- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 21:03:53 -0400
- 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