Re: POUR Principles in Silver

Thanks Cybele,
I had clicked reply, rather than "reply all" by mistake. My apologies. In
response to Mike,  I understand why Silver isn't organised around the POUR
principles and think it is a good thing that Silver is organised in a
different way. The point I was wanting to make is that there was a possible
danger of the principles seeming to disappear.

Another point was that most guidelines and success criteria can usefully be
understood by more than one principle. Headings, for example, need to be
perceivable by assistive technologies and understandable. This makes the
interface more operable.

That is why I like your of "How this relates to the Pour principles" as it
would be able to include more than one principle in the explanation, and
overcome some of the current limitations of the way WCAG is organised.

Mark




On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 14:50, Cybele S <cybele.sack@gmail.com> wrote:rent
way. The point I was

> Thanks, Mark.
>
> I've brought Mike Crabbe and Jeanne back into the discussion, I hope
> that's ok.
>
> I think this is a good point to address in the next draft.
>
> Much appreciated.
>
> Cybele.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mark Tanner <levelpress@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: POUR Principles in Silver
> To: cybele.sack@gmail.com
>
>
> Cybele
> Sorry if there was any confusion. I wasn't suggesting that there was any
> contradiction of POUR principles. It was the fact that there was no
> explicit reference to them that I was mentioning. A heading, "how this
> relates to POUR" principles" would do that job perfectly as having
> particular guidelines and success criteria explained in terms of their
> underlying principles is really useful
> Mark
>
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 13:53, Cybele S <cybele.sack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike, Mark, Jeanne:
>>
>> The plain language prototype is not meant to contradict POUR.  I'm not
>> sure how and where they do, but if you can point those places out, the
>> language can be corrected.
>>
>> I also think you're suggesting explicit reference to POUR in every "get
>> started" plain language page.  That's worth discussing and may be
>> possible.  We could even add a heading: How this relates to POUR
>> principles...
>>
>> Given that these four criteria -- used as examples for prototype purposes
>> -- are all from WCAG 2.0, I'm not sure how they now deviate from POUR.
>>
>> In fact, it is possible that by translating to plain language, we are
>> enhancing POUR in the guidance itself.  This is especially true once we
>> include methods under tabs for each activity/role.  It is also important to
>> continue to have these discussions, so that we can ensure the accuracy of
>> the content and the faithfulness to the principles.
>>
>> C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:23 AM, Michael Crabb (Staff) <
>> m.z.crabb@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quick reply on this one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The current plan with the IA is to have a very flat level of initial
>>> guidance but with the ability to add “tags” to pieces of guidance / methods
>>> to enable them to be categorised. One of the categories that we can include
>>> in this is the POUR Principles. So they will be there…but the current plan
>>> isn’t to have them be as key to the overall guidance as they currently are
>>> in WCAG 2.1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> During research we found some issues with peoples understanding of WCAG
>>> due to the perceived complexity of the guidance so we are trying a
>>> different approach to see if it makes a difference. With all of this stuff,
>>> nothing is set in stone and we’re trying to be as malleable as possible so
>>> if this approach works…great! If not, then more than happy to look at
>>> alternatives that can be used.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: University of Dundee shield logo] <http://uod.ac.uk/sig-home>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dr Michael Crabb*
>>> Lecturer (Human Computer Interaction)
>>> School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee
>>> +44 (0)1382 385491 | m.z.crabb@dundee.ac.uk
>>>
>>> [image: University of Dundee Facebook] <http://uod.ac.uk/sig-fb> [image:
>>> University of Dundee Twitter] <http://uod.ac.uk/sig-tw> [image:
>>> University of Dundee LinkedIn] <http://uod.ac.uk/sig-li> [image:
>>> University of Dundee YouTube] <http://uod.ac.uk/sig-yt> [image:
>>> University of Dundee Instagram] <http://uod.ac.uk/sig-ig> [image:
>>> University of Dundee Snapchat] <http://uod.ac.uk/sig-sc>
>>>
>>> *One of the world's top 200 universities*
>>> <http://uod.ac.uk/sig-strapline>
>>> Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2018
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Mark Tanner <levelpress@gmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 26 September 2018 at 13:14
>>> *To: *"public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
>>> *Subject: *POUR Principles in Silver
>>> *Resent-From: *<public-silver@w3.org>
>>> *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, 26 September 2018 at 13:13
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A question I have, which was raised by reading both the Plain Language
>>> and Information Architecture prototypes, is what role (if any) is intended
>>> for the WCAG principles in Silver?
>>>
>>> The principles are removed from the information architecture and apart
>>> from the occasional mention of “understand” in the “Why?” section of the
>>> Plain Language prototype, make no explicit appearance there either.
>>>
>>> Not using the POUR principles to organise and structure the Silver
>>> information architecture makes perfect sense, but possibly dispensing with
>>> them entirely seems worth debating at least, which is my reason for writing.
>>>
>>> The principles don’t need to be the framework around which to organise
>>> the Silver guidelines and success criteria, but they can still be the
>>> foundation upon which each guideline and success criteria is understood and
>>> explained.
>>>
>>> This would require two things:
>>>
>>>  1. An explanation of the principles (or an updated variation of them)
>>> as a preamble to Silver (much as exists now in WCAG).
>>>
>>> 2. Explanations in the “Why?” section of the plain language prototype
>>> which explicitly used the language (and ideas) of the principles to explain
>>> the reasons for a particular guideline or success criteria. (Most
>>> guidelines can be usefully understood as embodying at least 2, sometimes
>>> all 4, of the current principles.)
>>>
>>> Keeping hold of the principles and using them in this way would have a
>>> number of advantages:
>>>
>>> ·       Understanding the core principles underlying ALL the guidelines
>>> helps a deeper understanding of the individual guidelines themselves
>>>
>>> ·       It enables and encourages developers and designers to think
>>> creatively and  innovatively, rather than just adopting a checklist
>>> mentality.
>>>
>>> ·       It helps provide an important sense of continuity from WCAG
>>>
>>> ·       While specific guidelines and success criteria will,
>>> understandably, change over time, the principles will continue to hold true.
>>>
>>> Dispensing with the principles (if that is what is intended) may be a
>>> case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would be really
>>> interested to hear what others think.
>>>
>>> Mark Tanner
>>>
>>> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096
>>>
>>
>>
>