- From: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 06:07:01 -0700
- To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-Id: <OFF7749AC9.E2D72B14-ON8825812A.00464908-8825812A.00480CA1@notes.na.collabserv.c>
> Am I missing something? Yes, I think you need to go back and reread it a bit more carefully. > You say it plugs a hole regarding labels Nope, I never say that. This is entirely concerned with instructions. > The techniques could indeed be attached to the SC — but none are required to meet the SC. That is the point of techniques; they offer ways of achieving a target but not the only ways. However, techniques offer paths and encourage adoption. Use of ARIA doesn't exist as an SC. But the ARIA techniques clearly encouraged adoption and offered guidance to teams on how to use it to better content. > I could use very complicated language to describe the topic or purpose and I would still pass. The instructions themselves can also be complicated and pass this SC. Well, that really depends on what guidance goes into the Understanding Document, how the techniques are written, and how organizations/teams adopt the SC. If you look at the Understanding document and general techniques for 2.4.6, you'll see that there is in fact a lot of context and guidance offered there that is not normative but is compelling to authors to improve content. I frequently fail poor language in labels and headings using this SC. So for an SC directed at improving the clarity and understandability of Instructions, imagine if you had techniques that were gathered under General topics like: Using simple, clear and common words Using present tense and active voice etc I understand the limitations of the approach. But I also understand what could be achieved by getting the techniques in front of people. Michael Gower IBM Accessibility Research 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3 gowerm@ca.ibm.com voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034 From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Date: 2017-05-23 07:08 PM Subject: Re: Alternative approach for Plain Language I’m not sure I understand. l followed the link but am very confused by what I land on. Is the SC = "Instructions describe the topic or purpose." If so - I can’t see how any instructions could fail. I guess you could have instructions that tell you what to do - but do not tell you what carrying out the instructions will accomplish. The techniques could indeed be attached to the SC — but none are required to meet the SC. I could use very complicated language to describe the topic or purpose and I would still pass. The instructions themselves can also be complicated and pass this SC. Am I missing something? You say it plugs a hole regarding labels — but this doesn’t talk about labels at all. ???? If you just want a place to hang techniques this works — but only techniques dealing with instructions — not labels (unless you really stretch it) confused in maryland, apologies if I am misunderstanding this g Gregg C Vanderheiden greggvan@umd.edu On May 23, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> wrote: On today's call (in the extended time), I proposed a departure from the current approach to Plain Lanugage, which I was asked to draft. Here it is: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/30#issuecomment-303492002 Michael Gower IBM Accessibility Research 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3 gowerm@ca.ibm.com voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2017 13:07:46 UTC