Re: RE: WCAG Agenda 5th January 2016

We are reworking the proposal for wcag extention for coga(see https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG)We are not yet finished, but we would like feedback. The issues we are criteria are making it:
 testable and
widely adoptable

Is there other criteria we should be thinking about?
here is an example draft SC:


Instructions, navigation and non-trivial information are provided with a clear writing style
 (was: Use a clear writing style) (COGA Techniques 2.5) A clear writing style includes: 
   An easy to understand tense and voice (such a active voicing in English and the present tense) 
  The main task of each page is clarified though the presentation, main heading and page title. Extraneous information is separated or progmatically determinable. 
  Key points when available clarified though the presentation 
  Use short clear sentences with a maximum of one conjunction and comma required 
  Choose words that are in general use. Where a word or phrase can be replaced words in in the most commonly use 3000 words without loss of meaning it should be replaced. (Note we may change the number) 
  Avoid hyphenated words and acronyms that are not the common form to refer to a concept -http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fltr/germ/etan/bibs/vocab/cup.html 
  Clearly differentiate between opinions and facts 
  Reduce ambiguities by: clarifying metaphors and non-literal text, identifying each step in instructions, using specific and concrete wording in instructions, (to define: concrete wording, non-literal, non-trivial information - as information that a user might need or have searched to find out) 
  On controls, links and buttons use words that identify their function. Function can be   the function of the button or link (such as "search" in place of "go") or 
 the destination of a link (such as "home" or "contact us")or 
 the default term used for the function by the platform. 
  
  In menus with sub menus, use a clear heading for each main menu item such that  they are easy to understand (phrases that are in general use as per above - less exceptions?) 
 each sub menu item is clearly associated with the main menu item under which it falls (This can be due being an industry or platform default) 
  
  Double negatives are not used 
  A summary is provided (note for short pieces the heading may act as a summary) 
  
 
Exemptions: 1. There are times when passive voicing or other tense can be clearer. There is an exemption if active voicing has been shown in a user test to be harder to understand, less friendly or inappropriate. 
For example: The sentence "You many not eat here" may be considered aggressive. "Eating is not allowed in this room" is just as clear and is less aggressive. 
2. The present tense is not required when describing or discussing past or future events. 
3. If the writing style is an essential part of the main function of the site, such as a literary work. 
4. Where less common words are found in user testing to be easier to understand for the audience (user testing should included people with cognitive disabilities that could e in the target audience - need further definition ) 
5. The writing style items may be replaced for a location or type of content were user testing has shown a more effective writing style to aid comprehension for people with cognitive disabilities. Such as for content written in a specific language. 
6. The content will be penalized for not conforming to a given writing style (such as a dissertation or PHD proposal) 
To define: non-trivial information: Information the user may find important or need to know , such as infromation that the user may have searched to find. 
To define: short pieces - 
To define: Key points- 
To define: most commonly use 3000 words - any credible word list may be used and audience may be taken into account in conducting the word list. So , for example, if the audience is young, blog will be in the 3000 words. You may however have a site for retirees the word list may be different. If it is not included in the techniques the author should publish what word list was used. 




All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:54:28 +0200 John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- 

Greetings Lisa and Wayne,
 
Could you kindly provide links to these topic requests? Thanks in advance.
 
JF
 
 
From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 2:09 PM
To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Cc: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WCAG Agenda 5th January 2016


 
Can we also discuss the new edits for the coga extension and confirm that it is in the right direct?
 
All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects
LinkedIn, Twitter



 

---- On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 21:49:23 +0200 Wayne Dick<wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote ---- 

Hi All,

I have placed the three outstanding LV Issues 95 (Variable Background Color Contrast), 96 (Graphic Contrast) and 98 (Shadow Contrast) on the use case list of the LVTF. Some may simply require new techniques, but some cases may require an extension of WCAG 2.0. The graphic text contrast issue is one such contrast. Do all existing sites that pass WCAG 2.0 now with low contrast graphics text suddenly fail? The other two items are more complex. There is the simple case of gradient (which isn't that simple to test), the case of background images, and time changing background images.  I have worked with shadow text, and we need more testing to determine contrast levels and thickness for shadowing.

Some of the issues that these relate to are: need for simple background, processing of fine detail, access to alt-text for low vision and a few others.  Some modifications will fall into the WCAG 2.0 framework, but it is likely that others may not.

Wayne

 


 
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
Happy new year all. The WCAG WG will be meeting on Tuesday, 5th January 2016  at 11AM Eastern US (Length: up to 90 minutes)

Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

Agenda:

We have no survey this week and some extra agenda items may follow:

1) Public review of new WCAG Understanding and Techniques docs.

2) Publishing WCAG extensions requirements docs.

3) Look ahead of WCAG work for 2016.

4) Continuing Github issues walkthru. [1]

[1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues

To connect to the meeting:

Join WebEx meeting (https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m064eab3e5485b640231a7fe56dc4785c)

Meeting number:            642 418 206

Meeting password:         wcag

or

Join by phone
+1-617-324-0000 US Toll Number
Access code: 642 418 206

IRC: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org>  port: 6665 channel #wai-wcag

WebEx client information:

WebEx on Windows (IE, Chrome, FF) or Mac: Download the client (“Meeting Center Application“) from https://mit.webex.com/mc0901lsp13/meetingcenter/support/support.do?siteurl=mit&Action=downloads

WebEx on mobile platforms: http://www.webex.com/products/web-conferencing/mobile.html
__

Joshue O Connor/Andrew Kirkpatrick
WCAG working group co-chairs