Re: Functional Outcomes MUST cover all benefits OR must be duplicated

Looking at the consistency spreadsheet,

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_Vu0ix-d-Qrv1wDZYQhfUX6jICE_bRalypp1rtcie8w/edit#gid=1109648765

...it appears that for the two Guidelines (Text Alternatives ansd 
Structured Content) there are currenty very few Functional Outcomes 
(FO)-  two for the first and just one for the second, while several 
methods are listed. *If* FOs adress functional needs of specific user 
groups, there should be a lot more, and my understandig so far was that 
we would indeed have a lot more. Ironically, the FO "Text alternatives 
for decorative non-text content" is somewhat misleading, it should 
probably be "Decorative content not exposed to Assisitve Technology" or 
similar - you don't want a text alternative for purely decorative stuff.

I think it will be a lot easier to home in on a good structure if we 
fill in more FOs. Is this spreadsheet the place to do that?
As Jon said, it is unlikely that the list of FOs will (ever) be 
complete, but more Fos would likely be added in the future the same way 
as new SCs are added now? And we would want to ensure that the FOs cover 
everything that we have in WCAG 2.X now...

Best, Detlev

Am 08.09.2020 um 15:17 schrieb Jonathan Avila:
>
> Building on what Jake has said about functional outcomes covering all 
> functional needs – this relates to my comment in the WCAG 3.0 survey 
> from a week or so ago.    I’d like to get a legal expert to way in on 
> if we use such terms of functional outcomes and because we can’t 
> possibly ensure 100% functional access for all people with diverse and 
> layered needs AND couple this with the fact that laws like the ADA in 
> the US are based on functional use – is the term functional outcome 
> problematic as it implies a level of function by a user that we are 
> not measuring in Bronze at a user task level?  That is, while we are 
> testing for issues in a path and view we don’t seem to be requiring 
> testing with users at this level.
>
> Jonathan
>
> *From:* jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 7, 2020 3:46 AM
> *To:* Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>; WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Functional Outcomes MUST cover all benefits OR must be 
> duplicated
>
> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of the organization. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
> and know the content is safe.
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just another issue we must have correct or discuss at least before 
> publication I think.
>
> --------------------
>
> As Guidelines are not normative but (Functional) Outcomes are, they 
> must cover all benefits for all Functional Groups and Functional Needs 
> we try to tackle.
>
> This means the "so... bla bla" statement should be broad enough to 
> cover all benefits OR a bulleted list might be needed with the 
> benefits (and are the benefits normative then?).
>
> --------------------
>
> On the other hand, if we use bulleted lists for Benefits, then all 
> methods and the scoring / tests MUST cover all benefits also otherwise 
> they are not compatible (Charles Hall commented on this in the 
> functional needs subgroup).
>
> --------------------
>
> If this is not a "Catch All" for (Functional) Outcomes, we might need 
> to split / duplicate Outcomes covering different Benefits (?!)
>
> --------------------
>
> EXAMPLE 1
>
> --------------------
>
> "Provides semantic structure So can convey a sense of hierarchy"
>
> In this case the benefits of navigating or locating are not mentioned, 
> also the Functional Needs are not covered as it's not in the normative 
> text.
>
> Three options for this example:
>
> 1. (long sentence, covering all benefits)
>
> "Provides semantic structure So can convey a sense of hierarchy AND/OR 
> users can navigate AND/OR users can locate"
>
> 2. (use of bulleted list)
>
> "Provides semantic structure
>
>   * So can convey a sense of hierarchy
>   * So users can navigate
>   * So users can locate"
>
> 3. (split in 3 Functional Outcomes)
>
> "Provides semantic structure so can convey a sense of hierarchy"
>
> "Provides semantic structure so users can navigate"
>
> "Provides semantic structure so users can locate"
>
> --------------------
>
> This is just an example of the challenge with the Functional Outcome 
> texts being normative, more examples are not difficult to think of.
>
> Another option would be to separate the Benefits from the functional 
> outcome and mention them as something like: " Benefits might be but 
> not limited to: bla, bla and bla"
>
> --------------------
>
> At the moment I think the Functional Outcomes as we have now are to 
> open to interpretation and probably will not make it as normative text 
> to be tested and scored.
>
> Of course happy to illustrate of dsicus.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jake
>

-- 
Detlev Fischer
DIAS GmbH
(Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH)

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.dias.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites