- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:22:09 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 18/05/2016 09:56, Alastair Campbell wrote: [...] > When it comes to how to present this information, I would again shy away > from categorizing by disability. One of the best things about WCAG2 is > that it is a coherent whole, each guideline is applicable in general and > you don’t have to cross-reference against other categories. > > If the best practices (or whatever they are called) are by disability, > you are forced to think by audience. If you are designing one thing, you > then have to work through different best-practices to check it works for > different people. For example, if you are designing or developing a > forms interface, you have to go through every set of best practices in > order to find the relevant bits in each. > > WCAG2 uses POUR, which is good for guidelines (I’ve not thought of a > better way of categorizing them in general). > [...] > > But for best-practices, I would recommend *functional categories*. E.g. > layout & navigation, basic forms, colour use, content (headings, lists, > alt text, labelling), video/multimedia, ARIA widgets. +1 -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 09:22:35 UTC