Re: Plain Language

This is very interesting.  Could you draft a rough prototype so it is 
easier to visualize?

We definitely need more ideas and prototypes to address these complex 
issues.

jeanne


On 8/24/2018 6:01 AM, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>
> Hi Stein Erik,
>
> > One problem with your suggested generic user focused SC is that it 
> is only testable/possible to validate from the position of a user
>
> That isn’t what I meant, let me try to explain it from another 
> perspective.
>
> The WCAG 2.x structure is:
>
>   * Principles (4)
>   * Guidelines. Not testable (13)
>   * SCs, testable (~78)
>   * Techniques, with test procedure for one method that fulfils the SC
>     (~100s)
>
> (With understand docs to the side of SCs.)
>
> Currently the “guidelines” are used for categorisation, e.g. reflow is 
> in Distinguishable with 12 other SCs.
>
> I’m suggesting we drop guidelines as a categorisation level and have 
> one ‘guideline’ per set of technology-specific SCs.
>
> So that would lead to:
>
>   * Principles (4 now, but presumably this could be re-thought)
>   * Guidelines (~78 from WCAG 2.1, presumably more later)
>   * SCs (~78 multiplied by however many technologies we cover)
>   * Techniques (~100s)
>
> So the plain-English ‘guideline’ is not what you are testing, but it 
> is the home for each tech-specific and testable SC. From an interface 
> point of view, if you selected to view only HTML-stack SCs, you’d have 
> just those SCs showing.
>
> If you are a non-technical user, you might not have any technology SCs 
> showing!
>
> The BBC sort of takes this approach, I’m suggesting a slightly more 
> extreme version:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile/design/content-resizing 
>
>
> It would lead to a flatter structure under principles, so we might 
> want to create more granual principles for easier categorisation. 
> However, but the bit I’m focusing on here is the plain-English 
> guideline & SC relationship.
>
> When I read through the Silver research, two of the problem statements 
> stood out to me as contradictory:
>
>   * 1. Too Difficult to Read
>   * 3. Ambiguity in interpreting the success criteria
>
> This is my suggestion for resolving those conflicting requirements.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>