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

Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 21:03:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJi9Cqp-UqqqrPpRL95gN8iCjf5v+1F+ju9kDdv7dbZDgpEUPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: "Denis Boudreau (Deque)" <denis.boudreau@deque.com>, "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>>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.

Does it mean a 'pillar' is at the same level as a principle?
Is a new layer being injected into the WCAG layers of guidance?
Can 'pillars' be made to apply only to COGA related guidelines / SC
and not others?
If yes, will this not complicate the framework and  introduce some
inconsistency?
Is such a change within the scope of 2.1 as conceived?
Thanks and best wishes,
Sailesh



On 5/24/17, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> ​Should probably clarify...
>
> would like to see a mockup that we could discuss, so that we are all
> talking about the same thing. The content of the Pillars for the mockup is
> not that important, just copying some COGA content in there would be OK to
> see what it looks like.​
>
>
> 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 4:56 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>>
>> 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/m
>>> aster/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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 01:04:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:13 UTC