W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Separate WCAG doc for non-SC guidelines

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 07:21:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZhD_BuwQqu8Lx_JoL=Bz1UZewV2Bf4cRMKEm_Hzb-CSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
I support the idea of parallel guidance documents to leverage the hard work
of the COGA and LVTF teams, which is is plain language, and as Gregg says
"throws of the shackles" of the formal requirements of a standard. It
wouldn't look like the WCAG and wouldn't have the structure and language of
Principles, Guidelines and Success Criteria.

Meanwhile, we should try to get everything into 2.1 that is testable,
implementable and achievable in an environment where the WCAG is mandatory
under law or policy for all organizations in a particular jurisdiction.

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 Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>
> > In Europe we have already created a guidelines document related to COGA
> and ISO are also heading towards their own guidance standard for COGA.
>
>
>
> I have to agree with Mike, and what John F & Judy have said: that another
> doc next to WCAG 2.1 would help alleviate the near-impossible issues with
> reconciling the user-requirements and criteria-requirements.
>
>
>
> Coming from an external dev/designer point of view, the relevant snippet
> from my suggestion was:
>
> --------------
>
> I suggest we continue refining criteria in the WCAG 2.x approach, but
> rather than water-down criteria to the point they don't meet the user-need
> (or move them to AAA), I think it would be better to mark them as WCAG 2.1+
> (or something, I'm not set on a term, just trying to convey the concept).
>
>
>
> The criteria for "plus" would be specifically aimed at organisations which:
>
> -      Have a general public audience (e.g. Governments and companies
> catering to the general public), avoiding the specialist content issues.
>
> -      Have sufficient scale to do the sort of user-research / analytics
> required to know what the critical tasks/features are for their user-base.
>
>
>
> It should allow criteria to be more "squishy", saying things like "where
> appropriate", "based on usability testing". etc. An SC could be A+, AA+, or
> perhaps we just move it to the side of the A-AAA system so it is just
> “plus”?
>
>
>
> I think it also needs to be outside (or in some way separated) from
> 'conformance' as WCAG 2.0 defines it, because in order to test an SC in the
> plus category, you need to be part of the UX process. These are process
> checks rather than “just” content checks.
>
>
>
> That's my preferred approach for getting out of the
> usability/accessibility conundrum pre-Silver.
>
> --------------
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> 1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/1262.html
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 April 2017 11:22:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:12 UTC