W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > May 2018

Re: Silver Requirements (high level draft)

From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 13:45:45 +0100
To: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5c0de76d-3a4e-d7d9-d315-f2e37cc662ed@tink.uk>
Thanks Shawn. Sorry for the lateness of this reply.

The requirements document is clear and easy to read (a good match for 
the design principles it describes).

I'd be tempted to reorder the content. Describing the principles before 
the problem space seems counter-intuitive to me. Describing the problem 
space, and then describing the proposed solution/design principles, 
feels like a better narrative to me.

The language of the document focuses on people with disabilities in the 
conventional/permanent sense (likely a legacy of the language used in 
WCAG). I think this exclusive definition is too narrow for the next 
generation of accessibility guidelines though, and suggest we 
acknowledge that disability can be permanent, temporary, or situational, 
and that any/all of these is relevant to accessibility in the UI.

I wonder if the document is misnamed? This is one of those philosophical 
things that could put us in the bikeshed for all eternity, but I'll 
suggest that it should be renamed "Design principles" instead.

Good work on this though. It's so good to see it starting to take shape.

On 18/05/2018 21:42, Shawn Lauriat wrote:
> All,
> We've put together a high level draft of a Silver Requirements document 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15F4KuNXYK5q2rOgb4ktHiJQMQpAEL9EetARpMU3vD_A/edit> (HTML 
> version 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQwFWjpW-onA9hNb2L_U-jLppulk9cQNsttUdQFnEK9KkGNqoj1Hfc3c4kV1_JohqmCJXBVtZ3RaYAq/pub>), 
> which we'll send to the overall Accessibility Guidelines Working Group 
> in a couple of weeks. We still have several outstanding comment threads 
> in there (largely around needed rewording and simplification of sentence 
> structure), but please have a look through and add your thoughts or 
> suggestions! Feel free to comment directly in the document or email
> A couple prompts:
>   * Does this document make the requirements clear?
>   * Did we leave anything out that we should explicitly speak to in this
>     requirements document?
> For other examples, see:
>   * WCAG 2.1's Requirements Document
>     <https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/requirements/>
>   * WCAG 2.0's Requirements Document
>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-wcag2-req-20060425/>
>   * A search of W3C of Requirements documents
>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/?title=requirements>
> We'll create a more detailed version later on, once we've all agreed on 
> the higher level points here. Then, we'll go into a little more detail 
> about our plans on how to meet these goals and more explicitly what each 
> requirement means.
> Much appreciated!
> Shawn

@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2018 12:46:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:42 UTC