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

Re: ARB - restructuring tables from Level to POUR

From: Sharron Rush <srush@knowbility.org>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 12:18:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4fa803ef.8a07b60a.0c22.272f@mx.google.com>
To: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>,<w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Cc: Jason Hester <jason@knowbility.org>,Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>,

I think the individual tables for each SC will also be helpful, good idea.

I do have a bit of concern that we may be re-creating the very 
information overload that we are trying to mediate.  Say my role is 
Front End developer, by the time I get to the third page of 
applicable SC detail in the wiki, will I not feel just as overwhelmed 
as I do trying to navigate the Guidelines and Techniques pages?

At 11:25 AM 5/7/2012, Denis Boudreau wrote:
>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 17:19:13 UTC

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