User Needs Doc [Was: for tomorrows call]

Hi Lisa, All:

Lisa Seeman writes:
> ...
> Everyone to review https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xmmQkuZLEG014zDRVkgr3QLyINb7BNvWxqL7POn6Ei8/edit and get any missing ideas before then?
> 
> 

I have three concerns to raise, one of which I'm on the agenda to
discuss in today's call. Let me start with that:

1.)	White space

APA raised the question of smart white space control with CSS during the
just concluded TPAC. That joint meeting is logged here:

---CSS A11y Task Force
        https://www.w3.org/2019/09/15-css-minutes.html#item29

During this meeting we confirmed that CSS already provides
specifications to control interlinear, interword, and inter-character
spacing. If that control isn't easily used, we need a plan for better
implementation in user agents. CSS did agree that it should be easier
for users to control this.

However the User Needs document also talks about controlling white space
inbetween sentences, phrases and chunks. Achieving this will require two things:

	a.)	Definitions. What is a phrase? What is a chunk as
	distinct from a phrase or sentence? Without good definitions
	that can be expressed in code, we're unlikely to succeed at
	defining a technological solution.  b.)	A solid user needs
	analysis of how white space between sentences, phrases, and
	"chunks" different from simple interword white space makes an
	accessibility difference. I'm unaware that such a needs analysis
	exists.

2.)	Symbols: The User Needs document refers to symbols frequently.
There's nothing wrong with that except that it's jargon that will be
unfamiliar even to some accessibility specialists, to say nothing of the
general web developer community.

	SUGGESTION: Prominently say up top that the term "symbols" as
	used in this document refers to AAC symbols--and provide a
	pointer to more information about what AAC is and how it works.


3.)	Needs not Wants: This document frequently uses the construct, "I
want" and "I like." This is not helpful, imo. It devalues the importance
of this work because we're talking about disability needs here, not a
volitional preference. At worst it can sound petulant and captious--not
a good thing.

	SUGGESTION: Simply replace "want" and "like" throughout with
	"need."

Best,

Janina


-- 

Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

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

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2019 13:31:07 UTC