Re: please check this SC before we submit it to wcag survey

Hi Gregg

I basically agree with you , and that is why we are working on the supplement. However we would like to get some hocks/pillars of accessibility into WCAG 2.1 as well - even if they end up having loopholes, people will look at them and people who want to will do it well.




(A lot of WCAG can be done badly  -it is hard to avoid that )

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:58:51 +0300 Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote ---- 



EXAMPLES OF PROBLEM


OK so if I have a 10,000 page document — I can provide a simple summary of two sentences and it will pass? 


How about a one sentence summary  (like the title)? 




In another document I highlight two key words when they are used. 




This will make these documents substantially easier for people with cognitive disabilities?  






WHERE I THINK WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING OUR EFFORT  (NOT SC’s)


My concern is that we take what should be good advice - but not really quantifiable - and we keep trying to make SC out of them instead of abandoning this SC fixation and writing a good document on how to make things better for People with cognitive disabilities. 


There is SO MUCH we have to say — and SO LITTLE  that is  “do exactly this and it will help (at least some significant portion of ) people with cognitive disabilities without making it harder for others to use.       


YES - there are cognitive SC to be captured — but not that many compared to all the good advice and guidance we could provide if we just stopped trying to make good advice and guidance into SC. 


 g 


Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu





 
 
On May 17, 2017, at 3:30 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:


After Greggs comments we are rewording  provide support   (closer to the original - before we were told to avoid lists).

Are people happy with the following language...



For long documents, numerical information, relative and cardinal directions, multi page forms and non-standard controls one of the following is provided 


Charts, tables or graphics are provided to  aid the comprehension 
Numbers are reinforced with non-numerical values
A  summary is provided 
At least two keywords are visually emphasized in long documents
Instructions are available for non standard controls
context sensitive help is provided
For multi step forms, signposts should be provided to clarify the broader context including steps completed, current step and steps pending.
alternative terms are available for  relative and cardinal directions 





non-standard controls, long documents etc are defined terms




All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Tue, 16 May 2017 00:29:08 +0300 Gregg C Vanderheiden<greggvan@umd.edu> wrote ---- 

again  a great idea — and  Great advice.

But it cannot be  an SC  because it is not testable.


Content is provided that helps users understand complex information, long documents, numerical information, relative and cardinal directions, forms and non-standard controls.


 What kind of content?
How much?
If I provide any content at all how am I to know where the line is between complex and noncomplex information. And if I do provide something that is complex, what does providing content to help understand it mean? If I provide a link at the top of the page it says, here is a book on the topic, is that providing content to help understand the information?
You have cardinal directions listed. If a person doesn’t understand directions what is sufficient for me to put on my page to explain them?


In short, is an author and no idea one I have crossed any of these lines, and I absolutely no idea what sufficient to meet the success criteria from the language in the success criteria.


Great idea, but doesn’t qualify as a success criterion. Any criterion has to  be very specific  and measurable  with a statement as to exactly when something passes




 g 


Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu





 
 
On May 15, 2017, at 2:56 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

Hi Folks

We are reworking the wording on provide support

Can everyone check if they are happy with the user need has been well addressed?




Know issues: 
1, we need to give research for the definitions on long document
2, we may get rid of multi page forms or find better techniques/ definition  and 
3,  non- standard controls-  this term may need to change or be better defined  
  


All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter