Re: COGA SC rewrite

Here are some thoughts ... covering only the proposed  SC 1 to 3, #8
and #11. I agree with comments made on the other "SCs" so far.
1. Enable adaptability:  All UI components can be resized, reordered or removed.

Sailesh:
a. Reordering:  The page author determines the functionality and  what
may be reordered so that the page may be used as intended . e.g.sort
table data or display products by brand or price etc.
Now if the page only provided re-order by price (and not by brand),
will it be a failure?
So should authors provide all reorder methods that all users may desire?
b. Remove content: This too is the author's prerogative  to determine
what content may be meaningfully  disabled (I mean hidden) and yet
leave the page  usable as intended. Else if any / all content is
removable, the page may be become non-functional as Greg remarked.
The author may permit a comparative table to be built to display
attributes (columns) for  something like homes or students or
products. Or may permit some columns to be hidden.
Sure content can be very effectively removed on Safari using the
"reader available" feature but both the browser and author need to do
something to make this happen ... and it is not all content that is
removed:
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2013/11/23/use-safaris-reader-mode-ios-7/
(Just learnt from Webaim that other browsers provide this feature too:
FireFox has a Reader View button in the address bar and View menu for
sites that support it, as does the EDGE browser. FireFox<
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=reader%20view&platform=WINNT&appver=41.0.2>
and Chrome<
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/reading%20view?hl=en-US&_category=extensions>
)

c. About resizing: Is sccaling of content not pretty much UA responsibility?

2. Timed events: The controls for expanding or canceling any timed
events are discoverable, clear and focusable.
Sailesh: I agree, SC 2.2.1 covers this. When I have run into it not
being discoverable , it is  because there is usually another failure
in this regard: SC 2.1.1 or SC 2.4.3. Or even 1.3.2.
And clearly labelling controls is covered by SC 2.4.6 to aid discoverability.

3. Structure content: Heading structure is clear and/or mark up of
suitable page regions and sections is done.
Sailesh:
a. SC 1.3.1 sufficiently covers one aspect of what is intended.
b. Also SC 2.4.6 helps to convey heading purpose.
c. Can requiring SC 2.4.10 be considered for COGA?
d. Admittedly, consistent heading structure helps many user groups.
e.g. It is problematic if main content headings are h1 on some pages
and h2 on others or sub headings in main content begin with h2 on some
pages and h4 on others.
e. The part that is not covered by the above is the opposite of 1.3.1.
For  structure to be exposed by presentation: an SC along the
following lines will help many user groups:
Structure, information and relationships that  is exposed by user
agents or assistive technologies is visually discernible through
default or modified presentational attributes associated with the
elements.
e.g. lists, grid markup, grouping of controls (fieldset/legend).

8. Feedback is provided quickly and within context of use
Sailesh: Does this mean with regard to form interactions for instance?
Does it mean, say providing form control specific error message as
soon as an error is committed? Will listing  errors after form
submission not pass even if error  text is clearly discernible as an
alert and focus is managed right?
What does rapid or quick mean?
Is this not covered sufficiently by SC 3.3.1, 3.3.3, and  3.3.4?
Can requiring SC 3.3.5 be considered for COGA?

11.  Attention aid:  An accessible help mechanism is provided.
Sailesh:
>From the original draft of the proposed SC, this appears to be in the
context of task completion. Most e-commerce websites deliberately
present promotional content and  ads to further their business
objectives.
Something like the "reader available" feature on Safari (and other
browsers) as referred above may be handy here.

Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang


On 10/30/15, EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> No brick bats from me - just pure admiration for doing it!
>
> I am assuming the coga task force will need to make water-tight examples and
> expand on the techniques again for each SC.
>
> Thank you so much.
>
> Best wishes
> E.A.
>
> Mrs E.A. Draffan
> WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
> Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103
> http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk<http://access.ecs.soton.ac.uk/>
> UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/
> http://www.emptech.info<http://www.emptech.info/>
>
> From: Joshue O Connor [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie]
> Sent: 29 October 2015 15:57
> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: COGA SC rewrite
>
> Hi all,
>
> Based on some discussion in the last thread on SCs being testable (and EAs
> comments about having the time to do this work..), I had a crack at turning
> the current suggested list of COGA SCs into more 'testable' language.
>
> Comments, brickbats etc welcome.
>
> Josh
>
> Success Criterion.
> 1. Enable adaptability: Ensure that all UI components can be
> resized,re-ordered or removed.
> 2. Timed events: The controls for expanding or canceling any timed events
> are discoverable, clear and focusable.
>
> JOC: I'm not sure if this can be a SC. There is an existing SC that covers
> this (2.2.1) there could be a requirement to do it in a way that is
> customizable via some user preference?
>
> 3. Structure content: Use a clear heading structure and/or mark up suitable
> page regions and sections.
> JOC: Not sure if this can be a new SC. 1.3.1 obviously relevant here.
>
> 4. Visual affordances: Use a common/established visual/symbolic toolkit to
> describe the function of various UI components.
>  Are we making one of these? (EA)
>
> 5. Use a clear writing style:
> JOC: Very hard to test, context dependent.Agree (EA)
>
> 6. Alternative preference: If an accessible alternative is present, ensure
> that it is discoverable and has a high level of visual affordance.
>
> 7. Be predictable:
> JOC: Don't know if this can be a new SC.
>
> 8. Rapid feedback: Provide feedback quickly and within the context of use.
> Do we have to measure 'quickly' as it is dependent on service - could we say
> as an immediate response? (EA)
>
> 9. Help the user understand the content
> JOC: Don't know of that can be an SC. Hard to test. Agree (EA)
> 10. Complete and check: Provide an accessible 'check and complete' mechanism
> for your page content.
>
>  11. Attention aid: Provide an accessible help mechanism in order to focus
> the users attention on the task at hand to ensure completion.
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 30 October 2015 19:41:17 UTC