Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward

I'd like to see a mockup WCAG 2.1 document with, say, 2 pillars.

Lisa, what are your thoughts on this?


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 Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Denis Boudreau (Deque) <
denis.boudreau@deque.com> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Would those pillars be like a W3C Note, to go along with the guidelines?
>
> /Denis
>
>
> On May 24, 2017, at 14:57, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I’m interested to understand what these pillars might look like. I’ve many
> times argued that I think that several of the multi-part/multi-bulleted
> COGA SCs look more like a new WCAG guideline (the overall scope of the
> draft SC) with several underlying SCs represented by the different bullets
> (or parts). We know that WCAG guidelines are not meant to be precise or
> testable, it is only the SCs below it that are.
>
> I think that it is because we are trying to sell these hybrid
> guideline/multi-SC proposals as SCs that we hit quite so many testability
> issues. I suspect several of the objections about untestability often
> relate to the guideline-like parts of this hybrid construction.
>
> If we could isolate the potential new guidelines (probably mostly under
> the “understandable” principle), we would hopefully be allowed to add those
> to WCAG 2.1 (as there are no testing-related penalties associated with
> them). We could then look to see which of the bullets/parts that lie
> underneath the guideline might be robust enough to include in 2.1 and
> proceed with these. All the other bullets/parts could appear in some form
> in the supplemental document. If, at a later date, testable SCs related to
> these bullets/parts can be identified they could easily be added into
> future versions of WCAG – and they would already have a guideline under
> which they could sit.
>
> If this way of viewing our work is accepted, we would be looking for those
> very narrow and precisely scoped items for trying to get into WCAG 2.1.
> Every time I have tried to identify these small wins, they have been worked
> on and developed to increase their scope (a laudable aim but perhaps a
> self-defeating strategy). We’ve never dared to proceed with a nice simple
> SC proposal because we continue to aim for the stars.
>
> Maybe its time to bite the bullet and try to get a few small wins rather
> than continue with several bold failures?
>
> Best regards
>
> Mike
>
> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> ]
> *Sent:* 24 May 2017 19:33
> *To:* Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
> *Cc:* w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward
>
> As I see it, a “pillar” is a somewhat theoretical construct, but
> ultimately there would need to be a guideline that is aligned with each of
> the pillars for COGA support.
>
> The guideline may exist already, or it may need to be made. In the COGA
> roadmap document there are eight tables of user needs, some of which are
> task-specific like “authentication” and others are very broad like “simple
> and clear interface”. We will be looking at these to see what can be
> reused, as well as whether these are covered by an existing guideline or
> not.
>
> This is quite similar to the work that the Mobile TF has done, resulting
> in additional guidelines being suggested.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> *From: *Gregg Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 14:21
> *To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward
>
> it is not clear what you mean by Pillars
>
> The standard has informative guidelines and normative SC — which are used
> to determine conformance.
>
> What is a Pillar?   Is it normative?  is it informative?
>
> can you give an example of one — and where it would go in WCAG?
>
> *g*
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 24, 2017, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> We’ve been talking about ways to encourage the inclusion of success
> criteria that benefit users with cognitive or learning disabilities in WCAG
> 2.1.  The SC proposed by COGA are not going to all make it into WCAG 2.1
> due to a variety of concerns ranging from testability to lack of working
> group time to discuss all proposals. Unfortunately for end users with
> disabilities, all of the SC proposed are designed to address real problems
> faced by some users and without the SC being incorporated into WCAG 2.1 the
> users are likely to continue to face barriers.
>
> Of course, this is also true for low-vision and mobile SC proposals, but
> the issue is more acute for COGA as the SC proposals are much more numerous
> and we want to help strategize on how to focus the efforts of the group on
> a smaller set of COGA SC. With the supplementary guidance document, we will
> be able to provide additional best practice-level suggestions to improve
> access for users with cognitive disabilities, but we still want to have a
> core set of items in WCAG 2.1.
>
> We are thinking about defining a set of "pillars of cognitive
> accessibility" in WCAG 2.1 and then expanding on them in the supplemental
> guidance. The pillars would likely be based on ideas from the COGA Roadmap
> and Gap Analysis document (https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/
> master/gap-analysis/#roadmap---tables-of-user-needs
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fcoga%2Fmaster%2Fgap-analysis%2F%23roadmap---tables-of-user-needs&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a805808aae3407fd5b408d4a2d1c58b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636312469223990412&sdata=IeGrM93cQ%2FwgPty33yqMZ6t1QbISURKj71%2FDbvcfaIE%3D&reserved=0>)
> and would provide a structure for 6-8 WCAG 2.1 SC and the additional
> guidance within the supplementary document would follow the same pattern.
>
> This will require some additional work on the part of the COGA TF and from
> this group as the current proposals may not fit precisely with the pillars.
> We would be looking to draw from the SC proposals made earlier but only
> include parts that directly relate to the applicable pillar and that we
> think can pass the WG consensus process. Remaining concepts from the SC
> proposals would be targeted for inclusion in the supplemental guidance
> document.
>
> We wanted to see if the WG thinks this approach could work and would
> support us in making sure we can increase the chance that we have a good
> core of improvements for COGA in WCAG 2.1. Please let us know if you have
> any thoughts or concerns.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2a805808aae3407fd5b408d4a2d1c58b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636312469223990412&sdata=kHrx6JgE8N%2FVfwDMZ3gcVtkFFedIqORIqhKHWfaJFOs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>