Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1)

I think the ability to reconfigure touches all principles.
Perception: Appropriate font size depends on the ability to reconfigure.
Operation: The ability to search is enhanced by single column format for
many disabilities because it enables thorough searching.
Understandable: For disabilities that cannot function with cluttered
formats, reconfiguration provides a tractable interface.
Robustness: Very little in the way of role, name and value support visual
reconfiguration of pages.

Regarding reconfiguration to support disabilities that need alternative
visual interfaces we really exist at a pre WCAG 1.0 level. I think the
community has lived in denial regarding the need to reconfigure visually.
Rather than approaching it as fundamentally different problem as that of
providing access through sound or touch, the issue has just sat
unaddressed.

If the visual interface cannot be reconfigured, it cannot be accessible to
people with low vision and cognitive disables. It may be hard to sort out,
but it has to be done if we are to claim accessibility for these groups. It
is the issue and it hits all aspects of accessibility.

Cheers, Wayne




On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> I have mentioned this to Josh off-list, and he suggested I bring this up
> to the wider group: as part of some recent thinking I put together around
> some aspects of the Mobile TF work, I'd like to put forward that "Principle
> 4 - Robust" - which currently is laid out to cover what would be
> "programmatic robustness" - could benefit with being expanded/widened in
> its scope to allow for further SCs that deal with slightly different
> aspects of robustness, such as content/applications being able to adapt to
> different screen orientations/viewport sizes/etc (although as I'm writing
> this, I'm pondering if this is actually more something that falls under
> "Principle 1 - Perceivable").
>
> https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/2
>
> Any thoughts appreciated.
>
> P
>
> On 25/06/2016 18:57, josh@interaccess.ie wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We need to think about how we will number success criteria for WCAG 2.1.
>>  We would like to ask for volunteers to look at already-proposed SC and
>> spend some time thinking about how they might fit into a new version and
>> propose a few options with the pros and cons for each.  We would like to
>> discuss this on the July 12 or July 19 call.
>>
>> Points raised already include:
>>
>>   * People are familiar with the existing forms of the success criteria,
>>     so we need to decide whether to keep existing SC text as it
>>     currently stands and add additional SC to add to any given SC, or if
>>     we feel that it may be better to modify the SC text itself.
>>   * We may have new Guidelines as well as new success criteria.
>>   * Some changes may include keeping SC text the same but changing the
>>     level of the SC (e.g. From AAA to AA)
>>   * We may add SC that are at level A, AA, or AAA.
>>   * It will be important to think about testing and reporting tools in
>>     this process – will the options offered have positive or negative
>>     impact on the ability of tools to test and report on conformance?
>>   * There is an implied structure to the SC in WCAG 2.0 in that all of
>>     the level A SC’s are the low-numbered items under each GL, AA are
>>     next, and so on.  If any AAA SC’s move to AA or if any AA SC’s move
>>     to A then we will be disrupting that implied order.  This make need
>>     to be ok, but is just another consideration.
>>
>> So all these things need to be considered carefully. A simple wiki page
>> with different options and the discussion of the pros and cons of each
>> will be a sufficient deliverable for this investigation. Andrew has  set
>> up a page with the basic structure for this purpose, with some
>> options: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering
>>
>> Anyone volunteers for working on this? With a view to making a
>> recommendation to the group and facilitating a discussion on the
>> findings, on the July 12th or 19th?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew, Josh, and Michael
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>