also - I don’t think anything is out of scope on this — since it is not a set of guidelines - and not tied strictly to WCAG.       It is advisory, ‘best practice’ for making the web more accessible.
>  
> As a result you can comment on AT,  on User Agents,  on Tool  as well as on Content. 
>  
> Guidance for policy makers may be the only bit here that is out of scope — but I’m not sure.  We had a bit in WCAG   (recommending that level AAA not be required since we put things there that would not always apply or things that (on some pages) could not be done with other things.  )     But I would check with Judy on this question. 
>  
>  
>  
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Apr 30, 2017, at 1:54 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote:
>  
> Hi
>  
> To get us started I was thinking about making a table of content for the supplement. I think once we have a proposal we should send it to wcag and confirm they are comfortable with our outline
>  
>  
> Anyway, here it is:
> Guidance for content authors
> under wcag  principle 1   
> under wcag  principle 2  
> under wcag  principle 3   
> under wcag  principle 4  
> Items for further research
> Known issues (internationalization, author burden, test ability)
> Guidance  Assertive technologies (is this out of scope)
> Guidance for Browsers (is this out of scope)
> Guidance for policy makers
>  
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
>  <>LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>