- From: Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:03:48 +0100
- To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-Id: <2434510D-DCCD-4DD2-B19F-620A09E53124@gmail.com>
The way the consistency spreadsheet has evolved from the content in the Methods documents and group discussions has been toward a pared down approach, starting with removing “functional” from the normative outcomes. It we take “functional” out of the term, we are left with an outcome of an action. If we do X, then we will produce Y. So X might be provide “A text alternative for informative non-text content” and Y would be a Method, such as “Text alternatives for informative images (HTML)” if our informative non-text content is an image that is provided using the HTML img element. Our current outcomes are: Text alternatives for informative non-text content Decorative content not exposed to Assisitive Technology (you are right that should be rephrased!) Content with appropriate structure Some more examples are: If we provide “Relevant headings” then we will have “Content with appropriate structure.” If we provide “Text alternatives for decorative images (HTML)” then we will have “Decorative content not exposed to Assistive Technology.” (Good catch on that wording!) If we go with this pared down approach, the functional groups and needs would be informative rather than part of the outcome, providing the rationale for taking the action to achieve the outcome. It’s still very much an evolving approach and I hope this explanation helps. There are many nuances that are not accounted for in this approach, but hopefully it’s a good starting point for consolidating all the great work that’s been done. Happy to discuss or have a working meeting to keep making progress! Best, Sarah > On Sep 9, 2020, at 2:43 PM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> wrote: > > Looking at the consistency spreadsheet, > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_Vu0ix-d-Qrv1wDZYQhfUX6jICE_bRalypp1rtcie8w/edit#gid=1109648765 <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> <mailto:jake.abma@gmail.com> >> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 3:46 AM >> To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org> <mailto:public-silver@w3.org>; WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <mailto: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 <http://www.dias.de/> > Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2020 16:04:12 UTC