Re: Your input needed, please: can you answer just one question?

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for your feedback.

While you may have missed this, the role-based breakdown was organized by conformance levels up until last friday. We decided it was better, from a EOWG stand point, to organize it under the four principles. But I agree with you, based on the perspective of organizations out there who need to meet a certain conformance level, it makes it a little bit more difficult to get the whole picture of their expected requirements. 

I, too, have been working with such a breakdown for a few years in dozens of governmental organizations and I've seen just how useful a tool like this can become. Some people will want to work with the POUR principles, others will only want to care about  a certain conformance level. Obviously, within the EOWG structure, we don't want to send the wrong message that all you really need to care about are the success criteria that happen to be under level A or AA... Other SC are relevant to other impairments, even if they're filed under level AAA...

Which is why I created another view of the whole thing on which I'd like to get your input. Basically, I'm showing the data presented from both the principles and conformance levels perspective and I think it's a good compromise between the two: <http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#Analysis>.

We could also consider changing the name from "Accessibility Responsibility Breakdown" to "Role-Based Accessibility" (ARB to RBA)... I've been using both interchangeably and again, depending on the effect you want to have on people, both have their strenghts and weaknesses.

Obviously, I'm open for a call on this. All feedback is not only welcomed, it's absolutely appreciated.

Best,

/Denis



On 2012-05-06, at 4:53 PM, Lisa Herrod wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Apologies for not contributing to the ARB project as yet, like all of us I'm just busy with project work, including a large ARB focused project right now - though I refer to it as 'role-based', not 'responsibility breakdown'.
> 
> I've been using this approach in my practice since 2007 and actually began with WCAG 1 before moving on to WCAG 2.
> 
> I've used my role-based methodology for years on various projects and from a user centred perspective, where the end user in this case is the practitioner using the guidelines in their work, I really believe conformance levels are better for organising. This is because clients ant their staff (the end users) essentially want to know if they meet A or AA.
> 
> Denis, Sharon, perhaps we should schedule a call? I've been applying this in practice, rather than in theory for quite a while and I'm more than happy (of course ;) to chat to you about how practitioners use and respond to it.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/05/2012, at 11:23 PM, Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org> wrote:
> 
>> Greetings all,
>> 
>> We at Knowbility have volunteered to help Denis reorganize the tables within the Accessibility Responsibility Breakdown (ARB) project that he is contributing to the WAI-Engage wiki.  Denis has gotten feedback to use the POUR principles as the organizing theme rather that the conformance Levels. As we rebuild the tables, the question has arisen of how much information to put in the sections.
>> 
>> Please compare the two tables: 
>> 
>> Analysis http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#Analysis
>> and
>> Architecture http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#Architecture 
>> 
>> Then answer the question of which presentation is preferable. Is it useful to use the short descriptions of each guideline as a contextual reference as in the Analysis table
>> -OR -
>>  or does it just add visual clutter and is it sufficient to link from the number and allow context when users follow the link?
>> 
>> My opinion is that the tables will be very helpful and we would like to make them as usable as possible, so you input is much appreciated. Thanks for your ideas.   
>> 
>> Best,
>> Sharron