Re: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?

Hi Katie

This is the right time to ask these types of questions. I think anyone who
has any ad hoc ideas for Success Criteria or approach, should bring them
forward during this time before all the Task Force proposals come in.

Which is why there has been so many proposals from me this last 2 months.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:38 PM, <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:

> Hi Katie,
>
>
>
> I’m intrigued by this idea.
>
>
>
> I’ve used functional performance criteria in the past (when drafting
> VPATs) and they’ve helped clarify the intent and scope of Section 508, even
> when there weren’t/aren’t specific guidelines to address every situation.
>
>
>
> It’s been a useful tool in policy making too, because it gives a list of *
> *people** to take into consideration when discussing the merits/purpose
> of accessibility. Outside of technology departments, I’ve found that very
> few senior execs want to have any conversations about tech requirements.
> But if you start talking about people with hearing loss, etc., something
> will likely click for them. And let’s face it, there’s still a lot of
> education that needs to happen.
>
>
>
> I do agree with Andrew though, this seems to fit better in WCAG[Next/3]
> than 2.1.
>
>
>
> Kim
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 21, 2016 12:13 PM
> *To:* Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; 'WCAG WG'
> *Subject:* Re: ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?
>
>
>
> Katie,
>
> I think that this exceeds the bounds of a dot release.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 12:44
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Cc: *Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Subject: *‘Functional Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 12:45
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> As we build out WCAG 2.1 do we want to think about adding ‘Functional
> Performance-like’ SC for WCAG 2.1?
>
>
>
> WCAG is about functional outcomes.
>
>
>
> Both Section 508 (old and refresh) and European Union’s *EN 301-549*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.etsi.org_deliver_etsi-5Fen_301500-5F301599_301549_01.00.02-5F30_en-5F301549v010002v.pdf&d=CwMGaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLm9hvvvzvGv0FLoWSRuCSs5Q&r=_REkUglEy1Mi-4wzMRNju7nrUQ4IPBJJ_zwWi5TiY20&m=PjImz1XjBrl5fVnhorENTYGDFSWGoe47Yj9y5yu9QZY&s=beUOpKXz6CT62nLWM3hpvYtTBa5xQG3MdKnL22jltuo&e=> standard
> have them – (I am unsure about whether the new European Directive for
> Public website and mobile apps has them. Anybody know?)
>
>
>
> And I used them often when fulfilling Section 508 requirements, that were
> not clearly covered under other provision – so do many others.
>
>
>
> If we wanted to explore this idea, we would need to write them very
> carefully so as they are not misconstrued to be applicable to all content,
> all the time (I think)…….which is what caused vendor lash back in 508.
>
>
>
> And by ‘Functional Performance-like’ SC I mean – using a mix of the
> requirements from 508/255 and EN 301-549 – to get the best coverage. Again
> specific wording would have to be different from what is in those other
> standards…….(especially things like ‘mode of operation’, something like a
> ‘a mechanism’ instead)
>
>
>
> The advantage of using them are that they would/could provide coverage for
> those instances of modalities and interactions that are either unknown (not
> developed yet) or very hard to write a SC for. Because being too specific
> related to technologies ends up limiting a SC. An example would be from a
> question I had this week: what SC would cover a web banking app that
> required the users to take a picture of a check – and provides visual cues
> of when the check is in the right place in the viewer? – it would need
> perhaps verbal instructions also (move it to the left a little).
>
>
>
> Another advantage would be for those countries that don’t have an ICT
> Accessibility standard with Functional Performance Criteria.
>
>
>
> ​​​​​So these are suggested starting blobs…..
>
>
>
> 1.      *Without Vision*.  Where a visual mode of operation is provided,
> there must be at least one mode of operation that does not require user
> vision.
>
> 2.      *With Limited Vision*. Where a visual mode of operation is
> provided, there must be allowed at least one mode of operation that
> magnifies, one mode that that reduces the field of vision required, and one
> mode that allows user control of contrast.
>
> 3.      *Without Perception of Color*. Where a visual mode of operation
> is provided, there must be at least one mode of operation that does not
> require user perception of color.
>
> 4.      *Without Hearing*. Where an auditory mode of operation is
> provided, there must be at least one mode of operation that does not
> require user hearing.
>
> 5.      *With Limited Hearing*. Where an auditory mode of operation is
> provided, there must be allowed at least one mode of operation that
> improves clarity, one mode that reduces background noise, and one mode that
> allows user control of volume.
>
> 6.      *Without Speech*. Where a spoken mode of operation is provided,
> there must be at least one mode of operation that does not require user
> speech.
>
> 7.      *With Limited Manipulation*. Where a manual mode of operation is
> provided, there must be at least one mode of operation that does not
> require fine motor control or operation of more than one control at the
> same time.
>
> 8.      *With Limited Reach or Strength*. Where a manual mode of
> operation is provided, there must be at least one mode of operation that is
> operable with limited reach and limited strength.
>
> 9.      *With Limited Cognition*. Provide at least one mode that
> minimizes the cognitive, memory, language, and learning skills required of
> the user.
>
> 10.  *Minimize Photosensitive Seizure Triggers*. Where visual modes of
> operation are provided, there must be at least one mode of operation that
> minimizes the potential for triggering photosensitive seizures.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section
> 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|**ryladog@gmail.com
> <ryladog@gmail.com>**|**Oakton, VA **|**LinkedIn Profile
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_katieharitosshea_&d=CwMGaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLm9hvvvzvGv0FLoWSRuCSs5Q&r=_REkUglEy1Mi-4wzMRNju7nrUQ4IPBJJ_zwWi5TiY20&m=PjImz1XjBrl5fVnhorENTYGDFSWGoe47Yj9y5yu9QZY&s=c15GBbI87wIxDMv_Ba812P2KhZxbgDGdQOhy_lJzWdE&e=>*
> *|**Office: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|**@ryladog
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Ryladog&d=CwMGaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLm9hvvvzvGv0FLoWSRuCSs5Q&r=_REkUglEy1Mi-4wzMRNju7nrUQ4IPBJJ_zwWi5TiY20&m=PjImz1XjBrl5fVnhorENTYGDFSWGoe47Yj9y5yu9QZY&s=eM5s0jbIUpYObY3Bv9ShvleEATEnWYHvM1AYi3SCOlM&e=>*
>
>
>