W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: ARB - restructuring tables from Level to POUR

From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 12:25:43 -0400
Cc: Jason Hester <jason@knowbility.org>, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-id: <A5879DCE-FD9F-4973-BD54-00591E820732@accessibiliteweb.com>
To: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>
Hi again.

I've updated the main page with the new table format. I've also added that table we talked about with an overview of all relevant roles per SC: <http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#General_Overview>.

I'm thinking of adding a new set of pages through that tavle, for each SC, that could look something like this: <http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Success_Criteria_1.1.1_level_A>.

The idea would be to be able to come to this page to see how a specific SC applies to a specific role and how the interpretation of the SC changes form one role to another. Obviously, when one thinks of 1.1.1, the perspective is different whether the stakeholder is a developer, an seo specialist or a content strategist...

I still have to figure out how these pages would work with the specific role pages, where all applicable SC are listed down by principles (the ones Jason would be working on if I'm following correctly), such as: <http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown_-_Analysis>.

Thoughts?

/Denis



On 2012-05-07, at 11:59 AM, Sharron Rush wrote:

> Sure, whatever works best for you.  I have included Jason so he knows to step back for now and wait for your instruction about what's next.
> 
> Shawn, Jason will be writing to you in a separate email about his troubles with creating an account.  For now he is signed on a s me inorder to be able to do the edits.
> 
> Best,
> Sharron
> 
> 
> 
> At 09:35 AM 5/7/2012, Denis Boudreau wrote:
>> Sharron,
>> 
>> If you don't mind, let me do some editing on the main page before you get too far.
>> 
>> It turns out that I have a version almost ready with all tables presented this way (i guess i was bored last night, I made it just to see what it would look like).
>> 
>> I'm also about to add in a huge table with all roles put side by side. It should be ready within an hour or so.
>> 
>> If you have people available to work on ARB at the moment, the best thing would be to work on the specific role pages for now. Once I make my update, then we could go over it all and see if we're comfortable with this.
>> 
>> Sounds good?
>> 
>> /Denis
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2012-05-07, at 9:42 AM, Sharron Rush wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > Thanks Denis, I like this one much better.  Until we get more input, we will use this as the template to move the data.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Sharron
>> >
>> >
>> > At 12:21 AM 5/6/2012, Denis Boudreau wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I've been looking at how you've reorganized the first table Shawn and I don't really like it much. I find that adding the short phrases makes it much more difficult to get an overall understanding of what's being presented.
>> >>
>> >> Also, adding the level of conformance in () adds even more noise. This is going to get messier as we run into roles that have a lot of SC applicable for them. So I played around with your proposal and came up with two other options. The first one is only there to show what it looks like if we had the conformance level in (), but takes out the short phrases. The second proposal is what I would really want to see as an official presentation.
>> >>
>> >> In a nutshell, instead of adding A, AA or AAA after every SC, we just add another heading level to the table and separate the SC between three columns. I find it's much easier to read and we benefit form two presentation angles... the principles and then the levels.
>> >>
>> >> <http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#ar>
>> >>
>> >> I agree with Sharron that people can always get the details by clicking on the links.
>> >>
>> >> /Denis
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2012-05-04, at 4:22 PM, Sharron Rush wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > My own opinion is that it is easier if it is just the list of numbers so people can then link in to get detail.  The table itself is not a reference but a map to the correct reference, in my opinion.  But we are happy to do the update according to group decision.  Please let us know what that is.  We have placed the new tables but they are empty and will be filled in when we know to do one of the following:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. Just make the list of numbers with the Level designation and the link
>> >> > -OR-
>> >> > 2. Include the short phrase
>> >> >
>> >> > My preference is #1...please comment
>> >> >
>> >> > Best,
>> >> > Sharron
>> >> >
>> >> > At 03:00 PM 5/4/2012, Shawn Henry wrote:
>> >> >> Hi all,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Based on today's EOWG discussion, I have restructured the high-level Analysis table at: http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown#Analysis
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Notes:
>> >> >> * I added in the "handles" (short descriptions). I think this is important for those who don't have all the SC memorized. :-) I know it adds to the length, but I think it's worth it to make it more useful and usable for non-WCAG geeks.
>> >> >> * I basically put them in numerical order; however, I grouped related SC, which means 3.3.6 is after 3.3.4 since they are both Error Prevention, and 3.3.5 is at the end. Maybe we want to do even more to group those SC at different levels that have this relationship (e.g,. the colour contrast ones)
>> >> >> * I added an extra &nbsp; after the commas to separate the items -- otherwise the 's were too close to the next numbers and there was a proximity association issue. (oh, also, these should probably be marked up as lists with CSS to make inline...)
>> >> >> * Of course, feel free to change any of it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Questions:
>> >> >> * When there are no SC for a principle, should we include it with "none" as in this iteration[1]? or just leave out that row? One idea is to leave out of these tables, since they are include in the details (e.g., http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown_-_Analysis )
>> >> >> * Preference for having the As in parenthesis (as in the Understandable row in this iteration)? Or not, as in the Operable row in this iteration?[1]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (I leave it to Sharron's bench or others to do the other tables, including the one at the top. :-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> ~Shawn
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [1] this iteration in history: http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/index.php?title=Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown&oldid=170#Analysis
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
> 
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 16:26:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:46 UTC