Re: The challenge of using Making Content Usable as a protocol

Hi Rachael,

> *placing the majority of guidance for supporting people with cognitive
disabilities into a section of WCAG 3 that won’t likely be in the most
basic levels of conformance*


*I must object: this is an assumption and statement with no basis in fact. *

I understand that *some people* think that Protocols would only kick in at
"Silver" or "Gold", but because we STILL do not have a conformance model
for WCAG 3, I will assert you (and they) are putting the cart before the
horse. We simply do not know!

In my proposal, Protocols play a role at *all levels of conformance scoring
and reporting* (equal to ACT Rules, and not "on top of"), and to suggest
here that Protocols "*...won’t likely be in the most basic levels of
conformance*" is both *pre-judging the proposal, and is misunderstanding
(and misrepresenting) the intention.* (The fact that this is also coming
from a Chair is concerning as well).

As a reminder, the original Protocols and Assertions concept came from a
larger proposal I presented to the group last June (30th) around Scoring
and Conformance, that saw Protocols contribute up-to 20% of a final score.
[image: image.png]
[screen capture: a slide from the presentation deck showing Protocols
contributing 20%]

To be 100% clear, I am pointing at the current Making Content Usable...
<https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/> document, *as it is used today, *as a
*POTENTIAL* Protocol - primarily based on its structure, which is similar
to the structure of Plainlanguage.gov. Whether the actual document itself
is later formally identified as a Protocol, or a separate but similar
document is created based on that document then becoming a Protocol, is
still TBD. In the presentation it is illustrative, and nothing more!

That structure is:

   - *Outcome:* a non-measurable goal (such as "Help Users Find What They
   Need: Findable
   <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#objective-2-help-users-find-what-they-need>
   ")
   - *User Story(s): *"As a user with a memory impairment, impaired
   executive function, or impaired language processing skills who has trouble
   finding the features they need, I need to identify important information
   and critical functions on a page, so that I can find things in a reasonable
   amount of time."
   - *(Optional) Personas: *("Alison
   <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#alison-an-aging-user-with-mild-cognitive-impairment>
   , Amy
   <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#amy-an-autistic-computer-scientist>,
   Kwame
   <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#kwame-a-traumatic-brain-injury-survivor>
   , Maria
   <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#maria-a-user-who-has-memory-loss>,
   Tal
   <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#tal-a-student-who-has-dyslexia-and-impaired-eye-hand-coordination>
   , Yuki
   <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#yuki-a-yoga-teacher-who-has-ad-h-d>")

Example 2:

   - *Outcome:* Keep It Conversational: Use active voice
   <https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/use-active-voice/>
   - *User Story:* "Active voice makes it clear who is supposed to do what.
   It eliminates ambiguity about responsibilities. Not “It must be done,” but
   “You must do it.” Passive voice obscures who is responsible for what and is
   one of the biggest problems with government writing. Don’t confuse passive
   voice with past tense. In an active sentence, the person or agency that’s
   acting is the subject of the sentence. In a passive sentence, the person or
   item that is acted upon is the subject of the sentence. Passive sentences
   often do not identify who is performing the action."


>
*If you remove just the objectives with none of the design patterns and use
those as heuristics for a heuristic review, then that new document may be a
protocol.    > COGA has a subgroup working on breaking out the clear
language design pattern into different test types.*


Heuristic review? Different Test-types? Again, respectfully, I have not
ONCE mentioned anything about a heuristic review in my proposal - that is
other people trying to fit my proposal into a framework I contend remains
broken (or at best ill-defined), again because we have neither a scoring or
conformance model, nor, I might ad, have we agreed on *ANY* of the proposed
test-types, currently tagged as Exploratory in our Draft document. And so
by *our own agreed-to process* I will assert you, and based on what you
just wrote, the COGA TF, are again jumping the gun: we have not agreed that
'heuristic reviews' will be part of any conformance model, nor in fact,
part of WCAG 3 at all. This holds true for "other test-types" as well.

Making Content... is GREAT author/creator guidance, even if the outcomes
cannot be testable, measurable, or repeatable; so I simply want to
reward entities for the Formal Promise of adopting that document and it's
guidance - the end. No measurement, no "review", no focus on "outputs" -
no; and as a matter of fact, one of the first things this sub-groups
agreed-to back before the Christmas break was that we were focused on
"inputs" - but now others are attempting to apply Protocols to outputs
(final content).

> *...the design patterns underneath those objectives...*

...are great examples that others can learn from, but they are neither
complete nor address all use-cases. They are "techniques" or
"illustrations" at best:


   -

   Problem:I’m not sure what I should press. I pressed something that
   looked like the “buy” button but it did nothing. I am not sure if it is me
   or if this web site just doesn’t work.
   -

   Works well:The “buy” button was clearly something I could click. The
   process was easy. I have now bought matching dresses for all the
   grandchildren.

However, no matter how useful that is, it is not a testable, measureable or
repeatable pattern ("clearly something they could click" = what exactly?);
nonetheless that guidance still brings a ton of value to the design and
build process, and we need to be sure it is in WCAG 3.

JF


On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 2:14 PM Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael <
rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote:

> Apologies, I didn’t catch that I emailed Michael Cooper rather than
> Michael Gower.
>
>
>
> Take 2.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Bradley-Montgomery, Rachael" <rmontgomery@loc.gov>
> *Date: *Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:13 PM
> *To: *Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
> *Cc: *"public-wcag3-protocols@w3.org" <public-wcag3-protocols@w3.org>
> *Subject: *The challenge of using Making Content Usable as a protocol
>
>
>
> Hello Mike (protocols group ccd),
>
>
>
> You asked today about why I felt Making Content Usable was not a good
> protocol.  This was discussed at a meeting a few months ago but I thought
> explaining via email could save some meeting time.  I believe that using
> Making Content Usable as a sample protocol raises concerns and is a poor
> choice for arguing / presenting protocol ideas.
>
>
>
> Making Content Usable is an extremely complex document that includes
> multiple point of guidance at different scopes and levels of
> testability/measurability.
>
>
>
> If you remove just the objectives with none of the design patterns and use
> those as heuristics for a heuristic review, then that new document may be a
> protocol, but saying that all the design patterns underneath those
> objectives should be put together as a protocols oversimplifies the
> contents. Some of the design patterns are already in WACG 2.0-2.2 as SC so
> treating them as a protocol would reduce the level that COGA guidance is
> included in WCAG rather than increasing it.
>
>
>
> Parts of Making Content Usable could and likely should be treated as a
> protocol. COGA has a subgroup working on breaking out the clear language
> design pattern into different test types.  A plain language review is a
> potential protocol that could be used to support the Clear Language Design
> Pattern under the Use Clear and Understandable Content Objective. Other
> parts of the Clear Language design pattern are testable with high
> interrater reliability.  Please note that clear language is 3 levels down
> in the document structure which reenforces the complexity that is being
> oversimplified. Treating the entire document as a protocol potentially
> removes the need to treat the more objective and testable parts as guidance
> that would fall within the main  WCAG 3 structure.
>
>
>
> Building on that, placing the majority of guidance for supporting people
> with cognitive disabilities into a section of WCAG 3 that won’t likely be
> in the most basic levels of conformance (whatever those end up looking
> like) continues the discrimination that is unintentionally baked into WCAG
> 2. We would like to make sure that  WCAG 3 avoids repeating the AAA
> situation all over again.
>
>
>
> I hope that helps clarify and leads to a more productive way forward.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Rachael
>
>
>
>
>
> Rachael Bradley Montgomery, PhD
>
> Digital Accessibility Architect
>
> Library of Congress
>
> Email: rmontgomery@loc.gov
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"