Re: Summary of sub-group meeting recommendation for WCAG 2.2 SC to propose for COGA

Hi Lisa,

> Perhaps WCAG would be interested in a different process.

Indeed, if you could hear whilst on the phone to TPAC (and it’s understandable if you couldn’t) we talked about the:
“need to move the collaboration to an earlier point in the process. E.g. the Task Forces (creating SCs) need to have people speaking to the feasibility/testability during SC creation, not as a later stage.“
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Write_up_from_TPAC_2018#Github_usage_and_editing


What people coming to COGA’s materials struggle with is simply the amount of content / requirements / gap-analysis there is, it is overwhelming to start with.

So this would be a very good start:
> 1. identify the most important user needed and barriers to accessibility (WCAG with coga )
> 2. identify and brainstorm how they could be included in WCAG (WCAG team)

But step 1 needs to include some prioritisation, we have to acknowledge we do not have infinite time & resource and so start with 3-6 potential SCs (later becoming 2-4). From talking to various people this prioritisation would make the biggest difference towards having a sustainable process.

Also discussed at TPAC was having a test-procedure first process, where we define the test-procedure that could be used for a new SC before it goes to the AG. In order for an SC to work, we have to be able to take the same example, test it with independent people, and get the same result in most cases.

A good way of working this out early on would be to have 3 example pages (good / grey-area / bad) and see how well they are measured by the test procedure.

Having Glenda involved is a good starting point, and I’m happy to ask the WCAG group for volunteers.

I think the initial prioritisation based on user-need is a COGA task, so it would also be good to know who that would be from the TF?

Cheers,

-Alastair