RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria

I fully agree with your thoughts.

I think the questions that arise from this is are:


-        “are there ways that W3C start to define the “WCAG-like specifications” that you refer to?” and;

-        “how can these specifications be seen as in some way a part of WCAG to be used where there is personalization support that can be used to activate the features specified by these “WCAG-like specifications”?”

I think the question of what personalization framework is ultimately employed (e.g. GPII or some other alternative) is separate from the question of how the aboce specifications get defined and standardised.

Best regards

Mike



From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
Sent: 01 June 2016 15:52
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>; josh@interaccess.ie; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrick Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria



From: Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 7:48 AM
Does anyone much more experienced than I in how to make things work in WCAG see a way forward to achieve such a powerful ideal?

I’ve thought about it.

I think there’s an important and fundamental place for a broadly applicable specification such as WCAG in an era of personalization. For example, if, for privacy reasons, a user does not declare any access needs/preferences, then a default version of the content must be provided; but that version should still be generally accessible. WCAG defines the characteristics which this generally accessible version should have – a form of the content which is accessible, but not specialized to the needs of a specific user.

There is a real and practical need for such a general standard. Some content developers may not be able to support personalization; some users may have a legitimate reason to ensure that their access needs are not disclosed to a Web application or communitcated to the organization that operates it.

I think there is also scope for standards that define formal vocabularies for expressing user needs/preferences, mechanisms for providing them to applications, and the appropriate responses that applications should make to the declared requirements of a user given a set of needs/preferences. This last category lies within the scope of WCAG-like specifications. If a user declares a need for linguistic/comprehension support, how should an application respond, for example? What are the appropriate implementation strategies that extend beyond general accessibility requirements?


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________
________________________________