Re: Plain Language Prototype for comments

I think there are good ideas in there to make the Understanding simpler and
easier to read. However, the rewritten Success Criteria themselves appear
to deviate from the requirements of the actual Success Criteria. I'm
concerned that having different versions of Success Criteria for different
audiences will create more confusion than simply cleaning up the
understanding documents and leaving the SC.

The new SC talk about "your text" and "your website". How do we know who's
content it is and whose website it is, and whether the person reading the
SC owns the content they are remediating? Devs I work with rarely own the
content or the website. It was usually handed to them to code, or fix. That
may create more confusion for someone with cognitive difficulties. They may
not think the SC applies because its not "your text" or "your website".

The current WCAG 2.0 language for an SC is a statement about the content
when it passes. We found telling the author to do something with a verb was
problematic during the development of the WCAG 2.0. It might be a good idea
for the plain language team to have a meeting with some of us who were
involved in creating the SCs, to avoid duplicating efforts that were later
rejected, or at least understanding why the current language is the way it
is.

I realize that we will probably change the requirements for an SC (or
whatever they are called) in Silver, but this document linked below might
help us understand what the WCAG team were thinking when writing those
Success Criteria and might answer the question I hear so often "What were
they thinking when they wrote the SC like that?"

Any approach that doesn't solve the problems we were trying to solve (in
hopefully a more elegant way), may run into trouble later and cause
setbacks.

http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/what-are-WCAG-success-criteria.html

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613-806-9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:06 AM Jeanne Spellman <
jspellman@paciellogroup.com> wrote:

>
> Here is the plain language prototype ready for review:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BGr0XSQgjBSVDG_Xn9MoodEq01cJxgg_EE0bniXONXM/
>
> Please provide comments on content, structure, readability.
>
> The audience is intended to be general: every member of a product
> development team to help them get on the same page, plus product owners,
> policy makers, and the general public.  It should be readable enough
> that someone without a background in either accessibility or digital
> product development can understand the intent.  And the language should
> be accessible and inclusive.
>
> Please also provide comments on how to make it more accessible and
> inclusive.
>
> You'll notice that there is an embedded link to a mock-up of how this
> may look.  The key point with this is that there will be separate tabs
> for specific activities, such as developing, designing, planning,
> usability testing, and auditing.  If you have content for these, please
> indicate this clearly, ideally on the relevant mock-up page.  We are
> trying to keep specific guidance for these roles off the main plain
> language page (which you'll see in the mockup is called "get started").
>
> If you would like to help draft those other plain language tabs, for a
> specific activity, please let us know, as that is still work to be done.
>
> If you would like to participate more in plain language writing and
> editing, please let us know.  There will be a need to continue to test
> this prototype with more guidelines in order to improve a Silver
> StyleGuide to ensure clarity and consistency.
>
> Thanks very much for your help with this and we look forward to your
> feedback.
>
>