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

Re: Proposal for moving COGA SC forward

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:46:18 -0400
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Cc: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d81f6862-829e-30f8-5af2-1397e9da1997@w3.org>
If I understand your proposal, I think it's a more radical change to the 
guidelines structure than we'd want to do in a dot-release to WCAG 2.0. 
As a dot-release, I think we need to stick with the principles - 
guidelines - success criteria model, or it won't be sufficiently 
backwards compatible with WCAG 2.0. That does indeed create constraints, 
and is one reason WCAG 2.1 should be viewed as an interim release, not a 
"solve all the problems" version. I'm almost positive we'll want a 
different structure in future guidelines, which is what the Silver task 
force is working on.

My thoughts on cognitive accessibility "pillars" admittedly "shoe-horns" 
them into the SC model. It's not perfect, but it's an attempt to get 
some progress in 2.1, within its structure, with the expectation that 
we'll be able to do better in later guidelines releases.

Michael


On 2017-05-25 7:18 PM, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Michael Cooper wrote:
>> I've been thinking of the "pillars" as success criteria.... [but] they do indeed look more like guidelines than SC... But the problem with guidelines is, we have to have SC under them.
> I think we need things that are specific 'checks' but are not SCs.
>
> So still use Principle > Guideline > [Something]
>
> In old-school usability terms, these would be 'heuristics', which are more about 'appropriateness'  than an SC. But heuristics isn't a very good term, perhaps 'checks'?
>
> Mike, any suggestions from other standards?
>
> For example, Plain language could be framed as something like (and this is off-the-cuff):
>
> [Guideline] Use plain language for important information.
>
> [Check 1] Double negatives are not used to express a positive statement.
> [Check 2] Words, phrases or abbreviations that are the most-common form for the concept.
>
> There would be quite a bit of work to re-categorise things, but perhaps less than the current approach.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
Received on Friday, 26 May 2017 14:46:25 UTC

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