Re: WCAG proposal for discussion

I have favoured a grouping by function model for this for some time. 

Thanks 

Josh 

Sent from TypeApp



On 18 May 2016, 10:25, at 10:25, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>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