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

Granularity of guidelines in Silver

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:54:47 +0000
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23AF5791-5F7D-414F-B7DA-EB0E9244F033@nomensa.com>
Hi everyone,

Separating off this thread, I think David’s example of converting 1.3.1:

Highlights an issue with the ‘bumper’ criteria from WCAG2. I.e. they have a lot of possible methods!

Has there been any discussion about how granular we are aiming for with the guidelines?

E.g. breaking up 1.3.1 into in-page navigation and other (more specific) guidelines.

An advantage of 1.3.1 & 4.1.2 is that they basically rely on other specs (HTML & ARIA) for how you achieve them, so the ‘methods’ can be updated separately from the accessibility guidelines.

Incorporating the methods in the guideline page/description really highlights how many there are, and makes these wide-scope guidelines a disadvantage.

Is it worth adding a requirement for Silver about the granularity of criteria?

Also, I’ve referred to “advantage/disadvantage” of certain criteria from WCAG2, I don’t want to pre-suppose something based on that framework, if someone has a different way of thinking about this I’ll be quiet and listen…

Kind regards,



www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 12:55:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:44 UTC